A judge ordered Planned Parenthood to hand records of transgender care over to Andrew Bailey.
A St. Louis judge has ruled that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is entitled to Planned Parenthood’s transgender care records, ordering the nonprofit to turn over some of its most sensitive files to the man who has built his unelected political career on restricting health care access for trans people.
In his Thursday decision, Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer wrote that Bailey can collect documents under Missouri’s consumer protection statute that aren’t protected under federal mandate, namely the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better known as HIPAA.
“It is clear from the statute that the Defendant has the broad investigative powers when the consumer is in possible need of protection and there is no dispute in this matter,” wrote Stelzer. “Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to some of the requested documents within his [Civil Investigative Demand].”
Bailey, who last year attempted to implement a ban on gender-affirming care for people of all ages, was quick to celebrate the decision, calling it a “big day” for the state.
The parent can consent to things that dont directly harm kids. The part in question is what direct harm is, and you guys seem to think permanent changes of their biology (if that is the right word) is not direct harm and that is where the disagreement is.
100% of all surgeries harm kids too, including circumcisions. That’s part of the definition of surgery. You seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of several things, including the basic concept of consent. I sincerely hope you educate yourself, especially before (if ever) you have any children of your own. Consent is an important concept that no-one seems to have taught you about.
Circumcision is mild harm at best but it can arguably be a hygiene benefit. Under your definition of harm, then exercising is harmful also because you have to tear your muscles a bit, but as we both know we are talking about the net benefit.
And maybe you can educate yourself and learn that kids can consent.
Kids can’t consent as true consent requires someone to be properly informed of the consequences of the action. Lack of life experience thus prevents true consent by definition. Which is why legally parents make the decisions for them.
The only other time I’ve heard this nonsense is out of the mouths of pedophiles by the way. If that’s not how you identify, or care to be identified, I suggest you educate yourself on consent and seriously question whatever information source you learned this nonsense from.
So then can a child get a face tattoo with the parents consent?
If medically needed, yes, in all 50 states this is legal.
So if the parent and child both claim its medically necessary then its okay?
No, that’s the job of doctors. It’s the job of parents to consent to the treatment.
What if they were all captured by an ideology that said that for the kid to be happy they have to get a tattoo on their face and if they didnt they would probably commit suicide?