From: "James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe)" Sent: 1/24/2020 6:30:04 PM To: "Michael Laidlaw" <mike@drlaidlaw.com> Cc: Bcc: Subject: Re: Opposition strategy outlined in article. Have suggestions? Dr. Laidlaw, Thank you for going to bat for these kids and parents against these monsters. Blessings, James On Friday, January 24, 2020, 08:08:07 PM EST, 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 "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. □I 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 e-ma 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-reassignment-surgerieslgbt/4476342002/ -Follow us on Twitter YouTube Facebook <blocked.gif> www.KelseyCoalition.org <PastedGraphic-14.png><PastedGraphic-14.png>