Heather Hollingsworth, of the Associated Press claims that two “transgender boys” are suing the University of Missouri over the university ending so-called “gender affirming care” (i.e. surgical and chemical mutilation subsidized by other taxpayers).
Curious readers might wonder whether these are teenaged boys or girls, why the university is ending its “care,” and why the state-funded university was involved in that activity, in the first place.
The university medical system is conforming to a recently passed statute that prohibits these types of chemicals or procedures from being offered to, or performed on, minors.
“The new Missouri law, which took effect Aug. 28, outlawed puberty blockers, hormones and gender-affirming surgery for minors. But there are exceptions for youth who were already taking those medications before the law kicked in, allowing them to continue receiving that health care.
The suit said that the teens, who are identified only by their initials (K.J. and J.C.), should be covered under that ‘grandfather clause’ and allowed to continue receiving treatment.”
“Grandfather clause.” Yes. Ironic.
Regardless of the “grandfather clause,” certain “transgender interests” are not happy with the prospect that minors not only won’t be able to get mutilated in this fancy fashion, but also that the government won’t subsidize it with tax cash through the state university system.
After all, what’s taxation for, if not to fund a politically-explosive “education system” and then add the even more incendiary question of whether the taxes will be spent on “gender” oriented medical procedures? Surely, that’s a great way to foster comity among state residents…
“The University of Missouri Health Care stopped treatments for minors in August. Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital followed suit in September, saying the law ‘creates unsustainable liability for health-care professionals.’
The issue the institutions cited is that health care providers who violate the transgender health care law face having their medical licenses revoked. Beyond that, any provider who prescribes puberty blockers and hormones as a form of gender-affirming care for minors could face lawsuits from those patients for as long as 15 years after they turn 21.
‘Providers could be held liable for damages even if they did not do anything wrong or unreasonable,’ (University of Missouri Spokesperson Christian) Basi said at the time.”
Perhaps one part needs repeating:
It’s one thing to engage in private practice and to contract with a consenting adult. Why political forces are engaged in licensing or interfering in such activity is a question for the ages.
But if people believe that the state, in its generic form, exists to protect human beings against harm committed by others, and they support statutes to punish parents and others who might bring harm to kids, then folks who support all those ideas have to grapple with how far such a system will go to prohibit activities that parents might approve but which bring long-term physical and mental changes through unnatural means.
If people want to force their neighbors to pay for police and a “justice system” to supposedly provide protection via government, then how much leeway are parents to be “given,” and where will the state define such parental arrangements as abuse?
And that’s just part of the equation here, since this is a state university, and it’s sucking tax money away from people who might not want to pay for such “gender-affirming” mutilation.
“(S)ince the announcement, neither teen has been able to find other health care providers in Missouri willing to refill their prescriptions. By February, K.J. will run out of puberty-delaying medication and J.C. will run out of testosterone, the lawsuit said.
Going without, the lawsuit adds, would be ‘deeply traumatic’ and cause ‘severe emotional and physical distress.’”
An attorney for the plaintiffs claims that the university policy change “discriminates based on gender” – which could mean that Title Nine of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (added in 1972 as an amendment to the original statute) and its “Disparate Treatment” at universities clauses could be a key part of the legal argument and that this case might go all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Regardless of the future, the situation in Missouri gives observers a great deal to consider when it comes to parenting, state schools, and taxpayer-subsidized “gender-affirming” medical practices.
But, since this is such an inflammatory issue, something might get overlooked.
That’s the premise of the “university providing” any “care.”
At its most fundamental level, the act of any state agency providing “health care” is not moral. It is predicated on theft of tax money, does not reflect anyone’s volition to show any form of human care, and takes that money away from the owners and their interests.
Therefore, regardless of the incendiary matter of “gender” procedures, the collectivist base of the whole “government medical system” ought to seen for the immoral construct that it is.
Perhaps a hot-button issue such as this “gender procedure for teens” story can help people remember that the matter goes deeper than the immediate legal battle.
Follow MRCTV on X!
Dr. Jordan Peterson left Bill Maher speechless— MRCTV (@mrctv) November 20, 2023
"The leftists have already decided the Palestinians are the victims. If you're a victim, then you're morally righteous... if you stand for the victim then you're morally righteous regardless of what you do."pic.twitter.com/7ANT78OpTo