Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Health

Coalition of doctors warns Supreme Court ‘transitioning’ children causes ‘significant’ damage

Published

1 month ago

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

The American College of Pediatricians, Catholic Medical Association, and other pro-family medical groups are defending Tennessee’s ban on ‘gender transitions’ for children and stressing to the Supreme Court that the ban is vital to their patients’ health and welfare.

A coalition of pro-family medical organizations has submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to uphold Tennessee’s ban on surgically and chemically “transitioning” gender-confused minors, presenting a comprehensive case against the practice as contrary to both science and health.

In March 2023, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed SB1, which forbids subjecting minors to surgical or chemical “sex change” interventions, such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and mutilating surgeries.

LGBT activists sued, and last September a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law could be enforced, finding sufficient evidence linking puberty blockers to harmful effects. The Biden administration appealed the ruling to the nation’s highest court, which confirmed earlier this month it will begin hearing oral arguments on the matter in December.

Among several interested parties to weigh in on both sides of the case, on October 15 an amicus brief was filed on behalf of the American College of Pediatricians, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, American Association of Christian Counselors, Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Catholic Medical Association, and Christian Medical & Dental Association in support of Tennessee and SB1, citing their “direct interest in the outcome of this case because it affects the vulnerable population” they serve as medical providers.

“Scientific research shows that children with gender incongruence or dysphoria almost always have significant mental health struggles and adverse childhood events that contribute to if not cause their dysphoria,” the brief states. “And multiple studies show that these children almost always grow out of or desist from such gender incongruity while going through puberty. Yet when children are placed on puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones, they almost always proceed to ‘gender transition’ surgeries with life-long adverse consequences.”

It goes on to note that, despite gender activists’ insistence that the evidence for “affirming” transgenderism is so clear as to make opposition “cruel,” in reality, “there are no long-term, reliable studies on the benefits from starting a child on” the pathway of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical mutilation. While failing to improve children’s mental health, “transitioning” also leads to “significant mental health issues in the long-term” and does “nothing to treat the underlying mental health struggles” they face, according to the available evidence.

SB1, the doctors write, is “​​consistent with sound medical practice: Rather than push a pre-teen to drugs and permanent body-altering surgery, the appropriate medical treatment is to address the child’s underlying mental health issues while allowing the child to go through natural puberty […] upon reaching adulthood, the vast majority of children who were not ‘affirmed’ in a gender-incongruent identity will no longer feel any distress in their sex.”

The amicus brief by medical experts in support of Tennessee follows similar briefs presented to the nation’s highest court by Partners for Ethical Care, representing parents whose children suffered from being misled into “transitioning,” and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which makes the moral case against “transitioning” minors and warns of potential dangers to the freedoms of those who object should the Tennessee law be struck down.

Studies find that more than 80 percent of children suffering gender dysphoria outgrow it on their own by late adolescence and that “transition” procedures, including “reassignment” surgery, fail to resolve gender-confused individuals’ heightened tendency to engage in self-harm and suicide – and even exacerbate it, including by reinforcing their confusion and neglecting the actual root causes of their mental strife.

Many oft-ignored “detransitioners,” individuals who attempted to live under a different “gender identity” before embracing their sex, attest to the physical and mental harm of reinforcing gender confusion, as well as to the bias and negligence of the medical establishment on the subject, many of whom take an activist approach to their profession and begin cases with a predetermined conclusion in favor of “transitioning.”

“Gender-affirming” physicians have also been caught on video admitting to more old-fashioned motives for such procedures, as with an 2022 exposé about Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s Clinic for Transgender Health, where Dr. Shayne Sebold Taylor said outright that “these surgeries make a lot of money.”

Opponents of transgender ideology are hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule in Tennessee’s favor and set a nationwide precedent protecting every state’s right to make the same decision.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Censorship Industrial Complex / 1 hour ago

Tucker Carlson: Longtime source says porn sites controlled by intelligence agencies for blackmail

conflict / 2 hours ago

Russia has sent the West a message: Don’t provoke us into escalating the war

illegal immigration / 3 hours ago

Texas offers land for use for Trump deportations

Alberta

Alberta mother accuses health agency of trying to vaccinate son against her wishes

Published on November 22, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

 

Alberta Health Services has been accused of attempting to vaccinate a child in school against his parent’s wishes.  

On November 6, Alberta Health Services staffers visited Edmonton Hardisty School where they reportedly attempted to vaccinate a grade 6 student despite his parents signing a form stating that they did not wish for him to receive the vaccines.  

 

“It is clear they do not prioritize parental rights, and in not doing so, they traumatize students,” the boy’s mother Kerri Findling told the Counter Signal. 

During the school visit, AHS planned to vaccinate sixth graders with the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. Notably, both HPV and hepatitis B are vaccines given to prevent diseases normally transmitted sexually.  

Among the chief concerns about the HPV vaccine has been the high number of adverse reactions reported after taking it, including a case where a 16 year-old Australian girl was made infertile due to the vaccine.  

Additionally, in 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration received reports of 28 deaths associated with the HPV vaccine. Among the 6,723 adverse reactions reported that year, 142 were deemed life-threatening and 1,061 were considered serious.   

Children whose parents had written “refused” on their forms were supposed to return to the classroom when the rest of the class was called into the vaccination area.  

However, in this case, Findling alleged that AHS staffers told her son to proceed to the vaccination area, despite seeing that she had written “refused” on his form. 

When the boy asked if he could return to the classroom, as he was certain his parents did not intend for him to receive the shots, the staff reportedly said “no.” However, he chose to return to the classroom anyway.    

Following his parents’ arrival at the school, AHS claimed the incident was a misunderstanding due to a “new hire,” attesting that the mistake would have been caught before their son was vaccinated.   

“If a student leaves the vaccination center without receiving the vaccine, it should be up to the parents to get the vaccine at a different time, if they so desire, not the school to enforce vaccination on behalf of AHS,” Findling declared.  

Findling’s story comes just a few months after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith promised a new Bill of Rights affirming “God-given” parental authority over children. 

A draft version of a forthcoming Alberta Bill of Rights provided to LifeSiteNews includes a provision beefing up parental rights, declaring the “freedom of parents to make informed decisions concerning the health, education, welfare and upbringing of their children.” 

Continue Reading

Addictions

Ontario to restrict Canadian government’s supervised drug sites, shift focus to helping addicts

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government tabled the Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act that will place into law specific bans on where such drug consumption sites are located.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford is making good on a promise to close so-called drug “supervision” sites in his province and says his government will focus on helping addicts get better instead of giving them free drugs.

Ford’s Progressive Conservative government on Monday tabled the Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act that will place into law specific bans on where such drug consumption sites are located.

Specifically, the new bill will ban “supervised” drug consumption sites from being close to schools or childcare centers. Ten sites will close for now, including five in Toronto.

The new law would prohibit the “establishment and operation of a supervised consumption site at a location that is less than 200 meters from certain types of schools, private schools, childcare centers, Early child and family centers and such other premises as may be prescribed by the regulations.”

It would also in effect ban municipalities and local boards from applying for an “exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) for the purpose of decriminalizing the personal possession of a controlled substance or precursor.”

Lastly, the new law would put strict “limits” on the power municipalities and local boards have concerning “applications respecting supervised consumption sites and safer supply services.”

“Municipalities and local boards may only make such applications or support such applications if they have obtained the approval of the provincial Minister of Health,” the bill reads.

The new bill is part of a larger omnibus bill that makes changes relating to sex offenders as well as auto theft, which has exploded in the province in recent months.

In September, Ford had called the federal government’s lax drug policies tantamount to being the “biggest drug dealer in the entire country” and had vowed to act.

In speaking about the new bill, Ontario Minister of Health Sylvia Jones said the Ford government does not plan to allow municipal requests to the government regarding supervised consumption sites.

“Municipalities and organizations like public health units have to first come to the province because we don’t want them bypassing and getting any federal approval for something that we vehemently disagree with,” Jones told the media on Monday.

She also clarified that “there will be no further safe injection sites in the province of Ontario under our government.”

Ontario will instead create 19 new intensive addiction recovery to help those addicted to deadly drugs.

Alberta and other provinces have had success helping addicts instead of giving them free drugs.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, deaths related to opioid and other drug overdoses in Alberta fell to their lowest levels in years after the Conservative government began to focus on helping addicts via a recovery-based approach instead of the Liberal-minded, so-called “safe-supply” method.

Despite public backlash with respect to supervised drug consumption sites, Health Canada recently approved 16 more drug consumption sites in Ontario. Ford mentioned in the press conference that each day he gets “endless phone calls about needles being in the parks, needles being by the schools and the daycares,” calling the situation “unacceptable.”

The Liberals claim their “safer supply” program is good because it is “providing prescribed medications as a safer alternative to the toxic illegal drug supply to people who are at high risk of overdose.”

However, studies have shown that these programs often lead an excess of deaths from overdose in areas where they are allowed.

While many of the government’s lax drug policies continue, they have been forced to backpedal on some of their most extreme actions.

After the federal government allowed British Columbia to decriminalize the possession of hard drugs including heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, meth and MDMA beginning January 1, 2023, reports of overdoses and chaos began skyrocketing, leading the province to request that Trudeau re-criminalize drugs in public spaces.

A week later, the federal government relented and accepted British Columbia’s request.

Continue Reading

Trending

X