Thousands of Doctors Take Legal Action Against Transgender Mandate

This is good to see. Hopefully, more sane doctors who actually care about children, will join these physicians in pushing back against the progressive child-groomers.

Here is a pay-wall free link to the article:

Thank Roberts and Gorsuch, Republican appointees, for enabling this transgender mandate madness. They could have easily stopped it for good but sided with the deranged leftists on the court.

There is no such thing as transgender. There is male and there is female. There is sane and there is crazy. Lot of crazy going on these days.

What happened to “it’s a decision between a woman AND her doctor” attitude? Are we back to “bake the cake” again?

EC

They should have taken a different approach in my opinion. All doctors should immediately begin Gender Identity Treatment on the Children of every last Public Employee they see. Throw it right in their face.

The first thing these doctors should do is drop their Medicaid patients. There is no need for a lawsuit in that case.

You have some leverage in court when you are fighting the government over its regulatory powers. You when almost no leverage in a case like this where the government is your CUSTOMER.

Is that what happens when you put a lawyer in charge of a health organization?

Since “gender affirming” is not defined by any state or federal statute or AMA guideline the doctor need only determine that any male child patient is, in fact male. “You’re affirmed! No treatment necessary. Now get the f*** outta my office.”

The new “rule” will force doctors to mutilate children.

a mandate that broadens the term "sex" in federal civil rights statutes to include "gender identity" and "sexual orientation." ... "gender-affirming" care to children who want to transition to the opposite sex.

Good use of proper terms. "Gender identity" and "sexual orientation" are in quotation marks and it says "opposite sex" instead of "opposite gender".

Thank Roberts and Gorsuch, Republican appointees, for enabling this transgender mandate madness. They could have easily stopped it for good but sided with the deranged leftists on the court.

I know. That monumental mistake goes back to them.

Exactly.

Thank you for referencing that article CFW.

"A group of 3,000 doctors and medical professionals is suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over a mandate that broadens the term "sex" in federal civil rights statutes to include "gender identity" and "sexual orientation.""

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Neither the doctors, or unsurprisingly the non-popularly elected bureaucrats running the constitutionally undefined HHS, seem to be aware of (HHS blatantly ignores?) not only the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, but also Supreme Court case precedent which recognizes only biological male and female sex at birth.

First, the only express constitutional power that the states have given the feds to police sex-related protections limits the feds to voting rights problems, evidenced by the 19th Amendment.

"19th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.

The 19th Amendment was partly inspired by Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett, where the Court explained to Virginia Minor that since the states hadn't expressly constitutionally given women the power to vote before the 14th Amendment was ratified, they didn't have the power to vote after it was ratified.

"14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [emphasis added]."
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

Note that the Court didn't suggest for Minor to claim to be a man in order to vote.

As a side note to sex-related protections, if we include 15th Amendment race protections for voting, we must then question the wider scope of the Democratic vote-winning race and sex protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its titles imo.

"15th Amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Next, regarding doctors challenging the HHS, doctors need to get a grip on the constitutional reality that the misguided (imo) Roberts Court "overlooked" several case opinions which noted that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the post-17th Amendment ratification federal government the specific power to establish Pelosi's unconstitutional (imo) Obamacare.

In fact, starting as early as President Thomas Jefferson, below are excerpts from the writings of respected constitutional experts, including Supreme Court justices, that emphasize no federal healthcare for ordinary citizens, not even to try to stop the spread of contagious diseases for example, federal quarantine policy unconstitutional imo.

"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"Many are the exercises of power reserved to the States wherein a uniformity of proceeding would be advantageous to all. Such are quarantines, health laws [emphasis added], regulations of the press, banking institutions, training militia, etc., etc." —Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1807.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation, which embrace every thing in the territory of a state not surrendered to the general government. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, and health laws [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state, and others, which respect roads, fences, &c. are component parts of state legislation, resulting from the residuary powers of state sovereignty. No direct power over these is given to congress, and consequently they remain subject to state legislation, though they may be controlled by congress, when they interfere with their acknowledged powers." —Justice Joseph Story, Article I, Section 10, Clause 2, 1833.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
(Again) "From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Below are excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions and congressional record that don't mention quarantine, but support the constitutional reality that healthcare issues, politically correct (imo) mandating of masks argued to slow spread of contagious diseases for example, is a state power issue, not the business of the feds.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
From the congressional record, clarification by Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress [emphases added].” –Linder v. United States, 1925.

So what are you waiting for Democratic and Republican Trump-supporting patriots?

You need to be ready ASAP to primary ALL state and federal incumbent lawmakers and executives up for reelection in 2024, except for MTG, Gaetz & Company (and others?).

Fat cat career lawmakers need to be eplaced with patriots who will support hopeful Trump 47 to not only finish draining the swamp, but will also support Trump in leading the states to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes by effectively "seceding" ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government by repealing the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments (16&17A).

Consider the repealing of 16&17A as part of reparations for victim taxpayers of the unconstitutionally big federal government for having to pay a lifetime of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot reasonably justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers and a few other constitutionally enumerated expenses.

(Again) "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“ If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
From the congressional record:
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
(Again) “Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattetive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." (non-FR; 6 sec.)
Democrats [and RINOs] Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public (3.12.23)

In fact, consider that since one of the very few powers that the states have expressly constitutionally given to the big, bad federal government to dictate peacetime domestic policy is to run the US Mail Service (most federal domestic policy actually based on stolen state powers imo), the worst problem that the country would otherwise be looking at with a new Congress of Trump-supporting freshman lawmakers is arguably that citizens that would get into the habit of lightheartedly questioning if the federal government has shutdown if they receive their mail a few days late.

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"
(Again) "From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.

The definition of insanity is reelecting your beloved career state and federal lawmakers and executives over and over again, expecting those same politicians to find remedies for unconstitutional government policies every time.

Let's not allow ourselves to be fooled for third time in 2024 by the corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties that have pirated control of state and federal governments.

Finally, consider that corrupt political party and media fuss about "obsolete" electoral college is because the electoral college is the only thing stopping the corrupt political parties from establishing a permanent puppet presidency that will unquestioningly sign unconstitutional taxing and spending bills into law.

Thank you for your input and citing the law in support of the physicians’ position.

I’m sure these doctors never thought they would have to sue against such a position taken by medical groups and government agencies. An honest and ethical doctor would think that surely no true physician would advocate for procedures that cause such harm. Much like the rest of us, I know they are thinking “How did we get to this point?”.

that broadens the term "sex" in federal civil rights statutes to include "gender identity" and "sexual orientation."

"Sex" is pretty clearly defined, and is definitely different from "gender identity" or "sexual orientation". Instead of "broadening the term", they should be trying to add other terms to the clause if they want to add them in.