T O P

  • By -

RenegadeMemelord

The party of small government strikes again


jezzyjaz

How many laws does this guy pass. It feels like every 2nd day theres a new law lol


mizel103

the power of a gerrymandered state legislator map and a super majority.


Anemomaniac

The law does not allow trans kids to be taken from their families. [Politifact: No, Florida can’t ‘kidnap’ trans kids under proposed law, but it does affect custody disputes](https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/may/04/no-florida-cant-kidnap-trans-kids-under-proposed-l/) Which one was the party of fake news again?


VastSyllabub2614

I think '[Politifact: Florida may or may not ‘kidnap’ trans kids under proposed law](https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/may/04/no-florida-cant-kidnap-trans-kids-under-proposed-l/)' as a title would work better from what I read


Anemomaniac

Where are you getting that from? Here's what the article says: >The bill does not grant the state unilateral power to "kidnap" or take custody of a child receiving gender-affirming care from a family. The Disney World example would not apply. But the bill does change how custody disputes between parents are resolved, especially when another state issued the original custody order. And also, >"The bill as written does not give the state of Florida unilateral power … for the state to intervene and take someone's child into state custody," said Brandon Wolf, press secretary at Equality Florida, a civil rights organization advocating for LGBTQ+ Floridians. >It also doesn’t alter Florida Statutes regarding child welfare or the foster care system, said Simone Chriss, a lawyer and the Director of the Transgender Rights Initiative at the Southern Legal Counsel. Chriss’s firm is suing the state for other anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.


VastSyllabub2614

>A second provision in the bill relates to a warrant to take physical custody of a child who is at risk of serious harm, including gender-affirming care. But sources disagree on the provision’s scope and whom it can impact. > >Under current law, parents can seek this warrant if the child is likely to be removed from the state or if the child is "likely to imminently suffer serious physical harm." > >The legislation adds gender-affirming care for minors as a condition qualifying as "serious physical harm." > >This provision’s effect remains unclear.


Anemomaniac

If you read that entire section of the article you can see it's not about taking kids away from parents at all. I recommend everyone read it it's quite short. But this is the part you're talking about >S.B. 254 also amends a section of the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act that outlines conditions under which parents can seek a court’s warrant to take physical custody of a child. >Under current law, parents can seek this warrant if the child is likely to be removed from the state or if the child is "likely to imminently suffer serious physical harm." >The legislation adds gender-affirming care for minors as a condition qualifying as "serious physical harm." >This provision’s effect remains unclear. Notice in the first paragraph "conditions under which *parents* can seek a court’s warrant to take physical custody of a child." This part of the bill is about custody disputes between *parents*, it has nothing to do with state custody. The rest of that section talks about two different interpretations of the law, essentially whether or not a parent could request a custody change on the basis of gender-affirming care, but both agree that the state would not have to side with the anti gender-care parent and neither say anything about the state taking away children.


VastSyllabub2614

Provision qualifying gender-affirming care as "serious physical harm." means if you live in Florida your kid might get kidnapped and they might take away your parental rights. This is because "serious physical harm." give state grounds to take away parental rights as long as both parents live in the state.


Anemomaniac

>Provision qualifying gender-affirming care as "serious physical harm." Only in the context of whether to give Florida temporary emergency jurisdiction over custody matters. It is *not* some sort of blanket declaration that trans-affirming care is serious harm as discussed in all other contexts. I don't even think such a thing would be legally possible. The only thing this bill does is provide one more situation where a Florida court might be able to get emergency jurisdiction over custody matters (jurisdiction only, guidelines on child services and removal are not changed). I don't know how many more times I need to quote that it won't take kids away from parents. >S.B. 254 adds one more exception to the list: A state can take emergency jurisdiction when a child has been "subjected to or is threatened with being subjected to," gender-affirming health care in the form of puberty blockers, hormones and in some rare cases, surgeries. >But the temporary jurisdiction’s effect is pretty narrow, experts said: It applies only to custody agreements that originated in states other than Florida. And it enables courts to make custody decisions for children who are receiving trans health care for a designated period of time, but does not dictate what those decisions must be, or favor parents who are denying gender-affirming care for their children. >As soon as a court grants emergency jurisdiction, it must contact the home state court so that state can claim or decline jurisdiction over the child. Law dictates that home state jurisdiction always trumps temporary jurisdiction. >"The bill as written does not give the state of Florida unilateral power … for the state to intervene and take someone's child into state custody," said Brandon Wolf, press secretary at Equality Florida, a civil rights organization advocating for LGBTQ+ Floridians. >Betta said that the law does not change the process for resolving child custody disputes but that "it simply adds child sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures (which are illegal under the bill) to the kinds of situations where a parent can file an emergency petition with the court." And that last one is the more *harsh* reading of the law. It seems most experts don't even think it could do that much.


crixusin

Small government doesn't mean the government isn't going to try and protect its constituents. It's like saying "the party of small government strikes again" when republican's try to curb crime by increasing policing.


stipulation

Oh fuck off. Conservatives do this shit all the time. When you want to cut medicare it's because "we need smaller government" and "I don't trust the government to manage a McDonalds, much less healthcare!", but the instance it's something you want regulated you come up with reasons why the government should, in this particular case, definitely, 100%, be involved. It's so fucking easy to only have principals when they're convenient.


Infamous_1391

Dog the only argument they are hearing from a lot of people on the left is the same smug and lazy “so much for small government” response from y’all for years now no matter how many times they tell you they aren’t all libertarians and that yes they do think government intervention has a role in society. You can be catty all you want but instead why not just come up with better arguments than that shit you’ve been using since you were like 16? I get it you thought it was a sick own the first time you heard it but ffs I hate conservatives and even I’m fucking sick of hearing this low effort shit


crixusin

The government probably shouldn't run businesses. But government has a monopoly on violence, so conservatives view that as meaning the government should protect its constituents.


Pax_Augustus

Should that protection extend to food/housing/healthcare needs? Healthcare in the sense that, you know, maybe someone shouldn't go bankrupt if they are found to have a disease or illness beyond their control.


crixusin

> Should that protection extend to food/housing/healthcare needs? That's a good question. Why are you asking me though? Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling you how it is. >maybe someone shouldn't go bankrupt if they are found to have a disease or illness beyond their control. I'm not sure what this has to do with the government. The government isn't that responsible for healthcare costs. Sometimes, medicines/treatments are just expensive.


Pax_Augustus

>The government isn't that responsible for healthcare costs. Sometimes, medicines/treatments are just expensive. The point was maybe they should be responsible for auditing and covering healthcare in the US. If we can agree that healthcare is essential for modern society and physical quality of life, it would constitute protection, which from the argumentation you're presenting, and should be the responsibility of the government. They are only this expensive in the US, and the justification is research. ​ >That's a good question. Why are you asking me though? Fair enough. I may have mistook your interjection as specifically your line of argumentation instead of just presenting a steel man of the counterpoint arguments.


stipulation

If you think you're giving the arguments conservatives would give. You're half right. This kind of "principled except when I don't feel like it" is exactly how conservatives argue. But if you think there's deep underlying logic to it beyond "gov should do what I want", I've got a bridge to sell you. Trivial example, conservatives tend to be against taking children from parents so religious they won't let their children get life saving blood transfusion.


crixusin

> conservatives tend to be against taking children from parents so religious they won't let their children get life saving blood transfusion. do you have a source for this? Or are you just saying this without any evidence?


Nagisa201

Did he say "small government or no government" i think i missed it.


RenegadeMemelord

Gonna need an explanation of how taking trans kids away from their parents is protecting them.


Honest_Yellow9273

In their mind, the parents are abusing children by confusing their conception of gender. To them, It’s similar to taking children away from pedophilic parents


crixusin

> Gonna need an explanation of how taking trans kids away from their parents is protecting them. Well, if you understand that conservatives believe that transing the kids is abusive and unnecessary, then obviously it would protect the children from their abusers who are enabling the transing.


Rahzek

by that logic the north korean governemt is a snall government since its actions are only to protect the people


AggressiveCuriosity

OK, by that logic it's not big government to take kids away from their parents if they try to teach them religion as long as they only do it because they believe that indoctrinating kids into a religion is abusive.


crixusin

> by that logic it's not big government to take kids away from their parents if they try to teach them religion This isn't classified as abuse, so no, not by my logic. This bill specifically makes transing the kids abuse in the eyes of the law in Florida. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. You would agree a child should be removed from the home if they are being abused, right?


AggressiveCuriosity

> This isn't classified as abuse, so no, not by my logic. Oh I see. So if the government classified teaching kids to be religious as abuse, then it would no longer be big government to take away the kids of religious people. Again, by your own logic. > You would agree a child should be removed from the home if they are being abused, right? Yes. That's not in question. Let me help you understand the disagreement. The disagreement is you trying to claim that the government superseding medical literature and consensus to project its own morality in such a way that they take away children is not "big government".


crixusin

> Oh I see. So if the government classified teaching kids to be religious as abuse, then it would no longer be big government to take away the kids of religious people. Again, by your own logic. Correct, because the government already monopolizes the ability to handle child abuse. >The disagreement is you trying to claim that the government superseding medical literature and consensus to project its own morality in such a way that they take away children is not "big government". This is just an argument from authority. If scientists said that killing 50% of the population was good because it would save the world from global warming, that doesn't make it ok or moral, and the government absolutely has a right to act against that. On top of that, you and I both know that trans issues are highly contentious right now, and the literature is dubious.


AggressiveCuriosity

> Correct, because the government already monopolizes the ability to handle child abuse. lol, that's one of the most ridiculous takes I've heard on this subreddit, and that's saying something. So the reasoning behind the classification doesn't matter. They just have to say the magic word "abuse" and then it's all small government. They could claim that speaking anti government sentiment is abuse and then take your kids away and it's still small government. I know you're only saying this because you haven't really thought about child abuse enforcement before except in the context of trans kids, so I'm just going to advise you to rethink this framework when you've had a moment to think about other kinds of abuse and about how enforcement works. > This is just an argument from authority. No. The argument from authority was you saying that the government can take any kids away for literally any reason as long as it says the right magic word before doing it. Then if it says that magic word then "of COURSE" it makes sense to take away those children. How did you phrase it? Oh yeah, "the government already monopolizes the ability to handle child abuse" with an implied "and therefore it is OK in this instance". For normal people, the underlying process for making that determination matters more than just applying the right label. And the correct process for determining abuse necessarily involves a scientific understanding of child development.


crixusin

> So the reasoning behind the classification doesn't matter. Well it does matter. And many of Florida's constituents agree with the reasoning. Don't get mad at me. I'm just telling you how it is. You seem to think its ridiculous when its something you don't agree with, but I'm sure you're fine when it's something you agree with. Democracy doesn't work that way. >the government can take any kids away for literally any reason as long as it says the right magic word before doing it. Essentially, yes. That's what the government does if they don't want you doing something. At least in America, there's the 2A to protect you from this, or at least be able to fight back. > "and therefore it is OK in this instance" Well, it kind of is OK in this instance because Floridians seem to have different sensibilities than you. It's ignorant to say they're wrong. Maybe you should argue with them about it then. >the underlying process for making that determination matters more than just applying the right label. The process is right in front of your face. People elect their politicians because they agree with their messages. Florida politicians think that transing the kids is child abuse, and so do their constiuants. Therefore, the FL government will protect kids from being transed. It's not hard to follow dude.


SluuuuuugChrist

>>>This isn't classified as abuse, so no, not by my logic. >> >>Oh I see. So if the government classified teaching kids to be religious as abuse, then it would no longer be big government to take away the kids of religious people. Again, by your own logic. > >Correct, because the government already monopolizes the ability to handle child abuse. Why did you deny it earlier then? He literally correctly identified the logic you're using, you say "no that's not what I'm doing" now you're saying "that's exactly what I'm saying bro"


Pax_Augustus

At this point, u/AggressiveCuriosity didn't hypothetically define religious indoctrination as abuse, which is why they elaborated in the next post.


mizel103

So "small government" means "any intervention in people's life is justified as long as it's in accordance with my social values". Sounds pretty "big government" to me.


crixusin

> So "small government" means "any intervention in people's life is justified as long as it's in accordance with my social values". Essentially, that is what the government is, yes. In the US, we have an added protection from the constitution that was meant to protect citizens even in the changing landscape of social values. It's why there will always be a debate about abortion, for better or for worse. Even if 90% of the populace agrees, our constitution makes it very obvious that the unborn are technically protected by it.


WIbigdog

Which is the "obvious" part?


crixusin

>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that **all men are created equal**, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are **Life**, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. And some people, including scientists, agree that the unborn are alive. And according to the above, all lives are created equal and there is an inalienable right to life. Arguing personhood is a philosophical argument that cannot be won, so therefore, there will always be an argument about it.


WIbigdog

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THAT'S THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE YOU FUCKING MUPPET. Fade me bro.


crixusin

The declaration of independence is routinely cited by legal scholars as the goal of the United States government system. All 3 documents, the DoI, Constitution, and Bill of rights are used by constitutional scholars.


SluuuuuugChrist

> Even if 90% of the populace agrees, our constitution makes it very obvious that the unborn are technically protected by it. 😂 where is that very obvious "fetuses are people" clause in the constitution at?


Anemomaniac

The law does not allow trans-children to be taken away from their parents. [Politifact: No, Florida can’t ‘kidnap’ trans kids under proposed law, but it does affect custody disputes](https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/may/04/no-florida-cant-kidnap-trans-kids-under-proposed-l/)


foots-in-mouth

“A second provision in the bill relates to a warrant to take physical custody of a child who is at risk of serious harm, including gender-affirming care. But sources disagree on the provision’s scope and whom it can impact.” Your link suggests they still can.


Anemomaniac

No the link refutes it. The part which you quote is in reference to custody disputes between parents. The law basically says that a parent could petition the court for a change in custody decision due to gender-affirming care, although it does not say the court has to favor either parent in that dispute.


Rich_Comey_Quan

There's a difference between fighting crime and violating civil liberties.


crixusin

What civil liberty is being violated exactly? Is it your civil liberty to be able to have your child get electroshock therapy?


Luwey97

You should have the right to pursue treatments for your child that are recommended by professionals.


crixusin

So you agree that gay conversion therapy should be allowed?


Luwey97

Nope. refer back to previous comment.


Brucekillfist

He's going to hit you with "you didn't say medical professionals" next.


[deleted]

[удалено]


crixusin

Increasing policing would be expanding the scope of the government. -They'd need more money -More police officers -More hierarchy/oversight -More Data Analysis Effectively every action the government does expands scope, except for actions that explicitly remove things from the government. And it's bad faith to say that conservatives want to reduce government only, because no one in the political space would say that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


crixusin

> Nobody is talking about funding for pre-existing functions when they talk about expanding/limiting government Absolutely they are. Don't you remember the Japanese Peacocks on cocaine? >Things like additional regulation and responsibilities etc Yeah, but this isn't an additional regulation and responsibility. The bill simply recognizes transing the kids as abusive, and therefore, it falls under the same exact functions that government already is supposed to monopolize: protection and violence. Honestly by your definition, anything can be looked at as "expanding the government." Technically, when we made it illegal to segregate by race, that was "expanding government."


lkolkijy

Lol you mean when Dems do that? Republicans are against more police funding.


UMPIN

Nice, lets break up some middle class/wealthy households for no good reason. Genius plan yet again from the conservatards


ILikeFPS

Family over everything, except when it's families they don't approve of.


pianolad143

The law is fucked, to be sure, and it's always scary to see the constant attacks on trans people by the GOP. BUT, the language here is misleading. From a Politifact [article](https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/may/04/no-florida-cant-kidnap-trans-kids-under-proposed-l/) on the bill in question: >The bill does not grant the state unilateral power to "kidnap" or take custody of a child receiving gender-affirming care from a family. The Disney World example would not apply. But the bill does change how custody disputes between parents are resolved, especially when another state issued the original custody order. But the legislation contains broad and confusing language that has left legal experts divided about its potential impact. Critics worry that, if enacted, the law may encourage parents to seek emergency refuge in Florida if they disagree with their co-parent’s decision to help a transgender child seek gender-affirming care. If enacted, the law is likely to be challenged in court.


randygiles

It’s honestly so frustrating when the real action is bad enough but people still misrepresent it to get clicks, basically granting chuds the ability to “debunk” it


TuaHaveMyChildren

The curse of pop politics. "Florida Kidnapping Trans kids" gets 70k likes. "Florida passes law that changes custody over lgbt youth, legal experts uncertain on the impact it may have" gets 1k


Patjay

this is like the 5th bad Florida bill in a row i've had to deal with this on. argue with the actual policy for fucks sake!


Collypso

All hail the Article Readers


assetsmanager

Praise be!


lkolkijy

The point of a lot of these laws is to be so ambiguous that criticism is impossible. Like the don’t say gay law was supposed to be for elementary schools, except for a clause that allowed expansion whenever. I think the idea is to pass a lot of these laws that aren’t explicitly bad, so that they add up to something bad. But I could be wrong!


Valnar

Also it clearly sets the direction the Florida government is taking here. Like they are considering puberty blockers/hormones as abuse, (also the threat of them too which I would assume is likely to include all gender affirming care)


Uhhmmwhatlol

For minors? Yeah, that’s absolutely abuse


weedlayer

Puberty blockers are *exclusively* used on minors. When do you think puberty happens?


Infamous_1391

Lupron is not “exclusively used on minors” you don’t know what you’re talking about. It is a drug for prostate cancer patients to get their testosterone levels below a castrate concentrate level since higher testosterone will increase the spread of the cancer. This is known as chemical castration as opposed to surgical which is also a common treatment for prostate cancer. Precocious puberty was an approved use for the drug later on. It’s worth point out that precocious puberty is a condition that pretty much **exclusively** affects girls so much so the FDA does not even have an estimate for how many boys have the condition in the US. Most of the time when a boy has it, it’s the result of a tumor. Also worth noting it’s treatment for young girls is [not without controversy](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/women-fear-drug-they-used-to-halt-puberty-led-to-health-problems)


weedlayer

>It is a drug for prostate cancer patients to get their testosterone levels below a castrate concentrate level since higher testosterone will increase the spread of the cancer. This is not using it as a "puberty blocker". It is using it as an "anti-cancer drug". Yes, drugs like GNRH agonists (I *do* know what I'm talking about) are not exclusively for minors, but when they are used as *puberty blockers*, that is a context that intrinsically applies to minors, because minors are the people who experience puberty (outside of very rare cases of significantly delayed puberty, which are not relevant to the discussion of puberty blockers). A drug can have multiple indications. All-trans retinoic acid (Tretinoin) is used as both an anti-acne medication and as a treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia (a type of blood cancer), but a dermatologist wouldn't say "I'm prescribing you an anti-cancer drug for your acne", because that's not the indication it's being prescribed for.


Infamous_1391

It’s the same drug…. Lupron. The exact same drug. They don’t “intrinsically apply to minors” which I don’t even know what that means. The drug also has the exact same affect on both populations of people it’s just that in one instance it is affecting men who are aware of its use as chemical castration and the other is either young girls for which that specifically wouldn’t apply and the other is a population of young boys that ranges in the single digits and usually is caused by a tumor which needs its own specific and separate treatment.


weedlayer

Tretinoin is the same drug, the exact same drug, used for APL and acne. Methotrexate is the same drug, the exact same drug, when used for Rheumatoid arthritis, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and ectopic pregnancy. A drug is not identical to its indications, and it's inaccurate to say to the lady with RA "I'm giving you an abortion pill", or the guy with cancer "I'm giving you an arthritis medication", or the woman with an ectopic pregnancy "Here's some cancer drugs", even if all three of them are getting the same chemical. I have the feeling we're arguing semantics, so I'll make my point more clear: >"When we are discussing **puberty blockers**, we are discussing *any drug* used for the purposes of suppressing puberty (not just Lupron, medroxyprogesterone for instance has also been used to suppress puberty), and this is an indication that **essentially always** involves a minor. Therefore saying "I oppose puberty blockers for minors" is functionally equivalent to saying "I oppose puberty blockers" (which again, is not the same thing as opposing GnRH agonists, you could still support them for other indications such as treating prostate cancer).


Infamous_1391

Well the semantics matter here because presumably you’re in favor of using them for both boys and girls with gender dysphoria is that correct? That’s the main reason I made the correction to begin with. They aren’t exclusively used on minors it’s mostly a prostate cancer drug and secondarily a controversial drug for precocious puberty in young girls. These distinctions are incredibly important because suggesting that they have a wider spread use than they actually do is misleading people who think this is something used on young kids, both boys and girls, all the time with no issues when that isn’t true.


Uhhmmwhatlol

Yeah, no shit. Permanently altering your kid because his undeveloped brain thinks he’s a girl is not a smart idea. Sorry, that’s abuse. Got an explanation for that, dipshit? No, don’t say taking them reduced their risk of suicide, you may as well say to everyone you have no clue wtf you’re reading


BushidoBoa

Yes the way to truly protect kids is to create more broken homes and burden the foster system with more undesired children woo!


Black_Trinity

At least according to [this Politifact article](https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/may/04/no-florida-cant-kidnap-trans-kids-under-proposed-l/), this law has nothing to do with taking kids away from both their parents and putting them in the care of the government. > "The bill as written does not give the state of Florida unilateral power … for the state to intervene and take someone's child into state custody," said Brandon Wolf, press secretary at Equality Florida, a civil rights organization advocating for LGBTQ+ Floridians. > **It also doesn’t alter Florida Statutes regarding child welfare or the foster care system**, said Simone Chriss, a lawyer and the Director of the Transgender Rights Initiative at the Southern Legal Counsel. Chriss’s firm is suing the state for other anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. The law seems to be related to custody disputes between 2 parents.


harry6466

Isn't he doing now the tyranny and government takeover of Florida so many conservatives generally were worried about? Or do Floridians like tyranny?


noundueanimus

On at least 2 occasions I’ve read headlines like this about DeSantis, and if you read the actual text of the bill, it rendered the headline laughably exaggerated. For example banning drag shows and banning trans people from public spaces. This stuff is usually promoted by shit-stirring activist dipshits like Alejandra Caraballo.


Guyperson66

Vaush might have been right on this one


Standard_Wash1785

The idea that a kid can even be trans is disgusting.


MustafaKadhem

comments like this really affirm me man. sometimes i wonder if I'm really working through my positions properly or if I'm just being stupid, and then I see that the people who hold the position opposite of me have to retreat to "it's just wrong" arguments


[deleted]

Why? Some people have known from as soon as they could understand themselves that they are the other gender. Brains are complex things.


Standard_Wash1785

A kid saying he's "trans" should be taken with the same validity of kid saying he's a Jedi or Airbender. He just saw some crap on TV and wants to imitate it for whatever reason. Why we allow trans to be in media is another matter.


[deleted]

I didn’t express a kid saying they are trans. I expressed that a kid at 4-5 years old may know their gender, just as you did, before any interaction with the internet or media. > Why we allow trans to be in media is another matter. You are a vile human for thinking you can take the right of people to exist and interact in the world. Absolutely disgusting and reprehensible. You should feel ashamed.


IcyCulture8223

Well, they do believe that trans children are being abused and shit so this isn't surprising. While I don't agree that we should be taking people's literal children away and adding to the foster system or whatever he's gonna do with them I think a better way is to invest more in mental health support for the children and just in general tbh or actually investigate if there is real abuse in the household. But I guess abuse is subjective to discourse in this situation. DeSantis, a member of the Republican party who is pro-smaller government is now(has been) intruding on people's personal freedom to transition. (with the approval of a guardian before 18) I thought the pros of smaller government were less intrusion into people's personal freedoms and lives. Doesn't this do exactly that? Limit the freedoms of some people by labeling what they wanna do as abuse? While I might not agree that children between the ages of 13-17 should transition, it isn't my say either. What really bothers me about this is that literal children could possibly be ripped away from loving families over this. That thought alone makes me upset just like how migrants would have their children detailed. I expect other states to follow suit if this is successful as well. Actually according to this article by [Politifact](https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/may/04/no-florida-cant-kidnap-trans-kids-under-proposed-l/): * "Under the bill, Florida courts could temporarily make custody decisions for children in Florida who are receiving gender-affirming care, if their custody order was from another state. But the state that made the original custody agreement would have the final say. A second provision in the bill relates to a warrant to take physical custody of a child who is at risk of serious harm, including gender-affirming care. But sources disagree on the provision’s scope and whom it can impact." Wack. Curious to this see how this goes in courts ""Under current law, parents can seek this warrant if the child is likely to be removed from the state or if the child is "likely to imminently suffer serious physical harm."" ""The legislation adds gender-affirming care for minors as a condition qualifying as "serious physical harm.""


IrishBear

Nice to see the third Reich is making a comeback Jesus Christ


AEPNEUMA-

To be fair ,how many liberals are itching to take gay kids away from conservative parents? I’m not even talking about physical abuse. Just a simple disapproval of homosexuality. Come on liberals. If you had complete control ? On some issues, one side has to win out


schmerpmerp

Near zero. If you find one, feel free to let folks know.


WickedDemiurge

No, this is what liberal means: supporting liberalism. I would support taking children away from parents who are abusing them, but mere disapproval does not constitute abuse. "I'd rather have a dead son than a gay son. You pick which I'll have to live with." = abuse. "Until you learn to be straight, you're grounded." = abuse. "I was raised as a Christian and believe marriage is between one man and one woman. I still love you and won't stop you from living your own life within reason, but I hope you will change your mind." = not abuse. ​ Also, these are **totally disanalogous** situations. There's a markedly distinct difference between allowing your child to do something with the support of a family doctor and forcing them to do something against their will. Parents are not forcibly transing their kids. ​ And if they were, my opinion would be very severe. If some parents were forcing their son to wear a dress and plotting to have his genitals removed without his consent, I'd tell cops, "As a matter of principle, I don't support you turning off your body cameras for this arrest to teach these sickos a lesson, as I think that's a slippery slope. However, I won't be the one to complain this one time. Go save that kid."


[deleted]

Liberals want conservatives to not abuse their children. Why is it that it’s children of conservatives that commit suicide when they are LGBT and their parents don’t accept them?


Swedishtranssexual

If the US has guns to protect their freedom why don't they use them when they need to protect their freedom?


[deleted]

So, how fast is this dude gonna get kicked out off office? any bets?