Thursday, February 13, 2020

Florida To Ban Sex Change Surgery For Children?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Florida is trying to do what the rest of the nation should be doing--protecting children from the medical, physical and mental assault of so-called gender reassignment surgery.

Driven by homosexual activists, and profits to specialty clinics and doctors, the LGBTQ agenda has gone too far.

Is there an answer to the pain and confusion these children are experiencing?

Be informed.

One Republican lawmaker is taking a stand. Will others follow?


Florida State Republican Anthony Sabatini has proposed new legislation that seeks to ban gender reassignment and treatment for children.

The legislation---The Vulnerable Child Protection Act--- stipulates a $10,000 fine or 15 years in prison for any doctor who facilitates gender reassignment treatment for children.

Sabatini says he sponsored the bill in response to a lack of information regarding the risks associated with undergoing gender reassignment as a child.

He told the Miami Herald,
"It's the wild west...there's no real guidelines, no valid diagnoses given to a child before they go down the path of changing their gender. This bill makes sure that a young person waits until they are 18 years old before they make an irrevocable decision to change into the opposite sex."

Sabatini is also highlighting the adverse effects of puberty blockers, which have been well documented by a series of medical experts. One example--The commonly used drug Lupron has been linked to serious bone problems and anxiety and depression issues.

He says there has been an "unprecedented push from the left to normalize...the treatment, despite the fact that statistically most of those who transition seek to go back to their biological gender at a later date."

Various studies, not beholden to the LGBTQ agenda, have found 80 to 90% of children experiencing gender dysphoria outgrow it. But the Left is so embedded in the LGBTQ agenda that will have none of it.

The Democrats in Florida are predictably pushing back hard. They are slamming the legislation as a clear-cut attack on the LGBTQ community.


Has it ever occurred to them to even consider what they are doing to innocent children?

I suspect the same thinking that drives abortion advocates, drives gender reassignment advocacy. In both cases, it's about them, not the children.

One man, Rep. Sabatini, has taken a stand. God bless him. Will his colleagues stand with him?

I've been following the surge of activity in gender reassignment treatment for the past number of years---with a broken heart.

As is often the case, the far-Left activists, showing no restraint, have taken this issue and weaponized it for their own purposes. Now the public is pushing back.

Last month, South Dakota's House of Representatives passed a bill criminalizing transgender treatments for children under 16. The bill is now headed to the Republican-majority Senate.

There is a discussion in other states as well.

New York Times: "My New Vagina Won't Make Me Happy"


A while back, Ryan T. Anderson wrote an article responding to an op-ed in the New York Times. He did so because he was mentioned negatively in the op-ed.


The NYT op-ed was titled, "My New Vagina Won't Make Me Happy."

The op-ed is a revelation of what so-called progressive influence and indoctrination does to a child. The writer, Andrea Long Chu, begins with this:

Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months. Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain. This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to. That shouldn’t disqualify me from getting it.

Andrea, a biological man, notes that both Ryan Anderson and journalist Jesse Singal who had also written an article in the far Left "Atlantic" supporting gender reassignment, got it wrong.

I believe Ryan got it right. As usual. And so will most of you reading this.

However, if you care about this matter, I encourage you to take a moment and read Chu's article, then read Ryan Anderson's. Both are linked above.

Chu's story defines how secular progressivism and its enabling disciples appear as "angels of light", but always destroy in darkness.

Chu claims, "Mr. Singal and Mr. Anderson engage in what we call 'compassion-mongering' peddling bigotry in the guise of sympathetic concern."

He/she says,
"Buried under all this , like a sober tuber, lies an assumption so sensible you'll think me silly for digging it up. It's this: people transition because they think it will make them feel better. The thing is, this is wrong."

And Chu concludes with this:

"Nothing, not even surgery, will grant me the mute simplicity of having always been a woman. I will live with this, or I won’t. That’s fine. The negative passions — grief, self-loathing, shame, regret — are as much a human right as universal health care, or food. There are no good outcomes in transition. There are only people, begging to be taken seriously."

I conclude with this:

Jesus Christ took Chu very seriously. Hanging, bleeding to death on a cross outside the city gates of Jerusalem, He paid the price for her "grief, self loathing, shame and regret." And confusion.

On the third day---rising from the dead---he affirmed He is God---He is also the Great Physician.

It is written,

"But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed" (Is. 53:5).

In that right, He tells Chu, and all who suffer:

Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matthew 11: 28-29).

Therein is the ultimate eternal legislation.

Be Informed. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.


1 comment:

  1. The left seem to be saying a child is capable of making sound decisions regarding their sexuality and what can be done to 'modify' it. Is there a minimum age the child must be to be in order to be considered 'able' to make this decision? If the child is considered capable of making sound decisions about this, should they also not at that same age be considered 'able' to make sound decisions about everything else? Maybe a goal in all of this is to cause children to be 'capable' of making sound decisions about sex itself and who to have sex with, eliminating any grounds for preventing adults from having sex with young children. After all, if the children are capable of making sound decisions about mutilating their bodies surgically, they must be also able to make sound decisions about everything else (except gun ownership, of course, since no one other than legislators are capable of making sound decisions about that!)

    ReplyDelete

Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.