New Executive Order: Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation

"Vance wants your Vote
Pritzker wants your nuts"

I mean if the Dems are dumb enough to nominate Pritzker, "the Democratic candidate wants to cut your DS's nuts off" is an attack ad that writes itself.

Don't the Republicans just need to base their next election campaign around reminding voters that the Democrats are funded by those sterilising children for profit? I mean, how do the Dems actually refute it?

Well that is fucking awesome. And while some pp’s are worried it will backfire, I think that underestimates the (silent majority?) number of people out there who are 100% behind this, even plenty of left-wing Dem voters are fed up with the trans agenda. Who can, in all honesty, argue against protecting children?

Very happy to see the side-swipe at WPATH too.

I don’t have much in common with Trump’s policies or views, but I say thankyou for this!

It might have been helpful to call it the Mutilation and Sterilisation of Gender Non Conforming Children.

How are Mermaids going to respond to their support for the Mutilation of Children?

How will Stonewall frame their support for the Mutilation of Children?

For that matter, how will the NHS?

I think the start is having the words in front of you to be able to push back across the board.

I mean, now it is issued by the President of the USA, does this mean that the special FWR rules need to be revisited?

I'm curious to see how people are going to loudly and vocally support Chemical and Surgical Mutilation of Children.

Language matters. That title is going to echo in every conversation. Even discussing why it's called that, or protesting that it's actually NOT that is going to lead to people having to think about the procedures that have been coyly referred to as 'gender affirmation' and 'top surgery' and 'bottom surgery'.

I am expecting no mention of the title of the EO, but that is going to make it hard for them to protest it other than by using vague and emotive euphemisms about 'being your true self' and 'being who you really are'.

That is interesting - and clear evidence that his EO's are just the start of eradicating this extreme child abuse from USA society.

🙏

With the House being almost evenly divided, it might be tricky if it's polarised by party. Depends on whether there are any Democrats prepared to be sensible, or feeling pressure from their constituents. Hispanic Democrats in Texas might save the day.

There’s a really interesting thread on X by Jennifer Gingrich discussing the implications. https://x.com/fem_mb/status/1884517315925999806?s=46&t=24c39_JwRrH3k0oebVKtWw

Yes.
The courts are absolutely the place for proponents of children being put on a one way path to sterilisation and bodily mutilation to be questioned about their use of untested for purpose drugs and brutal surgery with such an excessive failure rate.

The consequences of all the dodgy research and concealment of comprehensive evidence will hopefully be coming home to roost for the medical charlatans.

Hopefully they'll have the lawyers ready to go for the legal challenges coming.

I'm not sure how this plays out: does it mean transing children won't be funded by Medicare?
But it could still be funded Privately?

So it depends how the insurers respond to this?

I thought it was interesting that they are going to do their own review of the science Cass style.

@SionnachRuadh Regarding this part of the EO:

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;

do you see that legislation getting through Congress? Will any Republicans work against it? Thanks in advance!

Besides, I've long felt he wasn't up to his office. He hasn't been to prison yet, and surely that's customary for Governors of Illinois.

😂😂😂

More than happy to see Pritzker having to answer questions on this.

Besides, I've long felt he wasn't up to his office. He hasn't been to prison yet, and surely that's customary for Governors of Illinois.

Practically a cross post. But I completely agree.

Who would've thought that this ideology would become such a massive issue, internationally.

Or rather, that it would've been allowed to take on such a hold that it inevitably became such an international issue.

But as we've always said, sunlight is only ever beneficial.

I'm sure it will be challenged, but there is so much more ability now to get (for example) Pritzer's investment in the topic out in the open.

Let the all the sunlight in

They do say it's likely to be challenged in court. I'd expect Tim Walz's Minnesota and JB Pritzker's Illinois to be quick off the blocks. Pritzker, after all, wants to be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, and also has the family business to think of.

But Pam Bondi is about to be confirmed as Attorney General. She's a pretty tough customer. She has experience suing the federal government when she was Florida AG and Obama was in the White House, so she'll be well placed to go into battle on the other side. And the EO looks pretty tightly drafted to me.

Good find.

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.

'...restricting young people's access to gender-related medical treatments.' We do love our euphemisms don't we BBC?

Brilliant

Finally. A small moment for those who have been pushing for change. Even though it's the states and not here well done

I find the polarisation around Trump (and indeed other political figures) a bit strange.

Is it just me or is this a recent way of looking at things?

I feel like 20 years ago, it was much more normal to have mixed views - to support some aspects of what politicians stand for, but not others. If I think of Blair, Brown, Cameron - that feels true of all of them. Clinton, even Bush.

Yet nowadays it seems so much more 'all in or all out'.

It's reported but it is buried in something else. Scroll down this article and it is the fourth sentence from the bottom - I spotted it this morning. Trump offers millions of federal workers eight months of pay to resign