Minnesota Protects Genital Mutilation of Children

 

Call me crazy, but I am just not into genital mutilation for children. So why is Minnesota (or California, or other “sanctuaries”) into it? I don’t know, but it seems to be happening. As reported by Powerline, Minnesota HF 146 not only protects children of non-consenting parents to obtain “gender-affirming”  care, but it prohibits local courts for enforcing claims by out-of-state parents whose children have entered the state for that care:

The legislation prohibits enforcing out-of-state subpoenas, arrest warrants and extradition requests for people from other states who sought treatment that is legal in Minnesota. It also bars complying with court orders elsewhere to remove children from their parents’ custody for getting gender-affirming care.

Minnesota will assert itself as the guardian of these children — severing parental rights because denying consent for genital mutilation is now considered “child abuse” in Minnesota. Nowhere in this statute, or presumably elsewhere, does it deal with the status of claims or warrants against adults aiding and abetting transport from out of state into Minnesota in order to mutilate the genitals of children. That is who needs to be targeted and jailed (IMO).

A little while back, I discussed Naomi Wolf’s call for revival. She referenced a book by Jonathan Cahn, titled Return of the Gods. Pastor Cahn delivers a long-form sermon outlining humanity’s journey from paganism to Christianity and back to paganism. Based on Wolf’s piece, I bought and read Cahn’s book. As I read, I tried to imagine how readers from different backgrounds would react. The fundamentalist Christian who believes that G-d and Satan are at war in the dimension of spirit that can be discerned only through faith will be inspired and affirmed. The agnostic will be struck by the parallels of pre-Christian paganism with the Progressive religion of today, even if not crediting the continuous hand of an invisible force.

As Pastor Cahn outlines, a feature of pagan worship was child sacrifice. Pro-lifers have seen a parallel today in all abortions. Even those of us who take a more nuanced view of unwanted pregnancies would see child sacrifice in the Kermit Gosnell-style slaughterhouse of the pre-born. But can there be any nuanced view about genital mutilation of children?!

I recognize that my choice of the phrase “genital mutilation” instead of “gender-affirming care” is judgmental. And I do judge. And so should we all. Minnesota, what the ___?!

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 17 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    In addition to the Progressives, Minnesota has a large Muslim population. The topic has been debated in the state for years. Even though genital mutilation is not part of Islam, it’s been accepted by a lot of the Muslim population. It is child abuse in one of its worst forms. Sickening.

    • #1
  2. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    Rodin: I recognize that my choice of the phrase “genital mutilation” instead of “gender affirming care” is judgmental.

    I suppose this is what is meant by all the yard signs around my neighborhood that say “Protect Trans-Gender Kids. They are often paired with the “Hate Has No Place Here, Black Lives Matter, Love Is Love, etc. signs.
     

    • #2
  3. Vance Richards Inactive
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    Rodin: As reported by Powerline, Minnesota HF 146 not only protects children of non-consenting parents to obtain “gender affirming”  care, but it prohibits local courts for enforcing claims by out-of-state parents whose children have entered the state for that care–

    On the Powerline page they have a speech by Walter Hudson. It is 16 minutes long but worth listening to from start to finish.

    Rodin: Minnesota will assert itself as the guardian of these children –severing parental rights because denying consent for genital mutilation is now considered “child abuse” in Minnesota.

    This is crazy stuff and it is scary that so many people want to play along. The message the governor is sending is, “Hey kids, you may have left your heart in San Francisco, but you can leave your balls in Minnesota. And if your dad tries to stop you, don’t worry, we’ll have him arrested.”

    • #3
  4. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

    Judge away, please. And comtinue to do it in clear, unambiguous language. Accepting vague euphemisms has contributed to the slide down the slippery slope. I do wonder how the Muslims in Deerborn and the rest of Minnesota ciew this. Maybe – let the infidels murliate themselves, it has nothing to do with us? 

    • #4
  5. Vance Richards Inactive
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    And can you really call this “care” when it leaves you 19 times more likely to commit suicide?

    • #5
  6. Vance Richards Inactive
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    And as to those coastal elites who use the term “flyover country”, it seems that middle America is as messed up as the rest of us.

    • #6
  7. tigerlily Member
    tigerlily
    @tigerlily

    Vance Richards (View Comment):

    Rodin: As reported by Powerline, Minnesota HF 146 not only protects children of non-consenting parents to obtain “gender affirming” care, but it prohibits local courts for enforcing claims by out-of-state parents whose children have entered the state for that care–

    On the Powerline page they have a speech by Walter Hudson. It is 16 minutes long but worth listening to from start to finish.

    Rodin: Minnesota will assert itself as the guardian of these children –severing parental rights because denying consent for genital mutilation is now considered “child abuse” in Minnesota.

    This is crazy stuff and it is scary that so many people want to play along. The message the governor is sending is, “Hey kids, you may have left your heart in San Francisco, but you can leave your balls in Minnesota. And if your dad tries to stop you, don’t worry, we’ll have him arrested.”

    I’d never heard of him before, but Walter Hudson comes across as an extremely impressive individual.

    • #7
  8. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    As a lawyer who is fond of logic and finds broad principles more useful than tailored rules, I am baffled how any of this genital mutilation can be considered “good,” especially when done to children. 

    No ethical doctor would cut off a healthy limb or other body part just because the person wanted to be rid of it. (There may be some exceptions for certain organs in some cases, but again I’m on general principle.) And there would be no question that any doctor who cut off a healthy limb from a child, or any person who facilitated such a surgery, or who intentionally administered drugs to stunt the natural development of a child, would be guilty of child abuse. There is no conceptual difference between mutilating a healthy leg and mutilating healthy genitalia. 

    Not that long ago no one other than the parent could administer so much as an ibuprofen tablet to a child. If some apparent authority thought the parents were seriously incompetent or had bad motives toward the child, the authority (another family member, government protective services, some other agency, etc.) had to first go through a legal process to prove that. Now segments of society encourage non-parents to transport children to other states so those children can be mutilated or so those children can kill their own children. 

    A child cannot sign a legally binding contract (generally under age 18 in the United States). A child cannot (legally) consent to engage is sexual activity (the age of such consent varies, but is most commonly also 18). The theory behind these prohibitions is that children do not generally have the mental and emotional development to make those decisions. 

    A “test the logic” part of me wants to propose to the people who insist that children have the capacity to decide to have their genitals mutilated, that those children should have the legal capacity to agree to other medical procedures (like facial plastic surgery or amputation of an ugly leg), or to sign binding contracts (such as a 30 year mortgage or a 20 year loan to buy a car or a promise to work for 20 years in exchange for an education or their own credit card), or that an 8 year old can agree to have sex with a 40 year old. What do the advocates for genital-mutilation-of-children think about the implication that children should have absolute autonomy? Some of it they’d probably be for, but many parallels should give even the most evil-minded pause. 

    • #8
  9. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Vance Richards (View Comment):

    And can you really call this “care” when it leaves you 19 times more likely to commit suicide?

    The pro-genital mutilation side also argues that suicides are very high among those who think they want to “transition” but don’t go through with the transition. But what that side doesn’t do is note that post-transition suicide rates are about the same as non-transition suicide rates. As I understand it, “transition” doesn’t correlate with a difference in suicide rates. The explanation most logical to me is that “gender confusion” is usually but one of many mental health problems those people have. “Solving” the gender issue doesn’t address (and may even exacerbate) their other problems. 

    Now that sex change “transition” is becoming a matter of social acceptance (especially among girls), it seems inevitable that there will in a few years be a huge number of people (mostly women) who will have severe regrets about their “transition,” and so I expect we will see a corresponding increase in suicides among the post-transition population. 

    • #9
  10. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    I’m waiting for someone to say the reason for the school shooting in Nashville was because Tennessee recently outlawed such “gender affirming” care.   Or the media will drop the story like a hot potato.

    • #10
  11. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    In addition to the Progressives, Minnesota has a large Muslim population. The topic has been debated in the state for years. Even though genital mutilation is not part of Islam, it’s been accepted by a lot of the Muslim population. It is child abuse in one of its worst forms. Sickening.

    Ironically, I don’t think even the FGMest of Muslims is going to favor changing sexes. 

    • #11
  12. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Vance Richards (View Comment):

    And can you really call this “care” when it leaves you 19 times more likely to commit suicide?

    They are comparing it to the suicide rate of those who want, but have not received these treatments.

    And that population also has a high suicide rate.

    Edit: Tabbied.

    • #12
  13. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Vance Richards (View Comment):

    And as to those coastal elites who use the term “flyover country”, it seems that middle America is as messed up as the rest of us.

    The coasts are countries unto themselves, but there are island cities that dot the interior that are fully signed on to the madness of the brackets. 

    • #13
  14. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    btw, remember Alan Turing, and how he was forced to take drugs to alter his sexuality and how that was considered evil and immoral? 

    Good times. 

    • #14
  15. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    This is maddeningly obtuse for laypersynx:

     

    The first “or” is struck, so abandonment now looks like a precondition for the other instances, but the “or” is added to number two, which equates the “denial” of “Gender-affirming” care with abuse. 

    How is “Gender-affirming health care” defined? Thus:

     

    (b) “Gender-affirming health care” means medically necessary health care or mental
    health care that respects the gender identity of the patient, as experienced and defined by
    the patient, and that may include but is not limited to:

    (1) interventions to suppress the development of endogenous secondary sex
    characteristics;

    (2) interventions to align the patient’s appearance or physical body with the patient’s
    gender identity;

    Quite the parade of euphemisms. Chemical suppression, irreversible mastectomies, and  carving off the ol’ sausage-and-two-veg are interventions.

     

    • #15
  16. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    In addition to the Progressives, Minnesota has a large Muslim population. The topic has been debated in the state for years. Even though genital mutilation is not part of Islam, it’s been accepted by a lot of the Muslim population. It is child abuse in one of its worst forms. Sickening.

    I wonder if the Muslim clerics – snd fairhful secular men perhaps – would expect a maletofemale person to be covered? And would that person accept that and adapt, in the name of sensitivity?

    • #16
  17. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    A “test the logic” part of me wants to propose to the people who insist that children have the capacity to decide to have their genitals mutilated, that those children should have the legal capacity to agree to other medical procedures

    Not me. I just want to imprison the hell out of the doctors who do this. Legally bypass the mental patient and go straight to Dr. Mengele.

    • #17
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.