I know we face daunting hurdles, but the ACLU gives me hope that we are, at the very lease, fighting back. Very grateful for that institution and similar entities who are challenging tyranny head on.
I’m grateful for the ACLU also, but we should be realistic about the head winds here. Any court ruling against it will just lead the administration to escalate it to the supreme court, which will virtually guarantee a 6-3 decision in its favor. Meaning that suing over this will, at best, just lead to a modest delay. So if advocates really want to keep access to care open, other approaches must be thought of.
We should already have been setting up underground railroad type operations, not just to help trans people get out of the country, but to provide gender affirming care. I know this is being considered here and there. But we need to get the framework in place ASAP.
My comment was received immediately -- got an email back saying it's under review. Maybe it's still too early to see posted comments -- this just went up on Friday. Hope everybody pipes up and calls this out for what it is -- shameless bigotry (disguising as "child protection"). As if this administration knows anything or gives a fig about that.
I keep shaking my head about the assertion that GAC doesn't count as 'practice of medicine'; determining what does and doesn't fall into the purview of 'practicing medicine' is, in itself, a medical decision.
The Trumpist clown show would be comical, in a Keystone Kops kind of way, if they weren't in control of the whole damn circus.
We're dealing with ignorance having authority, the courts should absolutely hold the administration accountable for enacting the will of people who aren't entitled to an opinion, they bought the election but they can't ignore the constitution. Trump should be restrained, as he should be on a few things.
Comments SHOULD be public, but when I click the button to view posted comments, I get "no results". Are they deleting or censoring comments? Is that legal? Is this something we should be speaking up about, or just a convenient-for-them bug?
My wife will tell anyone that, when creating documents, she does much better starting with someone else's work as a template and customizing it to her situation. Just in case any of you are similar, I'm posting my comment to the proposed regulation here. It's far from comprehensive or perfect, I know, and it contains a lot of details unique to me. But, just in case it's useful to anyone else, here it is.
42 CFR Part 482
[CMS-3481-P]
RIN 0938-AV87
As the parent of a wonderful adult daughter, I vividly recall the harrowing experience of trying to keep her alive through a serious illness (not gender-related). My wife and I spent several years of our lives on constant high alert, researching her condition, staying as connected as possible with her in her teen years, and consulting with multiple healthcare professionals to get her safely to adulthood. We needed access to the full array of healthcare options--from family practitioners to highly specialized experts--to make all this work.
Two things became clear in all of this: (1) no one--no one--understood the subtleties of our daughter's unique situation, and the care needed to get through it, like our daughter. She had an instinctive sense of what would work and what wouldn't. (2) After her, no one else understood these subtleties like my wife and I, and the healthcare professionals who worked tirelessly with her.
In other words, children can be trusted to know themselves, and parents--with the support of healthcare professionals--are best positioned to help them thrive. The last thing we, or any other family in crisis, would have needed was the intrusion of complex government agencies that knew nothing of the children involved.
This is why the above-referenced proposed regulation must be rejected.
The fact that children can be trusted to know themselves rings true especially in the area of gender. As a nonbinary person myself, I have traced my sense of gender non-conformation back as far as age four. Through therapy, journaling, spiritual practice, and other self-help strategies, I've discovered that a great deal of my childhood in the sixties was shaped by an ongoing effort to work out something about myself for which, in the sixties, we had no name. My network of trans and gender non-conforming friends confirms that this "knowledge from an early age" is widespread. One can only speculate how much suffering we could have avoided had support structures been in place to help us thrive.
Even when children change their minds (and they do, about many things), no one is better positioned to offer support than their parents and medical professionals. This is why medical protocols for gender-affirming care take such a cautious approach, involving a cross-disciplinary team of therapists and medical specialists to listen carefully to each child and help them find their unique best path to flourishing.
The proposed regulation would cut the heart out of these protocols, sharply reducing the treatment options and thus damaging the physical and mental health of many children. This seems the very opposite of promoting their safety. As someone concerned with that safety, I urge you to reject the proposed regulation.
I know we face daunting hurdles, but the ACLU gives me hope that we are, at the very lease, fighting back. Very grateful for that institution and similar entities who are challenging tyranny head on.
I’m grateful for the ACLU also, but we should be realistic about the head winds here. Any court ruling against it will just lead the administration to escalate it to the supreme court, which will virtually guarantee a 6-3 decision in its favor. Meaning that suing over this will, at best, just lead to a modest delay. So if advocates really want to keep access to care open, other approaches must be thought of.
We should already have been setting up underground railroad type operations, not just to help trans people get out of the country, but to provide gender affirming care. I know this is being considered here and there. But we need to get the framework in place ASAP.
Unfortunately, that is likely very true. I am certainly in favor a multi-pronged approach.
"the Supreme Court has repeatedly used its shadow docket to swiftly overturn rulings that stand in the administration’s way."
This is why I don't hold my breath on lawsuits against this administration when it has the Supreme Court in its pocket.
Is the government website broken? I don’t see any way to read existing comments and it took 3 attempts to leave my own comment.
My comment was received immediately -- got an email back saying it's under review. Maybe it's still too early to see posted comments -- this just went up on Friday. Hope everybody pipes up and calls this out for what it is -- shameless bigotry (disguising as "child protection"). As if this administration knows anything or gives a fig about that.
It's been another couple days and still nothing. I'm definitely getting suspicious, this seems like something we should be speaking up about.
I keep shaking my head about the assertion that GAC doesn't count as 'practice of medicine'; determining what does and doesn't fall into the purview of 'practicing medicine' is, in itself, a medical decision.
The Trumpist clown show would be comical, in a Keystone Kops kind of way, if they weren't in control of the whole damn circus.
Thank you for this, Erin. We have to use every avenue available to fight this lunacy.
Hope you take time for a good holiday....
This is why I've been a supporter of the ACLU for a while now. Someone needs to be there for the rights of the common person and the downtrodden.
I noticed in the Federal Register that HHS ‘discovered’ withheld WPATH communication
Comment posted!
We're dealing with ignorance having authority, the courts should absolutely hold the administration accountable for enacting the will of people who aren't entitled to an opinion, they bought the election but they can't ignore the constitution. Trump should be restrained, as he should be on a few things.
Comments SHOULD be public, but when I click the button to view posted comments, I get "no results". Are they deleting or censoring comments? Is that legal? Is this something we should be speaking up about, or just a convenient-for-them bug?
My wife will tell anyone that, when creating documents, she does much better starting with someone else's work as a template and customizing it to her situation. Just in case any of you are similar, I'm posting my comment to the proposed regulation here. It's far from comprehensive or perfect, I know, and it contains a lot of details unique to me. But, just in case it's useful to anyone else, here it is.
42 CFR Part 482
[CMS-3481-P]
RIN 0938-AV87
As the parent of a wonderful adult daughter, I vividly recall the harrowing experience of trying to keep her alive through a serious illness (not gender-related). My wife and I spent several years of our lives on constant high alert, researching her condition, staying as connected as possible with her in her teen years, and consulting with multiple healthcare professionals to get her safely to adulthood. We needed access to the full array of healthcare options--from family practitioners to highly specialized experts--to make all this work.
Two things became clear in all of this: (1) no one--no one--understood the subtleties of our daughter's unique situation, and the care needed to get through it, like our daughter. She had an instinctive sense of what would work and what wouldn't. (2) After her, no one else understood these subtleties like my wife and I, and the healthcare professionals who worked tirelessly with her.
In other words, children can be trusted to know themselves, and parents--with the support of healthcare professionals--are best positioned to help them thrive. The last thing we, or any other family in crisis, would have needed was the intrusion of complex government agencies that knew nothing of the children involved.
This is why the above-referenced proposed regulation must be rejected.
The fact that children can be trusted to know themselves rings true especially in the area of gender. As a nonbinary person myself, I have traced my sense of gender non-conformation back as far as age four. Through therapy, journaling, spiritual practice, and other self-help strategies, I've discovered that a great deal of my childhood in the sixties was shaped by an ongoing effort to work out something about myself for which, in the sixties, we had no name. My network of trans and gender non-conforming friends confirms that this "knowledge from an early age" is widespread. One can only speculate how much suffering we could have avoided had support structures been in place to help us thrive.
Research is beginning to validate children's self-knowledge in this arena. A recent longitudinal study from Princeton found that 94% of participants--children who identified with a different gender from an early age--retained that sense of gender for at least five years. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition?autologincheck=redirected
Even when children change their minds (and they do, about many things), no one is better positioned to offer support than their parents and medical professionals. This is why medical protocols for gender-affirming care take such a cautious approach, involving a cross-disciplinary team of therapists and medical specialists to listen carefully to each child and help them find their unique best path to flourishing.
The proposed regulation would cut the heart out of these protocols, sharply reducing the treatment options and thus damaging the physical and mental health of many children. This seems the very opposite of promoting their safety. As someone concerned with that safety, I urge you to reject the proposed regulation.
Hey, Erin: I just received a code to have to sign in to Substack. I filled in the code, but I have never had to do that before. Is this legit?