Commentary

Kauffman: What expansion of “personal reproductive liberty” really means

By on • ( 6 Comments )

Marry at 17? No. Buy alcohol, tobacco or pot under 21? No. Get puberty-blocking bills over parental objections? No problem

by Carol Kauffman

Vermont legislators are set to expand Article 22, “personal reproductive liberty”, without voter approval or a day in court.  Companion bills S37 and H89 will determine one model of care for a minor child who may be experiencing gender dysphoria. But parents must be free to find the individualized health care, transparency, and information that is necessary for them to direct the medical treatment that is best for their minor child beyond the one model of gender-affirming care.

Companion bills S37 and H89 define, “§ 150. LEGALLY PROTECTED HEALTH CARE ACTIVITY (a) “Gender-affirming health care services” means all supplies, care, and services of a medical, behavioral health, mental health, surgical, psychiatric, therapeutic, diagnostic, preventative, rehabilitative, or supportive nature relating to the treatment of gender dysphoria and gender incongruence. “Gender-affirming health care services” does not include conversion therapy as defined by 18 V.S.A. § 8351.”

Vermont law has determined a person under 21 years of age cannot purchase alcohol, cannabis, or cigarettes. Adults are prohibited from selling or furnishing these products to a person under 21 years of age. Every person in Vermont must show ID to purchase any of these products. 

Just this session, the Vermont House of Representatives voted to raise the age to marry to 18 years of age and the Senate is expected to follow suit.

Yet, age protection for minors has been recklessly ignored in the committee regarding H89 and S37 along with parents’ rights to direct the medical care of their children.

 H89 in the Judiciary House Committee and S37 in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee both neglected to bring in expert testimony on the adolescent brain and informed consent.  

Expert testimony was not provided on the following grave concerns:

  •  The correlation between youth suicide studies and gender-affirming treatment; 
  •  Phalloplasty, in which girls’ forearms are stripped of muscle and skin to create a fake penis that doesn’t function. 
  • Castration and “penile Inversion Vaginoplasty,” in which boys’ penises are cut off and a wound is created to simulate a vagina. These wounds must be kept forcibly open as the body attempts to close the hole for life.  
  • Mastectomy and “Top Surgery,” in which incisions are made below the breasts and muscle, fat, and glands are removed.
  • Feminizing/Masculinizing Hormone Therapies, in which teenagers are given heavy doses of estrogen and testosterone as well as experimental doses of other hormones to simulate levels of reproductive and stabilization hormones normally present in the opposite sex. 

Until now, the State of Vermont has never dictated the mental and medical health choices for the residents of Vermont.  H89 and S37 exclusively protect the “gender-affirming” care model, while prohibiting all other gender care options as “conversion therapy”.

 Dr. Kenneth Zucker would be deemed a “conversion therapist” in Vermont.  He has been long acknowledged as a foremost authority on gender identity issues in children.  Zucker believes that gender-dysphoric pre-pubertal children are best served by helping them align their gender identity with their anatomic sex.  This view ultimately cost him his 30-year directorship of the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.

Susan and Marcus Evans would also be “conversion therapists” under H89 and S37. They are the authors of Gender Dysphoria: A Therapeutic Model for Working with Children, Adolescents and Young Adults.

 “It’s another matter to start interfering with a healthy body.  One would want to think very carefully before you do that,” states Marcus Evans.

Should the Vermont State Government dictate and direct the care of minors as protected in H89 and S37? 

The Vermont Family Alliance objects to the very title of these bills “Legally protected Health Care Activity”.

The author is a concerned parent and member of Vermont Family Alliance. 

Categories: Commentary

6 replies »

  2. People who do not know all sides of a subject should not be making changes in a law which will effect all of these children. Please call your legislatures and tell them NO!

  4. This is terrible. Along with the rejection of such legislation should be the demand that all textbooks and related materials and lectures/lessons/presentations should be accessible to the general public. Transparency in the values and materials taught to students at all levels should be a law.

  5. In the current zeal to “celebrate” .03% (three-hundredths)of the US population that may suffer from “gender dysphoria” Vermont’s legislators, whom are indemnified from consequence- now seek to allow surgical mutilation of children as a “right”.
    Please identify for us, mr. baruth exactly where in the US or Vermont Constitution you think we are assured a “right” to mutilate the mentally ill, or those that have confusion about their gender. Perhaps ms. krowinski could identify the recourse such a child might have later in life, when the realization is made that this mutilation was a wrong choice for said child. Society recognizes now that eugenics and the medical experiments in Nazi Germany were morally repugnant and wrong, yet leftist ideology now clings to the same ideas as a “solution” for gender dysphoria.
    Those that champion such legislation are no different than those that endorsed eugenics in the early 20th century. This includes the “mental health professional” and the surgeon that enables the mutilation of children- as well as the legislator whom supports and believes policies such as this are “progressive” and “needed” to provide “equity” to all.

  6. I cannot believe this is happening. Stop taking away parental rights. Stop lumping trans health issues in with woman’s right to choose.