Anti-trans Missouri A.G. can now access trans people’s medical records
Anti-trans Missouri A.G. can now access trans people’s medical records
A judge ordered Planned Parenthood to hand records of transgender care over to Andrew Bailey.
A judge ordered Planned Parenthood to hand records of transgender care over to Andrew Bailey.
A St. Louis judge has ruled that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is entitled to Planned Parenthood’s transgender care records, ordering the nonprofit to turn over some of its most sensitive files to the man who has built his unelected political career on restricting health care access for trans people.
In his Thursday decision, Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer wrote that Bailey can collect documents under Missouri’s consumer protection statute that aren’t protected under federal mandate, namely the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better known as HIPAA.
“It is clear from the statute that the Defendant has the broad investigative powers when the consumer is in possible need of protection and there is no dispute in this matter,” wrote Stelzer. “Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to some of the requested documents within his [Civil Investigative Demand].”
Bailey, who last year attempted to implement a ban on gender-affirming care for people of all ages, was quick to celebrate the decision, calling it a “big day” for the state.
You're viewing a single thread.
"My team will get to the bottom of how this clandestine network of clinics has subjected children to puberty blockers and irreversible surgery, often without parental consent,” he wrote in a statement.
Ffs, he makes it sound like toddlers are getting snatched off the streets to get "trans'ed".
Give me one fucking case anywhere in this state where a minor was given surgery without parental consent. Go ahead, I'll wait.
But if they're forced to abide by logic and reasoning how are they supposed to oppress women and minorities?
Honestly they have sown the myths of trans healthcare so hard that people legit believe 5 year olds are receiving puberty blockers. The barest of sense is easier to hijack than people can believe. It's why we can't depend on a majority vote for stuff like this. The airbrains are being given butterflies to chase and then telling us we're crazy. They probably have some fictional bogeyman-esque case someone wrote an article about or a interviewee they managed to play out of context nonsense from to cite you.
They've managed to convince people that 5 year olds are out here getting gender reassignment surgery, like it's not already incredibly hard for willing adults to get it
Also like I dunno about all trans people everywhere but for myself and all the trans folk I know being trans when I was a kid really wasn't focused on my body. Like all it takes to pass pre-puberty is a haircut and clothes and you're perfectly happy. There's just not a lot of physical differences between the sexes up to a point. It's not until you start developing secondary sex characteristics that you care much about your body at all... Puberty though... It's like a body horror. Once you go from effortlessly passing to having to work at it it's like actually losing something you didn't realize you valued so much knowing you will never experience it again.
people legit believe 5 year olds are receiving puberty blockers.
The funniest part is, that's exactly who puberty blockers were initially intended for. Like the whole original point of puberty blockers is to block puberty in young children who are prematurely entering puberty. They've been in use for decades too, but no one complained until they started to be used in gender affirming care 🙄
Which was pretty much from the beginning too.
The sad thing is that puberty blockers are a discussion worth having. They aren't perfect. It's tech absolutely worth refining for trans usage to combat it's drawbacks but we can't talk about having awesome perfect trans care with amazing outcomes when the conversation we're having is whether we're allowed to have any trans care at all.
It must be a new strain of that chemical they put in the water that turns the friggin frogs gay
IT'S NOT. HUMAN. INTELLIGENCE!!!
Huh?
Sorry I thought we were doing Alex Jones impressions.
Oh lol
When people were arguing for this ban in Indiana, people were saying the same stupid shit.
And it turned out that there was no hospital or clinic that performed such surgery on minors in the first place.
They didn't care, they just kept saying it.
How else do you think transgender women have gotten so much hotter in the past decade or so?
(This is a joke btw and I hate that I have to say this)
Well, I definitely have
As I age into my late 40s myself, I appreciate the beauty of maturity far more than the beauty of youth now. So I believe you.
Why should it matter if the parents give consent if the minor cant consent? A parents could consent to their child getting a face tattoo, but it doesnt mean a kid can consent to that.
I don't understand your question. Children can't consent, so when they would need to consent to something, their guardians are asked to consent for them. That's how e.g. all medical surgeries are performed on children.
So then what if the child wants a face tattoo, should the parent be able to consent for them?
What do you mean, "should"?
Legal guardians do handle consent for their wards, which is why circumcisions are legal - there's no meaningful legal distinction here between a face tattoo and a circumcision.
That's how things are. If you're asking me how things ought to be, that's an absurd question to ask someone on the internet.
Of course there is a legal distinction and practical difference between a face tatoo and circumcision, that is just silly. So you are perfectly fine with a minor permanently changing themselves just as long as their parents dont disagree?
Why do you care /what does it matter what I'm perfectly fine with? I've been describing the way the country's legal system works to you. I'm not a lawmaker, I can't change any of these rules.
No, that is not how the legal system works...
I care because children dont have the ability to consent, and if they are being abused then they have the right to be protected.
No, that is not how the legal system works...
In your mind, how does our legal system handle children's consent issues if not the legal guardians, then? How do you think it works when a child wants to go on a field trip in school, for example? How is consent determined?
The parent can consent to things that dont directly harm kids. The part in question is what direct harm is, and you guys seem to think permanent changes of their biology (if that is the right word) is not direct harm and that is where the disagreement is.
100% of all surgeries harm kids too, including circumcisions. That's part of the definition of surgery. You seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of several things, including the basic concept of consent. I sincerely hope you educate yourself, especially before (if ever) you have any children of your own. Consent is an important concept that no-one seems to have taught you about.