New Executive Order: Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation

It seems very impressive and comprehensive, and 'a lengthy statute of limitations' is an important feature.

Not sure how it all works, but Hawley is putting forward legislation.

https://x.com/hawleymo/status/1884605993172017363?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-renews-effort-to-protect-kids-from-mutilation-following-trump-executive-order/

That was probably my favourite bit Gail

Someone named the writer - whoever she is, she’s not new to this area is she?! Impressive 😁

I'm in love with the women (?) who wrote this.

But then Trump gets the credit, urgh

I think this is a shot across the bows of medical insurance companies and those who insure doctors and doctors themselves Britinme:

in consultation with the Congress, work to draft, propose, and promote legislation to enact a private right of action for children and the parents of children whose healthy body parts have been damaged by medical professionals practicing chemical and surgical mutilation, which should include a lengthy statute of limitations;

It is certainly going to focus a few minds.

What will be interesting will be how the insurance companies react. If insurance companies refuse to pay for gender reassignment (or related surgeries) and if they hugely increase the cost of medical malpractice insurance for doctors who practice gender reassignment, whether medical or surgical, that will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on the whole practice.

@Chersfrozenface
The Democrat leadership are still in absolute denial that gender ideology impacted the election.
They still say "be kind" even while in the real world we have reached "its a bloke"

Exactly.

It's such an obvious plan, they would be mad not to implement it

Well perhaps the Democrats could adopt these good things as part of their programme.

Just an idea.

The two gender EOs appear to have been written by the same lawyer.
They are "a good thing"
but sadly are part of Project 2025
which contains many "bad things" for women

Exactly, it's a useful template for others to follow.

It's a step in the right direction.

Thanks for sharing, it's true the EO's are only Federal, but the states that are Republicans now have something they can copy straight into their own legislation frame work. Lest hope they do.

How odd that the EO is covered by a few short lines tacked onto the bottom of a piece about Trump's policies on federal jobs (which would be of limited interest to UK readers, you'd think), and not considered worth its own article. But it'll probably be challenged anyway. So that's all right, then. 🙄

I think that title was a stroke of genius. It's possibly why we've not seen the very large headlines one might have expected? Drawing attention to it risks prompting people to think about what 'transition' actually involves.

The BBC used the phrase here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvqe3le3z4o

'Also on Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order aimed at restricting young people's access to gender-related medical treatments.
The order, titled Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, says it would prevent those aged under 19 from making "life-altering" choices.
"It is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called 'transition' of a child from one sex to another," the order said.
It is unclear how the order would be implemented and it is likely to be challenged in court.'

As expected. Did they manage to omit the title entirely?

*Basically, it's a step forward. Especially in terms of whether or not private insurance companies will cover doctors for malpractice over gender issues.

Once that stops, the ops stop.*

I can't find the original article which alerted me to this, it was connected to an in depth article about Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher but I had previously had no idea that it was legal in many states (32) for doctors to eschew malpractice insurance. I think the discussion was that SG would just move her practice to another state if she got shut down, whilst protecting assets off shore or whatever.

Of course hospitals may choose not to give operating rights to doctors who do not have insurance so hopefully there will be a shake down.

From what I've seen so far it seems detransitioners are having difficulty pinning down cases let alone getting anywhere near the compensation they deserve but I'm sure someone else here may no better.

www.gallaghermalpractice.com/blog/post/going-bare-are-doctors-required-to-have-malpractice-insurance/

The BBC framed it as 'restricting young people's access to gender-related medical treatments'.

But would you expect anything else from them?

Yes. Given the trans capture of the NHS & so many medical organisations, Cass was quite an achievement wasn't it?

Absolutely this

In the UK the NHS was the crucial thing.

In the US, it's the insurance companies.

@Datun 🤣

Republicans say balls to this
The Dems say thank you, just leave them in a box by the door

I mean, politics is a dirty business. An expensive business in the US. I assumed all major politicial parties employed people to tell them vital but unpleasant truths like "your pet policy is going down like a cup of cold sick and will lose you x seats/Politician z is a total liability and needs to be quietly removed" etc.

That is interesting.

She explains the limitations that Trump has in who is covered by this EO.

Basically, it's a step forward. Especially in terms of whether or not private insurance companies will cover doctors for malpractice over gender issues.

Once that stops, the ops stop.