Idaho's new law requires parental permission for nearly all health care a minor receives. A 13-year-old’s pregnancy gets caught up in the consequences

[rjs330]

trans is either insanity or a wicked pretense,

I don't believe anyone has labeled it insanity.

Yes clinicians over there have labeled it a mental health problem and recogognize autogynaphelia as well. The biggest concern there and here both are involving kids. This thread is about minors and medical treatment.

Europe has recognized that medical treatment is experimental and there is no basis for affirmative Care like in the US. If medicalization is done it's only under strict clinical studies.

They do recognize it as a mental health issue.

which is what you have argued here as a religious position.

I've argued nothing of the sort. I haven't used God or religion once.

 

[rjs330]

but a draconian abortion law as well, and the threat that anything he does will be judged not by his medical peers but by a magistrate entirely ignorant of medicine

This us a faulty argument. Judges and juries judge cases all the time without any expertise in the issues at hand. Thats why experts in particular fields are brought in.

I take it that you believe police officers should be judged by other police officers when it comes to whether or not an officer has violated use of force law?

 

[Nithavela]

We can talk about how that should look later.

Are you sure that such a conversation will happen later? With many conservatives, it's mostly "botch the morally motivated action, then do nothing to fix it".

 

[Nithavela]

The whole business with trans advocacy has been a disaster for the Democrats. They should have thrown them under the bus after gay marriage. There's not that many, and it wouldn't hurt them all that much to stay in the closet for a while longer for the good of the party. As it is, the issue has been more divisive of the working class vote than any of the other culture war battle fronts.

As if the GOP wouldn't find another issue regarding other people's genitals to have their supporters get morally outraged about before the ink on the paper throwing the trans people under the bus is dry.

 

[KCfromNC]

While pandering may factor into it, it's not purely for pandering.

If you look at the data:
Among youth ages 13 to 17 in the U.S., about 300,000 youth identify as transgender.

What does that have to do with the previous idea that this law was set up to stop the very serious problem of children incurring health care costs without their parents knowing about it? Or is that not a concern anymore, and this really is just about culture war nonsense like I thought?

 

[rjs330]

Are you sure that such a conversation will happen later? With many conservatives, it's mostly "botch the morally motivated action, then do nothing to fix it".

Sure let's do it. How do you fix the parental consent law?

 

[rjs330]

As if the GOP wouldn't find another issue regarding other people's genitals to have their supporters get morally outraged about before the ink on the paper throwing the trans people under the bus is dry.

Hmmm.... what would you suggest would be on rhe agenda?

 

[rjs330]

What does that have to do with the previous idea that this law was set up to stop the very serious problem of children incurring health care costs without their parents knowing about it? Or is that not a concern anymore, and this really is just about culture war nonsense like I thought?

Was it ONLY about costs? That seems a bit narrow. Seems to me that cost is only one of rhe issues. The main kne being someone is someone is performing medical services on my child without my knowledge of consent. The cost of those services are secondary.

 

[Nithavela]

Hmmm.... what would you suggest would be on rhe agenda?

I guess that depends on what act concerning other people's genitalis provokes the biggest, unthinking gut reaction from the average conservative voter. I'm not sure that I can get into the mindset, I don't really care about other people's genitals all that much.

Maybe anal sex? It's already a misdemeanour in 14 states.

 

[Nithavela]

Sure let's do it. How do you fix the parental consent law?

I'm not knowledgable enough about US laws to make an airtight care here, but I think that a provision for procedures that must be done quickly is neccessary, with qualified immunity for health care providers who do so even if it turns out that the procedure wasn't neccessary after all.

I also think that medical consultations should be allowed to be done with doctor patient confidentiality between minors and their doctors. I can see why parents wouldn't want their children to undergo procedures without their knowledge and consent, but medical advice by qualified people shouldn't be an issue in my opinion. The fear that their child goes to school as a boy and comes back as girl because they had a sex change without parental knowledge seems irrational.

When you said "we", I assumed that you meant the general public of the USA and it's parties and not us people on this board, to be honest. But I'd be happy to discuss this as a "living room quarterback" kind of excercise.

 

[rjs330]

I guess that depends on what act concerning other people's genitalis provokes the biggest, unthinking gut reaction from the average conservative voter. I'm not sure that I can get into the mindset, I don't really care about other people's genitals all that much.

Maybe anal sex? It's already a misdemeanour in 14 states.

Huh? I don't think the law on the books says anything about someone genitalia. Why are you fixated on that if you aren't that interested?

The law is about medical care given to children and parental notification and consent. Are you in the correct thread?

 

[rjs330]

I'm not knowledgable enough about US laws to make an airtight care here, but I think that a provision for procedures that must be done quickly is neccessary, with qualified immunity for health care providers who do so even if it turns out that the procedure wasn't neccessary after all.

How would you determine if a procedure needed to be done quickly or not?
Qualified immunity is okay as long as you allowed parents the ability to try and remove it.

I can see why parents wouldn't want their children to undergo procedures without their knowledge and consent, but medical advice by qualified people shouldn't be an issue in my opinion.

What is medical advice? How would you define that?

The fear that their child goes to school as a boy and comes back as girl because they had a sex change without parental knowledge seems irrational.

I'm not sure anyone thinks that is going to happen. As much as I oppose trabsing kids, I've never been worried that a child is going to undergo a sex change operation during school hours.

But I'd be happy to discuss this as a "living room quarterback" kind of excercise.

Yes that is what I want to do.

 

[BCP1928]

Huh? I don't think the law on the books says anything about someone genitalia. Why are you fixated on that if you aren't that interested?

The law is about medical care given to children and parental notification and consent. Are you in the correct thread?

It's been about genitals from the get-go, From the OP:

"Proponents of the law, which allows for emergency treatment, call it a reasonable step to prevent adolescents from discussing issues such as birth control and gender identity with doctors, counselors and other adults unless their parents are informed first."

 

[Nithavela]

How would you determine if a procedure needed to be done quickly or not?

In rough terms, any procedure where a postponement would have a non-negligible risk of a negative outcome if postponed until consent can be reached. That would include administrating an epipen, performing an apendicitis or other life-saving procedure, but also, for example, removing a suspicious skin tumor if a parent can't be reached in a day or two. What I think it wouldn't include would be cosmetic surgeries or things that can be postponed without any serious danger to the child.

Qualified immunity is okay as long as you allowed parents the ability to try and remove it.

Not much immunity if it can just be removed by parental lawfare. If that is possible, expect more doctors to take the safe route of not administrating aid and we're back to stuff like in the OP.

What is medical advice? How would you define that?

Do you have trouble with the word "medical" or the word "advice"?

 

[Nithavela]

Huh? I don't think the law on the books says anything about someone genitalia. Why are you fixated on that if you aren't that interested?

The law is about medical care given to children and parental notification and consent. Are you in the correct thread?

I don't know... *checks OP* nah, I'm in the correct thread. Are you?

 

[rjs330]

It's been about genitals from the get-go, From the OP:

"Proponents of the law, which allows for emergency treatment, call it a reasonable step to prevent adolescents from discussing issues such as birth control and gender identity with doctors, counselors and other adults unless their parents are informed first."

Hmm... still no mention of genitalia. Birth control has nothing to do with focusing on genitalia and gender identity has to do with the psychological issues with the child it still isn't some bizarre focus on genitalia.

 

[rjs330]

In rough terms, any procedure where a postponement would have a non-negligible risk of a negative outcome if postponed until consent can be reached. That would include administrating an epipen, performing an apendicitis or other life-saving procedure, but also, for example, removing a suspicious skin tumor if a parent can't be reached in a day or two. What I think it wouldn't include would be cosmetic surgeries or things that can be postponed without any serious danger to the child.

Well it appears you agree with the law becauae that's what it says.

Not much immunity if it can just be removed by parental lawfare. If that is possible, expect more doctors to take the safe route of not administrating aid and we're back to stuff like in the OP.

Giving them qualified immunity has just made the law moot. Now we are back to square one with no law at all requiring parental notification or permission for medical treatment of their kids.

Do you have trouble with the word "medical" or the word "advice"?

Obviously because i asked. Do you have a trouble with the word emergency?

This is the continual problem with people who oppose these kinds of laws. They demand that it be more specific. I just asked you to be more.specific and you refused to be.

 

[rjs330]

I don't know... *checks OP* nah, I'm in the correct thread. Are you?

Okay just checking because no one is focused on genitalia here except you and BCP apparently.

 

[BCP1928]

Hmm... still no mention of genitalia. Birth control has nothing to do with focusing on genitalia and gender identity has to do with the psychological issues with the child it still isn't some bizarre focus on genitalia.

That's good to know. If birth control has nothing to do with the genitals then there is no point in talking to kids about it, and if gender identity has nothing to do with the genitals then kids can be any gender they want and there is no need to talk to them about it. So, since talking to kids about birth control and gender identity was what the authors of the law were trying to prevent, it looks like the law is unnecessary.

 

[Nithavela]

I'm using "other people's genitalia" as shorthand for the habit of some conservatives to try to regulate other people's life regarding their sexual identity and activities.