Legislation proposed in the New York Assembly would allow children to undergo risky sex-change procedures without the consent or even knowledge of their parents. Proponents of Bill A06761 claim it would allow “homeless youth” to effectively give consent to “certain medical, dental, health, and hospital services.”
Critics argue that the purposely vague language of the bill could allow minors to consent to life-altering transgender procedures without parental oversight.
While several states have effectively banned such procedures on children, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a bill last year establishing the Empire State as a “safe haven” for children seeking such life altering procedures, despite the rapidly growing body of evidence that such treatments can cause a litany of serious physical challenges such as infertility, loss of bone mass, blood clots, and even liver damage.
The bill, introduced by Assemblywoman Karines Reyes, says that “Medical, dental, health and hospital services may be rendered to persons of any age without the consent of a parent, legal guardian or person possessing a lawful order of custody when, in the practitioner’s judgment, an emergency exists and the person is in immediate need of medical attention and an attempt to secure consent would result in delay of treatment which would increase the risk to the person’s life or health.”
Transgender activists have made a great show of proclaiming that the euphemistically named “gender affirming care” is “life saving,” although evidence increasingly debunks such claims, and intentionally nonspecific language in the legislation is making many believe that sex changes are meant to be included under the auspices of the bill.
“I find this very interesting language here,” Sarah Parshall Perry of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation told The Daily Caller. “When we … paint children as incapable of making contracts, voting, getting a tattoo or registering for the draft, while saying they have sufficient maturity and intelligence to be able to make consequential decisions about long term healthcare; decisions that will affect their bodies, potentially for the rest of their lives. That is distinctly an effort to evade parental notification and parental involvement [in cases] where parents aren’t supportive of the junk science.”
In addition to removing parents from the equation as it pertains to the health of their children, some argue that the state, via school guidance counselors and teachers, could be called upon to stand in for parents.
“As a teacher when a crisis came up from one of my kids, I went to a guidance counselor,” said former special-ed teacher Michael Kane, who was fired for refusing to take the experimental Covid-19 vaccine. “I’ve talked to guidance counselors who have directly said to me, ‘If a child tells me that they are a different sex and they want a different name, I automatically call them that and automatically call them by those pronouns.’ There’s no other questions asked besides that.”
Natalya Murakhver, the founder of New York nonprofit Restore Childhood, explained some of the possible consequences of allowing A06761 to become law.
“Let’s see what could go wrong: Jodie goes to school today and is feeling really bad. She has a huge fight with her boyfriend and she’s already autistic,” Murakhver explained to The Daily Caller. “She gets a Social Emotional Learning survey, but Mom never gets to hear about it and Mom never sees the results. It shows Jodie might be suicidal, and maybe Jodie needs to identify as Joe. Then she gets piped out to the community school and the mental health care worker says, ‘Yep Jodie said she wants to be a boy.’ Then she’s off to the doctor. None of this, meanwhile, is being communicated to the parents.”
“This is criminal, and we need to fight this with every fiber of our beings. Our kids are on the line and I’m sorry that this is seen as a conservative issue. I think any normal parent on either side of the aisle that you speak to about it would agree without ever considering this to be political,” Murakhver added.
Many of these attempts to skirt parental involvement have their roots in the bizarre notion that such procedures are “life saving.” They are not life saving at all. Instead, they are the epitome of elective procedures and are incapable of addressing the alleged problem. Current medical technology does not allow people to change their sex — no matter how much they crave such a thing.
