Thursday, May 25

Federal judge rules that Minnesota can give a teenage boy female hormones without informing a parent--let alone asking for consent

Think the feminist and "gender-changing" mafia are harmless?  Anmarie Calgaro disagrees.  She lives in the Peoples' Republic of Minnesota.  She had a son, who decided at age 17 that he wanted a sex-change operation.

The mother thought it would be a good idea to postpone such a crucial and irrevocable event until later.

The gender mafia infesting Minnesota state agencies had other ideas.  And without informing the mother, they began giving the boy female hormones--a "treatment" that makes males feel more feminine, and presumably more committed to a sex-change operation.  The mother says she was not consulted or informed about this proposed treatment in any way

When the mother found out, she sued multiple state agencies for giving her son female hormones. The suit accused school officials, health care providers and doctors of violating her parental rights for giving her son hormone treatments without her permission.  The suit challenged a Minnesota law that allows minors to access medical care and procedures without either parent’s consent.

Now, a few of you may think it would be totally illegal--impossible--for a state to give your under-age son female hormones without either parent's consent.  It's Orwellian.  Can't happen here, right?

The mother claims defendants began giving her son female hormones--always described as hormone "therapy"--without her consent last November.  When she asked the clinics for her son’s medical records they refused, she says. According to the suit, St. Louis County School District also rejected her request to see her son's academic school records.

The judge declared that the key issue was whether the son was "legally emancipated" from the mother.  Minnesota doesn't have a formal process to declare that a minor child is emancipated from his or her parents, but the law generally considers financially independent minors who don't live with either parent to be emancipated.

The son moved out of his mother’s home in St. Louis County in 2015 and has lived with relatives ever since.  He currently lives alone.

The mother's lawsuit said health care providers and the school district unilaterally decided her son was an emancipated minor, without notifying her and giving her a chance to rebut that decision.  She claims a county agency paid for her son's treatment, which would seem to show rather convincingly that he was *not* financially independent.

Using what must rank as among the most tortured "reasoning" in legal history, the judge rejected the mother's claims as “distracting,” saying that under Minnesota law neither state nor county agencies can terminate her parental rights, and that a minor child is not emancipated until a state court says so--despite the fact that Minnesota law has no provision for this. In other words, he seemed to agree that the child was NOT emancipated, yet still upheld the right of the state to give him female hormones without parental consent.

It makes no sense.

He also decreed that despite the state giving her son female hormones without informing her--let alone trying to get her permission--the mother somehow "continues to have the physical and legal custody of her child."

Again, utterly illogical.

“Even assuming defendants determined [the son] emancipated—as the court must do at this stage of litigation—defendants’ emancipation determinations did not terminate Calgaro’s parental rights. Only a court order can do so."

The judge also defended St. Louis County and its school district saying that the mother had failed to provide any evidence that they intentionally deprived her of her parental rights without due process.

Gosh, there's that "intentionally" requirement again.  Why is it that the Left keeps imposing this requirement when the act in question is something the Left wants to do?

According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune--a Leftist newspaper often satirically referred to as the "Red Star:" the judge
...rejected the idea that the defendants had determined [the son] to be emancipated. The judge also wrote that Calgaro failed to plausibly allege that the school district’s policy deprived her of parental rights and found that [two] private, nonprofit health organizations did not violate Calgaro’s parental rights because they were not acting as government actors carrying out a state law.

[The judge] also agreed with St. Louis County’s argument that the state, not the county, provided [the funds] for [her son's] care, and further dismissed any claims Calgaro might raise against her child, citing the failure of her claims against other defendants.
One of the son's attorneys--Asaf Orr--works for the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ Transgender Youth Project in San Francisco, which presumably took this case pro-bono.  With truly Orwellian inverted logic Orr summarized the case as showing “the resilience of transgender youth and the importance of access to appropriate health care.”

So where does this leave us?  Well, if the decision is allowed to stand it means the state can do anything it likes with your minor kids--including giving them a sex-change operation.  Yet the state will nevertheless decree that your kid is NOT emancipated, meaning you must provide for them.  Despite the fact that you can't make any decisions on their behalf if the state doesn't like those decisions.

Jesus H. Christ save us.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home