Balls to the Walz
...no person shall be surrendered to the executive authority of any other state for acts involving gender-affirming health care...
Yesterday, moments after Kamala Harris announced Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her VP pick, I saw two distinct reactions—to the same sliver of his record.
The first: elation from trans rights activists, noting Walz had been a solid ally—especially in signing into law HF146, known colloquially as a trans sanctuary state bill.
The second: despair from the gender-concerned crowd for this very same reason.
Several accounts suggested the law allows children to be removed from parents’ homes and medically transitioned without their consent. Let’s check the what the bill says.
The gist: your red state bans are no good in this blue state.
A law of another state that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from the child's parent or guardian because the parent or guardian allowed the child to receive gender-affirming health care, as defined in section 543.23, paragraph (b), is against the public policy of this state and must not be enforced or applied in a case pending in a court in this state. A court order for the removal of a child issued in another state because the child's parent or guardian assisted the child in receiving gender-affirming care in this state must not be enforced in this state.
It gets trickier in the “temporary emergency jurisdiction” section.
A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in
this state and:
(1) the child has been abandonedor;
(2) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse; or
(3) the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care as defined in section 543.23, paragraph (b).
So, yes, in theory, if a child has been abandoned—perhaps even if they’ve run away but can be classified as abandoned—or if the child needs protection (perhaps from the unaffirming parent), or can’t medically transition elsewhere, the court may be able to take custody.
Some of the language in the bill suggests the procuring of “gender-affirming care” amounts to a free pass. “…no person shall be surrendered to the executive authority of any other state for acts involving gender-affirming health care as defined in section 543.23, paragraph (b).”
And:
No subpoena shall be issued and no foreign subpoena shall be recognized in this
state in a criminal or civil matter if the subpoena is related to a violation of another state's laws when the other state's laws are designed to interfere with an individual's right to receive gender-affirming health care. Failure to comply with a subpoena seeking information related to a person or entity allowing or assisting a child or an adult to receive gender-affirming health care when the information is being requested to enforce another state's laws that allow a civil or criminal action to be brought against a person for allowing or providing gender-affirming health care must not be the basis for contempt under section 588.01.
What’s gender-affirming care? “…medically necessary health care or mental
health care that respects the gender identity of the patient, as experienced and defined by the patient…” The lawsuits against bans in other states have drummed up enough information for the last seven impartial Americans to legitimately question “medically necessary,” and the Cass Review essentially nullifies the bill’s definition.
That doesn’t mean that some adults don’t feel better after transitioning. We just don’t have the evidence to support the idea of medical necessity, especially for kids who may not be able to consent to what they give up in exchange. And yet, based on that mischaracterization—or lie—the state can take your kid.
But will it?
We don’t know, because so far, it doesn’t seem that anyone has tested it. Minnesota hasn’t yet, far as we know, wrested a child identifying as transgender from his or her or their parent and medically transitioned them. We haven’t seen lawsuits from non-affirming parents whose kids were taken to Minnesota and transitioned. There are plenty of lawyers ready to take the case if they do.
I haven’t seen these possible terrible scenarios parsed in glowing media write-ups of these blue state gender laws. I haven’t seen mainstream media reporters pointing out that what was once a somewhat hysterical right-wing talking point—that the state wants to take over the nuclear family—is at least somewhat true, or could be, in these blue state sanctuary bills. Nor have they noted that such bills violate the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, which demands cooperation between the states in interstate custody cases. The act is designed to prevent kidnapping by a parent, but I think it can be argued that Minnesota’s law is designed to allow or even promote kidnapping. And as long as it’s in the name of gender-affirming care, it’s okay.
Most people aren’t single-issue voters. For Democrats, Walz probably checks a lot of other boxes, and seems like a genuinely nice guy. But a majority of Americans polled don’t support the medical transition of minors, and I bet if they really understood how this law could be wielded, they wouldn’t support these laws, either.
My hope is that Walz will use this opportunity to shift gears on the subject, and the mainstream media will press him on the legality and ethics of this bill. But don’t worry—I am prepared for my hopes to be dashed.
Most people aren't single-issue voters--or do they not acknowledge it?
We are aware that there are "pro-life" voters.
I am now a *single-issue voter--since I lost my daughter to the gender cult--and I cannot look away from the harm this is causing so many families, the loss of an open future for young people caught up in gender.
MSM has done a disservice by not acknowledging how important the trans issue is to people across the political spectrum. It's always buried as a "culture war".
I am not voting for Trump.
There is no one I can vote for.
*Single issue=not voting Democrat.
Politically Homeless Former Democrat
You mentioned that the law hadn't been officially tested with a child brought in from out of state, a runaway teen, or a child removed from custody due to parents not affirming. But I'd argue the law probably has already had significant effects and those must be considered. Imagine a family sitting in a school counselor's office expressing how they think transitioning their teen with multiple mental health conditions is not what's best for her. Think about what the counselor will feel she has the authority to say, the tone she can take, and the options and potential consequences she presents to the parents knowing that is the law she works under (even more so if the counselor supports the law and the ideas behind it). Imagine how pressured and without options the parents would feel. Then think about these same dynamics if your child is in an emergency room for self-harm and you're faced with the social workers there, if your child ends up in an intensive mental health treatment program (inpatient or outpatient) that follows the law and excludes parents from treatment for questioning or expressing concerns. The most aggressive activist doctors, therapists, and social workers can take full control of their workplaces and sideline or silence those with concerns. Imagine how hard it would be for a teen who starts to doubt they should continue on the gender identity path to reverse in this atmosphere. Laws like these don't ever have to be tested at their extremes to do harm.