will spare no legal or illegal effort to maintain their manufactured mayhem
against our most defenseless..
Posted on 06/11/2024 12:50:23 PM PDT by conservative98
Florida's blanket restrictions on medical care for transgender children were ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Tuesday, striking down a key pillar of Gov. Ron DeSantis' platform.
In his ruling from Tallahassee, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle invalidated a Florida health code rule and a new state law that prohibited Medicaid payments for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. He found these bans violated federal laws, including the Affordable Care Act's prohibition on sex discrimination in healthcare.
"Florida has adopted a statute and rules that ban gender-affirming care for minors even when medically appropriate," Judge Hinkle wrote in his 105-page order. "The ban is unconstitutional."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
If Biden can ignore a Supreme Court ruling or rulings, I would think it no big deal for Desantis to ignore one judge.
It is NEVER ‘medically appropriate’..................
>> medical care for transgender children
Orwellian BS
it’s a madhouse. A MADHOUSE!
The state of Ohio made sure that I was unable to get a prescription for Ivermectin from an Ohio licensed physician.
But... a the state of Florida can’t prevent one of it’s physicians from prescribing child sterilizing drugs?
Sorry. I’m not buying it. This is all fake and ghey. They make up the rules as they go. We are in a post-law society.
Arrest the judge for child endangerment under the color of law. See how he likes the clink.
Is in the same amendment as the right to abortion up to birth.
Gov supported sterilization is in the Constitution?
Must be in the fine print
Appointed by Bill Clinton
Bingo.
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are circulating an initiative to put an amendment to the Nebraska Constitution on the Nov ballot, making abortion up to viability (which is always whatever the abortionist says it is) a “fundamental right”, “without government interference”.
Yesterday I was looking up what that means in a legal sense. Turns out that “fundamental rights” are never really guaranteed. It just means that the government has to prove that they have a “compelling government interest” in regulating the issue and the measures they take are narrowly-designed to achieve that interest.
Protecting women was not allowed as a reason to prohibit abortion in Roe v Wade. I imagine that the legal precedent in that has been used in other decisions since then.
So what about regulations that are designed to protect women and girls? All regulation is government interference. If protecting women and girls is not a “compelling government interest” then what WOULD be compelling? And if protecting women is not allowed as a reason, then how could a state regulate and investigate licensing, honesty, cleanliness, etc issues with abortionists? How could the state do anything but wink at people like Kermit Gosnell?
The same argument would apply to gender transitions if a judge rules that choosing your gender is a fundamental “right”. Sounds like this dude is using ACA as if it’s the Constitution but I suppose he’s using penumbras created by other decisions to make the Constitution say what it never says.
Maybe some attorneys here can help me understand this better. I think the people need to be aware of just how much power judges have, to decide what is compelling and what isn’t, and how that decision alone can negate any laws as well as the rule of law itself.
“...medically appropriate.”
Why, are these minor children some kind of sexual perverts? Or is it that they are under the care of medical experts who themselves are some kind of sexual perverts?
Because neutering these pre-pubescent and pubescent youth only results in a sterilized gelding or freemartin, unable to reproduce, and the procedures have proved to be irreversible in every instance. The predisposition to suicide is not significantly reduced, and may in fact be much more likely, should the gender dysphoria be treated by surgery and/or hormones.
” Oh Grow Up!” Remembering the indomitable Joan Rivers.
“Welcome to the party, Ron. Judges will undo your #### too because the Constitution and rule of law are being eviscerated right before our eyes. You’re not special and neither is Florida.”
This is nothing to celebrate; even haters of America’s Governor should realize this is bad.
If you believe that it is ever "necessary" for an adult, there is no chance for victory in the case of minors.
So - do you believe that radical surgery of this nature is ever "necessary" for an adult?
And don't say, "If they're an adult it's none of my business", because your State has a medical practice act and that law entitles physicians and surgeons to do things that either are necessary or are supported by properly conducted research.
There is no medical practice act that permits mutilations of children OR adults.
So tell us what you believe?
A) Sometimes necessary - therefore cruel to deny children in need, or
B) Never necessary, therefore not permitted at all.
I must have missed the part of the constitution that affirms the right for children to cut off body parts.
Firstly, earlier studies showed that 80% of gender confused children grow out of it. The leftists want to get them to distort and/or mutilate their bodies before they learn what any of this really means and before they learn to accept their own bodies.
Secondly, doctors who deal with medically “transitioning” children before puberty have talked openly about how rare it is for that person to ever experience sexual orgasm. What we are seeing here is the left’s push for children whose minds have yet to develop to screw up their bodies, potentially sterilize themselves, and to in effect become asexual. It’s disturbing, especially considering you have to be 21 to buy a beer.
So, never?
will spare no legal or illegal effort to maintain their manufactured mayhem
against our most defenseless..
June 2034
Mutilated Former Child vs. Dr. Quack
On or about June 2024, Dr. Quack did remove the very sound male sex organ of Mutilated Former Child
....
Plaintiff requests the sum of $10 million and the voiding of all transfers relating to the income of the defendant to avoid payment of civil liability for medical malpractice.
Even when the commies lose, they still win thanks to tyrants in robes.
gender-affirming care is neither affirming or care giving.
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.