From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

"James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe)"
1/21/2020 1:47:39 PM
"natasha.chart@gmail.com" <natasha.chart@gmail.com>, "QUENTIN VAN METER" <kidendo@comcast.net>
"Vernadette Broyles" <vbroyles@childparentrights.org>, "Fred Deutsch" <Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov>, "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>, "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>, "Timothy Millea MD"
<TMillea@qcora.com>, "Walt Heyer" <waltsbook@yahoo.com>, "William Malone" <malone.will@gmail.com>, "Michael Laidlaw"
<mike@drlaidlaw.com>


Bcc:

Subject: Re: Opposition strategy outlined in article. Have suggestoin

Similarly, Kaiser has no problem dissing Lupron for precocious puberty but endorses it for gender dysphoria.
Women Fear Drug They Used To Halt Puberty Led To Health Problems

Women Fear Drug They Used To Halt
Puberty Led To Health Problems
Despite questions about Lupron’s lasting side effects and minimal
study into its safety, the FDA sped approval of the drug to market.
Years later, some young women are still living with the consequ…

James

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:41 PM, Natasha Chart
<natasha.chart@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have a link for that, please?

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 4:32 PM QUENTIN VAN METER <kidendo@comcast.net> wrote:
Dr.Leena Nahata, a trans-affirmation advocate endocrinologist in Ohio, decried the use of puberty blockers in hyper-libidinous teenage boys with severe autism because it was
unethical to treat someone who could not consent to it legally while, at the same time, she is pushing for puberty blockers in trans kids in the early stages of puberty. Can't make up this
stuff!
Quentin

On January 21, 2020 at 2:23 PM "James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe)" <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com> wrote:
In case it's not on the radar, the same folks arguing for chemical castration in children for the purpose
of gender confirmation are usually against the same thing being used on sex offenders. The treatments are
one and the same.
James
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:19 PM, Natasha Chart
<natasha.chart@gmail.com> 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 lifealtering 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.c
om> 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:
Upd
ated
and
expa
nded
artic
le
from
our
stat
e's
large
st
pape
r.
Man
y of
the
lines
of
thou
ght
the
oppo
sitio
ns
will
use
is

outli
ned
in
the
artic
le.
Let
me
kno
w
any
reco
mme
ndat
ions
you
may
have
to
coun
ter.
Fred

http
s://
ww
w.ar
gusl
eade
r.co
m/st
ory/
new
s/pol
itics
/202
0/01
/15/
sout
hdako
talegisl
atur
ebillwoul
dpuni
shdoct
orswho
perf
ormsexreas
sign

men
tsurg
eries
lgbt/
4476
3420
02/

--

Follow us on Twitter
YouTube

□
Facebook
□

□

<blocked.gif>
www.KelseyCoalition.org

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