Re: Opposition strategy outlined in article. Have suggestions?

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Kara Dansky
1/26/2020 7:00:05 AM
mike@drlaidlaw.com
"Gary McCaleb" <mccgsm@gmail.com>, "Andre Van Mol" <95andrev@gmail.com>, "Chris Motz" <cmotz@sdcatholicconference.org>,
"David Pickup" <davidpickuplmft@gmail.com>, "Eunie Smith" <alaeagle@charter.net>, "Fred Deutsch"
<Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov>, "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>, "Jeff Shafer" <jshafer@adflegal.org>, "Jon Hansen" <jon.hansen@sdlegislature.gov>, "Katherine
Cave" <kelseycoalition@gmail.com>, "MD Paul Hruz PhD" <hruz_p007@att.net>, "Margaret Clarke"
<margaretclarke317@icloud.com>, "Mary McAlister" <mmcalister@childparentrights.org>, "Matt Sharp"
<msharp@adflegal.org>, "McHugh Paul" <pmchugh1@jhmi.edu>, "Michelle Cretella" <drmcretella@gmail.com>, "Monique Robles
MD" <pamosa27@comcast.net>, "Natasha Chart" <natasha.chart@gmail.com>, "Patrick Lappert"
<patrick@lappertplasticsurgery.com>, "QUENTIN VAN METER" <kidendo@comcast.net>, "Richard Mast" <RMast@lc.org>, "Roger
Brooks" <rbrooks@adflegal.org>, "Scott, Greg" <Greg.Scott@heritage.org>, "Timothy Millea MD" <TMillea@qcora.com>,
"Vernadette Broyles" <vbroyles@childparentrights.org>, "Walt Heyer" <waltsbook@yahoo.com>, "William Malone"
<malone.will@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Opposition strategy outlined in article. Have suggestions? - Physician-Patient relationship

"
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

1 1is criminal in these scenarios and must be prosecuted by the law."

I would agree that this is a little strong. A criminal act can be a crime if either: (1) it is codified in state or
federal law as a crime, or (2) it is recognized at common law as a crime.
We are in a murky area here, and I think this is something of a distraction from the underlying problem, which is
that physicians are performing medically unnecessary and harmful practices on children. I would suggest simply
sticking to that, and worrying less about whether or not an act is a crime before it is codified. I would be
surprised if the opposition would pick on that.
On January 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM, Michael Laidlaw <mike@drlaidlaw.com> wrote:
Thatâ€™s an excellent line Gary. And I suppose my language would be seen as to stark and harsh, particularly coming from a physician. Though I was more so putting out ideas for
Fred to consider.

Stepping back a bit though, philosophically, we are trying to make something to be recognized as a crime by the legal system. But is a crime not a crime if it is not yet â€œon the
booksâ€? Seems as though it has to be said somehow that these are crimes waiting to be recognized and codified into law. Perhaps it could be stated in a less inflammatory way
then what Iâ€™ve written.

-Mike
On 2020-01-26 06:01, Gary McCaleb wrote:
How about closiNg with the point that as medical professionals you would never support unnecessary government regulation or Your profession. But when dangerous medical

practices pose a clear and present danger to patientsâ€”especially childrenâ€”the state must act.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 22:56 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 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 < davidpickuplmft@gmail.com> 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.

DI-

David Pickup, LMFT-S

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-ma il is mea nt only for the us e of the intended recipient. It ma y conta in confidentia l informa 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 OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM.

On Jan 15, 2020, at 3:56 PM, Michael Laidlaw < mike@drlaidlaw.com> wrote:
"The ACLU of SD said in a statement that it's unconstitutional to single out one group of people and categorically ban all care, no matter how

medically necessary".
Legal experts have an opinion on that statement?
-Mike
On 2020-01-15 11:59, Fred Deutsch wrote:
Updated and expanded article from our state's largest paper. Many of the lines of thought the oppositions will use is outlined in the article. Let me
know any recommendations you may have to counter. - Fred

https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/15/south-dakota-legislature-bill-would-punish-doctors-who-perform-sex-reassignmentsurgeries-lgbt/4476342002/

-Follow us on Twitter
YouTube
□
Facebook

□

□

<blocked.gif>
www.KelseyCoalition.org

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