If America is the Great Experiment, California must be its petri dish… here’s what they’re cooking up THIS time.
It’s all well and good to be ‘inclusive’, ‘supportive’ and ‘non-judgemental’
Those are very well-meaning and supportive attitudes. But ideas have consequences, and even ‘well-meaning’ policies can have unintended consequences. First, let’s look at the radical new policies California is putting forward.
…in the nation’s most progressive state, you only need to be 12 years old to privately seek and consent to treatment for gender transitioning.
The recently enacted California law was written to “provide that the rights of minors and nonminors in foster care, as described above, include the right to be involved in the development of case plan elements related to placement and gender affirming health care, with consideration of their gender identity.”
The new law also includes this provision: “All children in foster care, as well as former foster youth up to 26 years of age, are entitled to Medi-Cal coverage without cost share or income or resource limits. The Medi-Cal program provides transition-related health care services when those services are determined to be medically necessary.”
That means that all tax-paying Californians will help to pay for all the various services included in these transition cases, regardless of your opinion of the matter. [emphasis added]
Many studies have found that human brains take a long time to develop fully—as long as 25 years or more. That means that adolescents are at a distinct disadvantage in decision making. That’s why you see the immaturity issues listed in the CDC analysis above. Chronologically, adolescents are only about halfway to full brain development. Yet the new California allows—and almost compels—adolescents to make irreversible, potentially life-altering decisions.
Not only are they writing a blank check for these procedures, they are using your tax dollars to do so. So, if such a procedure violates your conscience, too bad, your opinion on the matter is not required. You will be paying for it.
But it doesn’t end there. Theoretically, at least, taxpayers could be on the hook for a lot more than that. Here’s why:
Some observers have noted a correlation between those who experience symptoms of gender dysphoria have a higher-than-average history of some sort of traumatic experience or higher-than-average likelihood of living through a divorce.
The fact that trauma makes this experience more likely should give us pause, and have us ask ourselves whether repairing that trauma could have the opposite effect. And whatever choice we make as society, we’d better make damned sure we’re basing it on something more substantial than which way the political winds are blowing.
Because if there is even the slightest chance that they are wrong, the state isn’t just condemning healthy children to a life of infertility… they are facilitating the wholesale sterilization of an entire class of people with what we might eventually learn is just a response to psychological trauma.
We’ve been down this road before, haven’t we?
Isn’t that an echo, one might ask, of Buck v. Bell (1927), in which the Supreme Court upheld involuntary sterilization of the allegedly mentally retarded? That’s where Justice Holmes wrote his famous line (to which I add one more sentence of context) that, “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
The left claims to be on the side of ‘compassion’, but are they?
Let’s look at the real compassion here.
Let’s fast forward 10 or 20 years, to after some kid who’s been sterilized by the state of California has had, later in life, a really good counselor.
What happens if — for whatever reason — in the course of dealing with that abuse, the patient finds that he is no longer feeling that same sense of gender dysphoria?
Good news, right? He can now feel comfortable in his own skin?
But now he’s missed out on puberty, he is permanently sterile, and lives in a body that’s neither fully male nor female. He can never have children of his own, and it was the STATE that made that happen.
Is that truly compassionate?
If it was YOU or a loved one that found himself in that situation… wouldn’t you be lawyering up and coming after the state?
How many such lawsuits could the Californian taxpayer shoulder? How ready are they to take on that legal liability if there is even the slightest possibility that they are wrong?
Ideas have consequences.
We need to make sure we’ve thought them through before we change the laws.