Posted on 12/20/2025 10:24:00 AM PST by Twotone
The House GOP passed a bill outright banning transgender surgeries for minors, yet some Republicans still objected.
Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's bill Protect Children's Innocence Act passed in a 216-211 late-night vote on Wednesday. This legislation would make it a felony to perform sex changes or provide puberty blockers and hormone therapy to children.
Although the bill was passed largely along party lines, both Democrats and Republicans had some defectors.
On the Republican side, Reps. Mike Lawler of New York, Mike Kennedy of Utah, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, and Gabe Evans of Colorado voted against criminalizing transgender surgeries for children. Only three Democrats voted in favor of Greene's bill: Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Donald Davis of North Carolina, and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas.
Greene's legislation is one of two GOP-led bills on the docket targeting transgender interventions for minors. Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, outlined the key differences between Greene's Protect Children's Innocence Act and Texas Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw's bill the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act.
"It's necessary because it bans the procedure outright," Schilling said of Greene's bill. "We need this nationwide, because children in California should be protected from these procedures just as much as the kids in Texas or Oklahoma or Alabama or Mississippi or Florida."
"If we can't get the full ban done, we should at least make sure the taxpayers aren't paying for it, right?" Schilling said of Crenshaw's bill. "If you want a sex-change procedure, you should have to pay for it yourself. These are so expensive. They're so harmful to the individual. Why are you making us participate in this?"
Both bills are useful because they force lawmakers to go on the record, articulating their degree of support for transgender ideology. Greene's bill saw near unanimous support from Republicans as well as near unanimous condemnation from Democrats. Crenshaw's bill puts forward a softer legislative approach, leaving room for moderates on either side to clarify their views on transgender interventions for children.
"I wish that Republicans were as hell-bent on protecting children as Democrats are when it comes to mutilating them," Schilling told Blaze News. "There's a difference between the two parties and how fired up they are when it comes to their principles. I think not giving kids sex changes is so commonsense. But these guys will figure out a way to make it controversial and debatable."
"If Republicans can't deliver on these things, or at least show that they're trying to deliver, voters are going to give up on us morally, financially, and politically," Schilling added. "This is a must-win for Republicans."
As much as these procedures are an abomination, laws governing medical practice are not a power not found in Article I, Section 8.
Mutilation is the only thing democrats know what to do they do it to everything they deal with.
Mutilation is malpractice.
I would agree if it banned ALL such surgeries, but for minors, I think this is correct. These children are having their futures destroyed.
These “republicans” need to be removed. Period.
Insane hypocrisy.
They all gay?
One could say the same claiming that Roe v. Wade was legitimate. The Court correctly said that laws governing medical procedures are a State matter, no matter the degree to which such laws are morally justified. You can't have it both ways.
The states with the highest number of women and girls considered to be at risk of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) are California, New York, and Minnesota.
True. It’s just hard to let such insanity get a pass anywhere just because some states are currently insane.
Some Conservatives fail to understand federalism’s base in Conservatism - small limited federal government with powers not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution reserved for the people and the states. Such Conservatives with good government ideas need to get into state offices, protect their people there and protect their state from the over-reaching federal government. Believing it is ALWAYS the federal governments’ mandate to “protect the people in all ways everywhere all the time” makes some “Conservatives” expand federal prerogatives in ways that Leftists love.
Really this reflects the struggles between individualism, free association, and collectivism. What federalism as a principle recognizes is that in association people can express their social preferences, then by which communities can recognize differences in outcomes by which to set policy. A good example is protectionism, in which a nation collectively chooses a suboptimal economic policy to preserve its ability to defend itself militarily.
Maybe check the children of those four.
That Fitzpatrick is a POS!
This makes their private life suspect.
Wow. All four of these guys need to go in 2026! Plus Thomas Massie.
we should at least make sure the taxpayers aren’t paying for it, right?
***********
May be cheaper in the long run if the taxpayers did pay.
Elimanates gov’t support that maybe available to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.