From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

patrick Lappert
1/26/2020 6:46:47 AM
"QUENTIN VAN METER" <kidendo@comcast.net>, mike@drlaidlaw.com, "Fred Deutsch" <Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov>
"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>, "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

Circumcision, having many historic dimensions, has also many justifications. The Mosaic covenant ceremony being the
first, it has also been proposed in the past as a way of reducing cervical cancer. For most, it is cosmetic ( I want
my boy to look like the other boys). There is no strictly valid medical indication apart from phimosis/ stricture.
Regardless of the "indication" for circumcision, the key element to be remembered is that in all cases it is
intended to serve the "gender" of the boy; that is it is in the service of the masculine sex, and meant to usher
them into the right function of man as father and husband in their particular culture. IT IS NOT A PROCEDURE THAT,
BY ITS NATURE, DESTROYS THE REPRODUCTIVE FACULTY.
Patrick
On January 26, 2020 at 9:07 AM QUENTIN VAN METER <kidendo@comcast.net> wrote:
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-Kennedy’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 patientphysician 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 — 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 — 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 "lifesaving" 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
O
n
J
a
n
1
5
,
2
0
2
0

,
a
t
5
:
0
0
P
M
,
D
a
v
i
d
P
i
c
k
u
p
<
d
a
v
i
d
p
i
c
k
u
p
l
m
f
t
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
>
w
r
o
t
e
:
T
r
a
n
s
l
a

t
i
o
n
.
.
.
"
I
t
'
s
o
k
t
o
h
a
r
m
b
o
y
s
b
y
r
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
b
o
d
y
p
a
r
t
s
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
w
e
'
r
e

p
r
e
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
a
c
l
a
s
s
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
.
"
T
h
i
s
i
s
t
h
e
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
n
e
s

s
.
David Pickup, LMFT-S

I

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

I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
T
N
O
T
I
C
E
:
T
h
i
s
e
m
a
i
l
i
s
m
e
a
n
t
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
n
d
e

d
r
e
c
i
p
i
e
n
t
.
I
t
m
a
y
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
l
e
g
a
l
l
y
p
r
i
v
i
l
e
g
e

d
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
l
a
w
.
I
f
y
o
u
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
t
h
i
s
e
m
a
i
l
i
n
e
r
r
o
r
o
r
f
r
o
m
s
o
m
e
o

n
e
w
h
o
w
a
s
n
o
t
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
t
o
s
e
n
d
i
t
t
o
y
o
u
,
y
o
u
a
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
l
y
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
r
e
v
i
e
w

i
n
g
,
u
s
i
n
g
,
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
,
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
o
r
c
o
p
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
m
a
i
l
.
P
L
E
A
S
E
N
O
T
I
F
Y
M
E

I
M
M
E
D
I
A
T
E
L
Y
O
F
T
H
E
E
R
R
O
R
B
Y
R
E
T
U
R
N
E
M
A
I
L
A
N
D
D
E
L
E
T
E
T
H
I
S
M
E
S
S
A
G
E
F
R
O
M
Y
O
U
R
S
Y
S
T
E

M
.

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>

Patrick W. Lappert, MD
8263 Madison Blvd.
Suite E
Madison, AL 35758