It seems Hutchinson is trying to claim that the bill hurts parents control of their children’s health care, and sanctity of patient-doctor relationship and inserts government into this role
Does he have any leg to stand on here with the wording of this bill?
I have not read the bill, but when Tucker essentially called him out he backpedaled and said as a con, he didn’t think the gubmint should be making these decisions. That proved that either he was completely out of touch or was okay with the premise of mutilating youngsters. Unfortunately an individual citizen doesn’t have the power to stop the commie collective from trying to abuse children in any manner. The whole “I am conservative so I don;t get involved” meme is passe. You’re either going to fight for your country or live in USASR! Take your pick!
The “sanctity of the patient doctor relationship” is pernicious boiler-plate that was used as well, and to the same end, in the defense of abortion legalization under Roe. It is a talking point perverted by the left, and Hutchison is too credulous or maybe just too stupid to realize he is puking up recycled leftwing pablum.
“It seems Hutchinson is trying to claim that the bill hurts parents control of their children’s health care, and sanctity of patient-doctor relationship and inserts government into this role”
A parent and doctor agreeing to mutilate a kid is not a right they possess. There is no “sanctity” in that. Also, as Tucker pointed out, Asa has no problem regulating underage drinking or sex.
So according to Asa, the state can regulate and prohibit a minor’s use of their genitalia, but feels it needs to stand aside respectfully when they decide to chop them off.
And it was obvious Asa lied that no corporate entities weighed in on the issue. he said “No corporations spoke to me about it”. Of course they didn’t, they spoke to their staff who then spoke to him.
You have to learn to read political doublespeak.
A liberal-minded parent can find any number of liberal psychologists or psychiatrists who will support chemical or physical castration of youngsters. At the age when they dress-up as the opposite sex, they either have felt they are the wrong sex or have already been traumatized by a "supportive" parent who believes pre-pubescent Johnny should be a Jenny. In no way should society let this be condoned - a decision like this is irreversible and a child who demands it needs counseling with notice that the choice is not available for a child and he/she must wait until the age of 18 is reached.