Letitia James Directs NY Hospitals to Keep Performing Trans Surgeries for Minors

Democrats are signaling a clear message: whether through elections, executive orders, or their own version of reality, they intend to shape the world according to their ideals.

Despite the setbacks of losing control of the White House, House, and Senate, and even with David Hogg as the DNC vice chair, they remain steadfast in their agenda. Their focus is unwavering as they plan their return to power and seem unfazed by the challenges they face, whether it’s confirmation hearings or shifts in agencies like USAID.

Recently, New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a stern notice to hospitals in the state. She warned them that despite President Trump’s executive order halting funds for gender-transition treatments for minors, failing to continue such “gender-affirming care” could mean violating New York’s anti-discrimination laws.

James emphasized, “Regardless of the availability of federal funding, we write to further remind you of your obligations to comply with New York State laws.”

Some hospitals in Colorado, Virginia, and Washington D.C. are pausing these procedures as they assess the executive order. Newsweek, while mentioning Trump’s directive, leaned on experts who supported the typical progressive arguments.

Landon Hughes, who led a study on puberty blockers, told the Associated Press, “We are not seeing inappropriate use of this sort of care. And it’s certainly not happening at the rate at which people often think it is.”

Trump’s executive order was clear: “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, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”

Harper Seldin of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project criticized the order, claiming, “It’s very clear that this order, in combination with the other orders that we’ve seen over the past week, are meant to not protect anyone in this country, but rather to single-mindedly drive out transgender people of all ages from all walks of civic life.”

This reaction was somewhat predictable. Newsweek’s Joshua Rhett Miller recently wrote about Steven Joseph Hayes, a man who now identifies as a woman and reflects on the crimes he committed nearly 18 years ago. Miller’s piece labeled Hayes’ crimes as “horrific,” but Not The Bee provided more gruesome details of Hayes’ actions against a Connecticut family in 2007.

In July 2007, Hayes invaded the Petit family home in Cheshire, Connecticut. He brutally attacked William Petit with a baseball bat, restraining him in the basement. Hayes then raped and killed Petit’s wife, Jennifer, before setting the house on fire, resulting in the tragic deaths of their daughters, Michaela and Hayley.

Hayes now claims that a lack of gender-affirming care contributed to his criminal actions. Since identifying as a woman, he suggests he’s finding peace, raising eyebrows and questions about accountability. While Hayes might feel a sense of closure, the broader implications of his claims remain troubling.

It seems Hayes has found some semblance of contentment, though it leaves many questioning the bigger picture. Critics argue that if Hayes had received necessary psychiatric care and intervention earlier, the tragic events might have been prevented. The notion of retroactively attributing his behavior to a lack of gender-affirming care is viewed as an affront to the Petit family and society at large.

Letitia James’ actions highlight the ongoing debate around gender-transition treatments for minors. The impact of such surgeries, chemical castration, puberty blockers, and hormone therapies on children is a contentious issue. James’ stance is seen by some as driven by animosity towards Trump, yet it aligns with a broader progressive agenda.

Progressives seem willing to go to great lengths to push their views, as evidenced by James’ determination to uphold certain care standards despite federal pushback. The dedication to this cause, even amidst controversy and potential harm, reveals the extent of their commitment. This unwavering stance suggests a deep-rooted desire to reshape societal norms according to their ideals.

The conversation around gender-affirming care and the rights of minors is far from resolved. As debates continue, the implications of these policies remain a point of contention. The broader cultural and political landscape is influenced by such decisions, shaping the discourse on healthcare and individual rights.

Source

Source