McGuinness: Passage of H.89 and S.37 ‘Shield Bills’ based on emotions, not evidence

by Renee McGuinness

The bills are “air-tossed words without substance.”
Image by Nicolae Baltatescu from Pixabay

While listening to Committee testimony and Floor readings on H.89 and S.37, I heard witnesses and legislators toss the words “evidence-based” like pizza dough, except there was no crust. They air-tossed words without substance.

H.89 (with amendment) and S.37 (with amendment) propose to shield gender-affirming practitioners legally and financially, at a time when both individual and class-action lawsuits have been filed by youth and minors who have been damaged by this so-called “care”.

While members of the House Committee on Healthcare were rapt as a transgender youth provided stirring emotional testimony in support of S.37, they ignored offers from Carol Kauffman, President of Vermont Family Alliance (VFA), to bring them testimony from experts with dissenting views and from youth, minors, and adults harmed by gender-affirming treatments.

While most are initially pleased with the results of their gender-affirming treatments, there is an international debate on the efficacy and long-term outcomes of gender-affirming protocols and whether studies concluding the benefits of gender-affirming care are reliable.

Legislators ignored the list of serious side effects and complications of  gender-affirming treatments Vermont Family Alliance presented to Committees, along with the Cass Review of Tavistock Gender Clinic  and the 2011 Sweden study that concluded suicidality and morbidity remains much higher than the general population after receiving gender-affirming treatments.

Dr. Erica Gibson, the only witness who is in the medical profession, provided a written endorsement signed by leaders of numerous medical organizations, yet provided no actual studies on the outcomes of gender-affirming treatments. Dr. Gibson claimed some medications are fully reversible while others are partially reversible, yet the Informed Consent Form in the UVM Clinician’s Guide to Transgender Healthcare in Vermont states, “I understand that the medical effects and safety of testosterone are not fully understood, and that there may be long-term risks that are not yet known.”

Dr. Gibson also stated (@1:43:48) she does not have collated treatment data in the UVMMC Transgender Youth Program. How can Dr. Gibson know whether treatments are successful if she does not have data according to treatments patients are receiving?

While most countries in Europe are now shielding youth and minors from gender-affirming care practices, Governor Scott and most Vermont legislators plowed forward with protecting an industry, not patients.

Chair of the House Committee on Healthcare, Lori Houghton, reminded Committee members that (@27:50), “Sometimes stakeholders really help you write the bill. They give you ideas, they talk you through what’s important to them, and then as legislators, our job is to determine what is legal, what is appropriate, and what we want the policy of Vermont to be. So, I want to be clear that yes, we have sought out Planned Parenthood as experts in this field, just as we’ve sought out Vermont Medical Society, and all the other people we’ve talked to over the last few weeks.” Vermont citizens are noticeably absent from the list of stakeholders in their own and their children’s health care. The State will decide for you upon which experts you will rely, and without evidence as to why you will rely on them.

Several representatives in the House Judiciary Committee shed joyful tears as they voted to advance H.89, ignoring the painful tears of those who were, and those who will be damaged by gender-affirming “care” at the hands of Vermont practitioners.

Renee McGuinness, of Monkton, is a member of the Vermont Family Alliance and a Christian-based life coach.

Categories: Commentary

4 replies »

  1. I could understand it when my first year college students, when preparing a paper or presentation, are so taken by a topic that they consciously or unconsciously ignore or downplay contradictory information. One of my responsibilities was to alert them to the dangers of falling in love with a position before being fully informed. I would send them back for more research.

    I can’t understand legislators voting on a proposal or legislation without giving it due consideration by hearing all sides of an argument. Or upon hearing it, appear to ignore it, especially on a subject with the potential to do great harm to our young people. So much of the legislative outcome these days seems to be predetermined even before hearings are held.

    When or if harm is caused by a practitioner, to whom can the victim turn for recourse? Should teenagers be allowed to make irreversible decisions about their bodies without parental consent or second opinions. Does that “adult persont” really have their best interest at heart? Is the one who would profit by the procedure the best source of advice? In these cases, a second opinion should be a mandatory requirement.

  2. I’m surprised that Josef Mengele is not celebrated as a some kind of medical folk hero by these sickos.

  3. If patients are harmed by the UVMMC gender clinic, we probably will not hear about it unless the patient speaks up. And even then, will data regarding unhappy outcomes be available? We only heard about the UK Tavistock clinic disasters because the massive numbers of lawsuits became newsworthy. But Vermont practitioners will be legally shielded so we will not know. Sweden, Finland, and France have reconsidered puberty blockers, testosterone, other gender pharmaceuticals and surgery because of poor outcomes over time. Yet Vermont claims to know better despite their conclusions and the ample evidence supplied by Ms McGuinness and others. Plus at at least 65% of children with gender dysphoria eventually come to accept their birth gender with no gender drugs or surgery. Nevertheless, I guess Vermont wants to see what happens with fully embracing the Trans agenda. But as I said, we may not know the bad outcomes. Would it not be wonderful if Vermont therapists pioneered “Accept your DNA therapy” if I could coin a phrase. However, faced with such wishful thinking, I am not holding my breath hoping for that fantasy to be realized.

  4. Planned parenthood runs/paid for our legislatures!!!! They are performing these gender reassignment therapies and surgeries!!! They are making certain they don’t get sued and if you do try to sue them- you’d better have deep pockets!!! I’m hoping the US Supreme Court will look at what Vermont has done and say, Enough is enough”-We will not let you destroy children both mentally and physically across this country and not just Vermont. Period.

Leave a Reply