A recent decision by a federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from withholding funds from health programs that refuse to conduct transgender procedures on minors. This ruling is seen as a critical moment for conservative groups who argue against federal overreach in local health matters. Conservatives have praised the decision, highlighting the importance of protecting state rights against what they perceive as federal coercion.
Advocates for the ruling argue that health professionals should not be forced to perform procedures that contradict their beliefs or medical judgment. Many conservatives believe that such mandates undermine the autonomy of healthcare providers and infringe on personal liberties. They emphasize that the decision respects the rights of states to make decisions that align with their values.
Critics of the ruling, however, argue that it could potentially limit access to necessary healthcare for transgender youth. They fear that the decision could create barriers for individuals seeking gender-affirming care. Yet, supporters maintain that the ruling is about protecting the rights of healthcare providers, not denying care to patients.
The judge’s decision comes as a relief to many conservative policymakers who have long been concerned about federal mandates on local health services. They argue that states are better equipped to understand and meet the needs of their communities without federal interference. This perspective aligns with a broader conservative ideology that prioritizes limited government and state autonomy.
Some conservative commentators have pointed out that the ruling is a step toward reaffirming the principles of federalism. They argue that the federal government should not impose its will on states, especially in areas as sensitive as healthcare. The decision is seen as a victory for those who believe in the sanctity of states’ rights.
The Trump administration had previously threatened to withhold funds from programs that refused to comply with the federal mandate. This approach was met with resistance from conservative leaders who saw it as an overstep of executive power. The ruling now prevents such federal penalties from being enforced, much to the satisfaction of state governments.
Health organizations in various states had expressed concerns over the potential loss of funding. They argued that such financial penalties could have adverse effects on the overall healthcare system. The judge’s decision alleviates these concerns, allowing states to operate without the looming threat of losing federal support.
The broader implications of this ruling could influence future debates on healthcare policy and states’ rights. Many conservatives hope that this decision sets a precedent for how similar cases will be handled. They are optimistic that the ruling will encourage a more balanced relationship between federal and state governments.
Conservative groups have also highlighted the importance of protecting individual rights in healthcare decisions. They argue that no healthcare provider should be compelled to act against their conscience. This ruling, they believe, reinforces the principle of freedom of choice within the medical community.
While the decision has been celebrated by conservative circles, it has also sparked discussions on the limits of federal authority. Some view this as an opportunity to revisit and potentially redefine the scope of federal power in healthcare. The ruling may serve as a catalyst for broader policy reforms.
The Trump administration’s initial stance was based on expanding access to gender-affirming care. However, the ruling has shifted the focus back to state discretion and individual provider rights. Conservatives argue that this shift is necessary to restore balance in the healthcare system.
The decision underscores the ongoing tension between federal directives and state governance. It highlights the challenges of navigating complex issues like healthcare in a diverse nation. Conservatives see this as a reminder of the importance of adhering to constitutional principles.
For many, the ruling is a reaffirmation of the belief in limited government. It reflects a commitment to ensuring that states retain control over their policy decisions. This perspective is central to conservative ideology and resonates with many Americans who value state sovereignty.
The ruling may also influence future legislative efforts aimed at expanding or restricting healthcare access. It sets a legal precedent that could shape how similar cases are approached in the future. Conservative leaders are hopeful that this decision will bolster efforts to protect state rights.
In conclusion, the judge’s decision is seen as a significant victory for conservatives advocating for state autonomy. It reinforces the notion that healthcare decisions should be made at the local level, respecting the values and beliefs of individual states. This ruling is a testament to the enduring debate over the balance of power in the American federal system.
It has gotten much simpler and easy to see who the actual evil and good are in our society and in particular within the halls of justice and our government! The contrast is in your face!
“Know them by their fruits!”
The physicians and public authorities engaged in these experimental procedures and so called treatments upon any human being let alone coming of age children are by no stretch of the imagination heinous criminals which are easily identifiable as such when simply examined and viewed by historical societal medical practices and norms but especially when examined with reference to specific articles defining Crimes Against Humanity within the Nuremberg Code (Directives for Human Experimentation) and must be treated as such a violation of all human compassion, morality and decency! Along with this the facts have been mounting exponentially over just a few short years as to the danger and abominable results manifested in many individuals subjected to these criminal immoral procedures!
The Nuremberg Military Tribunal’s decision in the case of the United States v Karl Brandt et al. includes what is now called the Nuremberg Code, a ten point statement delimiting permissible medical experimentation on human subjects. According to this statement, humane experimentation is justified only if its results benefit society and it is carried out in accord with basic principles that “satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts.”
A Portion of these codes follows: “Permissible Medical Experiments.” Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg October 1946 – April 1949, Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office (n.d.), vol. 2., pp. 181-182.
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury disability or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required by him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
://www.marshall.edu/ori/nuremberg-code-directives-for-human-experimentation/
Within these guidelines we can easily see how much of what is indicated as proper protocol was “absolutely ignored and not accommodated at all,” with regard to these “abominable so called treatments” of human beings be they adults or children that received these “life altering procedures,” which “absolutely do no good,” but, rather “great harm” to the recipients and unfortunately many subsequent “Victims” of these “mentally ill” or even “criminally deranged” persons, who in many cases set out to kill themselves and or others as a result of “this madness and evil!”
A few additional points to consider as explained in the following article about Aiden Hale the transgender “Covenant School” killer.
>Born a biological female, Covenant School killer Audrey Elizabeth Hale began identifying as a transgender man and using the name Aiden prior to her devastating attack which claimed the lives of three 9-year-old students and three adults on March 27, 2023.
Police documents published by The Tennessee Star determined Hale was a 22-year mental health patient of Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), the home of a controversial transgender program that is reportedly considered “big money” for the hospital.
In one 2018 video, posted to the social media platform X by The Daily Wire host Matt Walsh, a VUMC staff member identified as Dr. Shayne Taylor claimed she convinced the hospital to begin offering gender affirming care because it is a “big money maker.”“In the journal Hale wrote that was recovered by police from her vehicle, which was given to The Tennessee Star by a source familiar with the Covenant investigation, she almost exclusively referred to herself as a transgender man. Hale appeared to have started this journal in January 2023.
However, police documents obtained by The Star revealed Hale began receiving treatment from mental health professionals affiliated with VUMC in 2001 when she was a six-year-old.
The Star additionally learned that Hale’s first psychologist, who was previously identified to The Star, referred Hale to VUMC for commitment in 2019.’“In recent years, the number of children experiencing gender dysphoria in the West has skyrocketed. Exact figures are difficult to come by, but, between 2009 and 2019, children being referred for transitioning treatment in the United Kingdom increased 1,000% among biological males and 4,400% among biological females. Meanwhile, the number of young people identifying as transgender in the US has almost doubled since 2017, according to a new Centers for Disease Control & Prevention report.
Historically, transitioning from male to female was vastly more common, with this cohort typically experiencing persistent gender dysphoria from a very young age. Recently, however, the status quo has reversed, and female-to-male transitions have become the overwhelming majority.
“I was failed by the system. I literally lost organs.”
When Chloe was 12 years old, she decided she was transgender. At 13, she came out to her parents. That same year, she was put on puberty blockers and prescribed testosterone. At 15, she underwent a double mastectomy. Less than a year later, she realized she’d made a mistake — all by the time she was 16 years old.
Now 17, Chloe is one of a growing cohort called “detransitioners” — those who seek to reverse a gender transition, often after realizing they actually do identify with their biological sex. Tragically, many will struggle for the rest of their lives with the irreversible medical consequences of a decision they made as minors.
“I can’t stay quiet,” said Chloe. “I need to do something about this and to share my own cautionary tale.”< ://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/
Obviously big money is a major factor in all of this and also nefarious agents of evil in our world today be they just “crazy leftist lunatics” or “the enemies within” motivated by specific “real time enemy groups” of America the “Marxists and Islamist's” that “seek to destroy America from within to conquer it.” All of which serves Satan who is behind all these and other woes of mankind!
Correction: Paragraph break and link to source article inadvertently omitted.
>The Star additionally learned that Hale’s first psychologist, who was previously identified to The Star, referred Hale to VUMC for commitment in 2019.’“In recent years, the number of children experiencing gender dysphoria in the West has skyrocketed.
>The Star additionally learned that Hale’s first psychologist, who was previously identified to The Star, referred Hale to VUMC for commitment in 2019.’“
://tennesseestar.com/news/vanderbilt-university-medical-center-doctor-called-transgender-surgery-big-money-year-before-covenant-killer-audrey-hale-was-referred-for-commitment/tpappert/2024/06/21/
>“In recent years, the number of children experiencing gender dysphoria in the West has skyrocketed.
Sorry for all the mix up but an attached hyperlink wouldn’t detach until reformatted it was like a parasite! I killed it! Ha ha!
I wonder how many Transgender children were given psychiatric care prior to surgery. Mental illness in Transgender people is far above societal norm.
don you are correct! I’m not very well versed in the actual statistics; but I can say without hesitation that say for example in California where evil is ruling and children are transitioned without parental consent, and how I’m sure if that is the case then the “promotion for counseling of the child along with the family to really help that child” is practically zero! While the “big money” push propels all the surgeries over the actual cure! Look what the damned to hell Big Pharma and governments did with Covid a Hoax! Money and Power rules, not “truth and love!” Not on this planet!
this is ridiculous
the lower courts should not be allowed to tell the president of the United States what he can &. An not fo. Nor should theses judges be allowed to stop parents from saying no to these horrific actions of the minority.
Red, absolutely and it’s a travesty of injustice for We Citizens, but being the peons our opinions don’t matter to them in high places who are quite corrupt and serving the hidden agenda and themselves as they’ve sold out!
Look how many criminal and weaponized actions Biden’s DOJ and Administration got to happen on cue not a single hold-up with all he and his cabal of conspirators wanted to get to happen!