Re: Opposition strategy outlined in article. Have suggestions?

From: QUENTIN VAN METER <kidendo@comcast.net>

Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 8:07 AM

To: mike@drlaidlaw.com; Fred Deutsch <Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov>

Cc: Natasha Chart <natasha.chart@gmail.com>; Vernadette Broyles <vbroyles@childparentrights.org>; Mary McAlister <mmcalister@childparentrights.org>; Michelle Cretella <drmcretella@gmail.com>;
Katherine Cave <kelseycoalition@gmail.com>; David Pickup <davidpickuplmft@gmail.com>; Eunie Smith <alaeagle@charter.net>; Gary McCaleb <mccgsm@gmail.com>; Glenn Ridder
<glenn.ridder@outlook.com>; Horvath Hacsi <birdcatcher9@yahoo.com>; Hudson, MD Bernard <loyolamd82@gmail.com>; James Shupe <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com>; Jane Robbins <rlrobb123@gmail.com>;
Patrick Lappert <patrick@lappertplasticsurgery.com>; MD Paul Hruz PhD <hruz_p007@att.net>; Margaret Clarke <margaretclarke317@icloud.com>; Matt Sharp <msharp@adflegal.org>; McHugh Paul
<pmchugh1@jhmi.edu>; Monique Robles MD <pamosa27@comcast.net>; Richard Mast <RMast@lc.org>; Roger Brooks <rbrooks@adflegal.org>; Scott, Greg <Greg.Scott@heritage.org>; Timothy Millea MD
<TMillea@qcora.com>; Walt Heyer <waltsbook@yahoo.com>; William Malone <malone.will@gmail.com>; Jeff Shafer <jshafer@adflegal.org>; Chris Motz <cmotz@sdcatholicconference.org>; Jon Hansen
<Jon.Hansen@sdlegislature.gov>; Andre Van Mol <95andrev@gmail.com>; Kara Dansky <kara11@me.com>

Subject: Re: Opposition strategy outlined in article. Have suggestions? - Physician-Patient relationship
Just to play devil's advocate, how can we justify male circumcision when the medical benefits of such are equivocal? Obviously, there is a GIANT difference in the outcome of removing
entire organs as opposed to just a bit of foreskin. I am thinking out loud about what the opposition might say in rebuttal.
Quentin
On January 26, 2020 at 12:56 AM Michael Laidlaw <mike@drlaidlaw.com> wrote:

The following is along the lines of what Kara, Natasha, and Michelle have been saying. In fact Michelle and I
and others once had a conversation about Olson-Kennedyâ€™s teen mastectomy study. We concluded that it is not
a scientific study at all, but a document filled with details of crimes by doctors against girls and young
women.
Here is my version rebutting the argument that this bill will cause an interference in the patient-physician
relationship:
Doctors who willfully harm patients are criminals. If a doctor drugs a patient unconscious and surgically

removes her 14 year old, healthy breasts, this is a criminal act. The 14 year old cannot freely give consent
to this procedure as she does not have the capacity to know what her self at age 25 or 30 years old would
want. She can never have functional breasts replaced. Women who thought they were trans have regretted this
happened to them. One such woman uses donor milk because she is physically incapable of producing milk after
her mastectomy.
Likewise an 11 or 12 year old cannot make an informed consent decision to stop normal puberty. Puberty
blockers lead in the majority of cases to sterilization and sexual dysfunction. A boy or a girl of that age
cannot possibly know or understand if their future self at age 25 or 30 would want a child and functional
sexual relationships. They are not developmentally able to make such a decision.
The physician who blocks normal puberty and places the child on a pathway to sterility - which is what
happens in the majority of cases - is a criminal.
The cases described here do not constitute healthy physician-patient relationships. Indeed these are not
physician-patient relationships at all, they are criminal-victim relationships. The physician who does
mastectomies of 14 year old breasts or provides 11 years old puberty blockers has willfully caused harm to a
child - notwithstanding the desires or knowledge of the parents or child! The child is simply not able to
consent to the harms that will result. Just as a girl could not possibly provide consent to female genital
mutilation in another context. No matter if the parents and doctors all sign forms in agreement.
The physician is ultimately responsible for the harms as he or she is the only one who can sign the
prescriptions and use the scalpels and surgical tools in the operating room. The physician is criminal in
these scenarios and must be prosecuted by the law.
A just society cannot allow children - who by nature do not have the cognitive and developmental capacity to
comprehend the damage to their bodies and reproductive capabilities - to undergo these harmful procedures.
-Mike
On 2020-01-25 10:05, QUENTIN VAN METER wrote:
Short, sweet and top notch.
Quentin
On January 24, 2020 at 8:08 PM Michael Laidlaw <mike@drlaidlaw.com> wrote:

All,
I've recorded my SD testimony and put it up on YouTube. Please share:
https://youtu.be/jBIDOSTgRTc
-Mike
On 2020-01-21 11:19, Natasha Chart wrote:
Exactly.
And even in the case of something like cancer, any sterilization is a side effect, rather than a goal, of a treatment for other purposes. There's no directive
that children with cancer must be sterilized, and if doctors could prevent that outcome, surely they would. For no other type of child is that considered a

humane end goal of treatment.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 1:46 PM Vernadette Broyles < vbroyles@childparentrights.org> wrote:
Barring an actual physical disease state for which such interventions offer a cure. Puberty and a child's biological sex are not a disease. They
are part of normal human development and human functioning to be protected in a developing minor.

Vernadette
Vernadette R. Broyles, Esq.
President and General Counsel
5805 State Bridge Rd., Suite G310
Johns Creek, GA 30097
770.448.4525
vbroyles@childparentrights.org
www.childparentrights.org

On Jan 21, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Natasha Chart < natasha.chart@gmail.com> wrote:
Kara will be joining us to testify, and I bet that she would be willing to join a statement saying that there's no definable class of
person who needs to be sterilized as children.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 12:57 PM Vernadette Broyles < vbroyles@childparentrights.org> wrote:
Fred and all,
CPR-C can prepare a rebuttal this week to the ACLU that Mary (UCAL Berkely), Jane Robbins (Harvard Law), and I
(Harvard Law, Guardian ad Litem for children) can sign and send. I can ask Kara Dansky (former ACLU lawyer) of
Womens Liberation Front if she'd be willing to sign from the left. Mary's email re: involuntary sterilization would be
key part of the response. We also need to stress the point the the ACLU is entirely missing the point of this bill â€” it
nothing to do with discriminating against any class of children, but rather everything to do with protecting a
vulnerable group of children, and all children (given the social contagion). While there may be a constitutional right
to refuse to carry a child to term (under Roe), there is no constitutional right to chemically and surgically mutiliating
one's healthy body, where there is no disease to be treated â€” that is child abuse.
When would you need this?

Vernadette
Vernadette R. Broyles, Esq.
President and General Counsel
5805 State Bridge Rd., Suite G310
Johns Creek, GA 30097
770.448.4525
vbroyles@childparentrights.org
www.childparentrights.org

On Jan 16, 2020, at 11:42 AM, Michael Laidlaw < mike@drlaidlaw.com> wrote:

Very well stated Mary.
On a different note, I have this new thread dispelling the "wrong puberty" argument.
https://twitter.com/MLaidlawMD/status/1217698028858986497
-Mike

On 2020-01-16 07:08, Mary McAlister wrote:
Yes, and also point out that these procedures amount to involuntary sterilization
of minors. They cannot legally or psychologically consent. Their parents cannot
give informed consent since the knowledge necessary for informed consent does not
exist. The Supreme Court struck down laws providing for sterilization of serial
criminals in Skinner v. Oklahoma and mentally incompetent adults cannot be
sterilized even if their guardians consent without a court order. Are the ACLU and
similar groups advocating for involuntary sterilization of children? Also their equal
protection arguments are without merit. " Transchildren" are not being treated
differently from other children. In fact the opposite is true. This bill will ensure that
"transchildren" have the same protections from dangerous medical experiments as do
other children.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 8:55 AM Natasha Chart < natasha.chart@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 8:33 AM < drmcretella@gmail.com> wrote:
Let's Memorize Katherine's response and repeat it ad
nauseam regardless the question or accusation. That is the
bottom line here. We must be bull dogs on this fact and
principle.
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Kelsey Coalition <
kelseycoalition@gmail.com> wrote:
No doctor or parent has a right to subject a
child to a life-altering medical experiment with
unknown long-term consequences. Without this
ban in place, SD will follow what is already
happening in other states: minors who
successfully sue in court to obtain this
supposedly "life-saving" medical intervention.
And when they grow up with irreversible regret,
who will be liable? The state.
This ban is also important to prevent custody
battles. We have several parents who have
reached out to the KC because of a former
spouse who is intent on medicalizing their child.
Finding an attorney to help is nearly as difficult
as finding a therapist. And even when they do,
who knows how a judge will rule? Banning these
procedures will take these serious medical
decisions away from misinformed judges.
The claim that this is lifesaving medically

necessary intervention is the big unchallenged
domino that is driving both the legal and medical
scandal. This is an oft-repeated claim with no
support and it must be confronted directly.

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 6:47 PM Natasha
Chart < natasha.chart@gmail.com> wrote:
The ACLU have done as much as
anyone could to make sure it's
impossible to define a class of
persons under these laws.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 5:22 PM <
drmcretella@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike,
Look at the medical
claim in that "legal"
ACLU quote; it is false
on multiple grounds
"no such thing as a
medically diagnosable
group of trans anybody;
we are talking about
minors! blockers, wrong
sex hormones and
surgical mutilation are
never medically
necessary in minors!"
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 15,
2020, at
5:00 PM,
David Pickup
<
davidpickupl
mft@gmail.c
om> wrote:
Translation..
."It's ok to
harm boys
by removing
body parts
because at
least we're
preserving a
class of
people."
This is the
height of
political
correctness.

I

David Pickup, LMFT-S

I-

(888) 288-2071
15851 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Addison, TX 75001
www.davidpickuplmft.com

IMPORTANT
NOTICE: This ema il is mea nt
only for the
us e of the
intended recipi
ent. It ma y
conta in
confidentia l in
forma tion
which is
lega lly
privileged
or otherwis e
protected by
la w. If
you received
this e-ma il in
error or
from s omeone
who wa s not
a uthorized to
s end it to you,
you a re s trictly
prohibited
from reviewing,
us ing,
dis s emina ting,
dis tributing or
copying the ema il. PLEASE
NOTIFY ME
IMMEDIATELY O
F THE ERROR BY
RETURN EMAIL AND
DELETE THIS
MESSAGE
FROM YOUR
SYSTEM.

O
n
J
a
n
1
5
,
2
0
2
0
,
a
t
3
:
5
6
P

M
,
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
L
a
i
d
l
a
w
<
m
i
k
e
@
d
r
l
a
i
d
l
a
w
.
c
o
m
>
w
r
o
t
e
:
"
T
h
e
A
C
L
U
o
f
S
D
s
a
i
d
i
n

a
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
i
t
'
s
u
n
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
o
s
i
n
g
l
e
o
u
t
o
n
e
g
r
o
u
p
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
a

n
d
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
b
a
n
a
l
l
c
a
r
e
,
n
o
m
a
t
t
e
r
h
o
w
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
"
.
L
e
g
a

l
e
x
p
e
r
t
s
h
a
v
e
a
n
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
o
n
t
h
a
t
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
?
M
i
k
e
O
n
2
0
2
0
0
1
1
5
1
1
:
5
9
,

F
r
e
d
D
e
u
t
s
c
h
w
r
o
t
e
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
f
r
o
m
o
u
r
s
t
a
t
e
'
s
l
a
r
g
e

s
t
p
a
p
e
r
.
M
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
f
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
t
h
e
o
p
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
u
s
e
i
s
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
d

i
n
t
h
e
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
.
L
e
t
m
e
k
n
o
w
a
n
y
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
o
u
m
a
y
h
a
v
e
t
o
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
.
F

r
e
d

h
t
t
p
s
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
a
r
g
u
s
l
e
a
d
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
t
o
r
y
/
n
e
w
s
/
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
s
/
2
0
2
0
/
0
1
/

1
5
/
s
o
u
t
h
d
a
k
o
t
a
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
b
i
l
l
w
o
u
l
d
p
u
n
i
s
h
d
o
c
t
o
r
s
w
h
o
p
e
r
f

o
r
m
s
e
x
r
e
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
u
r
g
e
r
i
e
s
l
g
b
t
/
4
4
7
6
3
4
2
0
0
2
/

--

Follow us on Twitter
YouTube

Facebook

<blocked.gif>
www.KelseyCoalition.org

<PastedGraphic-14.png> <PastedGraphic-14.png>