Scientists Claim the Children of Gay Couples Turn out Better

/0 Comments/in , /by

It was inevitable that someone would claim that children raised by adults who have or who act on same-sex attraction would be better off than children raised by normal adults, or by parents.

And so it has come to pass in the peer-reviewed paper “Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity: No Differences? Meta-Analytic Comparisons of Psychological Adjustment in Children of Gay Fathers and Heterosexual Parents” by Benjamin Graham Miller, Stephanie Kors, and Jenny Macfie in the journal Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity.

From the Abstract:

… The current study applied … meta-analysis to 10 studies … to evaluate child psychological adjustment by parent sexual orientation. …[R]results indicated that children of gay fathers had significantly better outcomes than did children of heterosexual parents in all 3 models of meta-analysis.

The emphasis on “better” was in the original — a word that was noticed in the popular press.

If the results are true, then surely if we want what is best for the nation’s children, they should be placed in the households of men who enjoy non-procreative sex-like activities. (Actual sexual intercourse can only take place between males and females.) Leaving kids to fester with their own parents dooms them to lesser outcomes.

That prescription might to your ears sound absurd, but it does follow if Miller and his co-authors are right. Are they?

The trio used a statistical technique called “meta-analysis,” which I jokingly define as a method to prove a hypothesis “statistically” true which could not be proved to be actually true. Actually, it is a way to glue together results from disparate studies, so that one needn’t be troubled by the hard work of investigating the disparate studies. In other words, it is a controversial technique, often badly applied and in the service of confirmation bias. I suspect that is true here.

Miller et al. gathered 10 studies culled from “a list of over 6,000 citations of published and unpublished studies from 2005 and later based on the search terms same sex, same gender, gay, child, and parent in any combination.”

Somehow — it is a mystery — in their diligent search, the researchers did not turn up the remarkable 2012 study known by all sociologists, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” by Mark Regnerus. That study made national headlines!

Regnerus’s study came to the unwanted conclusion that kids did better when raised by adults who did not have same-sex relationships. Regnerus’s work also showed that the rate of same-sex attraction of kids growing up under same-sex attracted adults was higher than for other kids, a finding which goes against the conventional wisdom that all those who have same-sex attraction are “born that way.” Doubtless, Miller and co-authors will correct the oversight of forgetting Regnerus in their next paper.

Back to the point of cobbling disparate studies together for the purposes of statistical modeling. The (alphabetically) first paper examined by Miller was the 2009 work “An Evaluation of Gay/Lesbian and Heterosexual Adoption” by Paige Averett, Blace Nalavany and Scott Ryan in Adoption Quarterly.

This study asked two groups of kids, 1.5 to 5 years and 6 to 18 years, sets of questions with arbitrary numerical answers about behavior (unfortunately an exceedingly common practice; see Chapter 10 of this book). Averett then reported on the differences in summaries of the numerical answers, and concluded that “child internalizing and externalizing behavior was not contingent upon adoptive parent sexual orientation.” In other words, it didn’t make any difference in outcomes whether kids had gay or non-gay minders.

This seems to be in Miller’s favor. But what is unusual is the nature of the children studied by Averett.

For example, for the 1.5 to 5 years old group of kids, the gay adults who raised them were all white, whereas the normal parents represented a mix of races (close to matching actual racial differences in the USA). The gays were much better educated; nearly 3 out 5 had Masters Degrees. Yet over 70% of normal parents only had high school educations. Not surprisingly, the gays made twice as much money as the normal parents. Only 1 out of 10 adoptions by gays was “transracial,” and it was about 4 out of 10 by normal parents. A little more than 3 out of 10 kids adopted by gays suffered previous abuse, whereas twice as many, some 7 out 10, of kids adopted by normal adults were abused.

And so on for other probative, obviously relevant differences. Conclusion? Averett staked the deck. The statistical measures they derived were therefore meaningless, and thus should not be included in any list of studies, except in a list of papers which show How Not To Do Research. Miller and his co-authors should not have given this study any weight, but they did.

We could go through the other nine papers and make similar criticisms, but it would take too long, and besides, the point about the inadequacy of the meta-analysis wouldn’t change. What’s worse is that we’d miss the real error, which is this: “outcomes,” which is to say the lives of actual human being, cannot be quantified so easily as Miller and the other authors contend.

Most important of all, no scientist can measure the spiritual well-being of any child (or adult), which, in the end, is the only metric that matters. And it is this well-being that, as all history teaches, is imperiled by these fashionable social experiments. (For more from the author of “Scientists Claim the Children of Gay Couples Turn out Better” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Police Officers Respond to Traffic Violations With Turkeys, Not Tickets

/0 Comments/in , /by

Police officers in Fort Worth, Texas had a surprise for traffic violators last week.

Instead of writing tickets for minor violations such as driving without wearing a seat belt, the officers gave out frozen turkeys.

The turkeys were donated to the police department, Fox 4 News reported Wednesday. Officers decided to continue the cycle of giving by handing out the Thanksgiving dinner staples a week before the holiday. About 25 turkeys were distributed.

“Police tell us it’s one way of showing people that they serve the community in a lot of different ways,” Fil Alvarado reported for Fox 4 News.

Fort Worth officers weren’t the only ones who made the news recently for spreading holiday cheer.

On Sunday, Milwaukee Police Department’s District 5 partnered with students at Messmer Preparatory Catholic School and MATC’s Culinary Arts Program to serve Thanksgiving dinner to area families. Over 400 people were expected to attend, the Journal Sentinel reported.

These acts of kindness by police officers come toward the end of a particularly difficult year for police-community relations. Multiple violent attacks against officers have taken place since the summer months after a series of controversial shootings of black men by police officers.

Over the weekend, at least four police officers were shot in separate incidents in Texas, Missouri and Florida within 24 hours. One of the officers, Detective Benjamin Marconi of San Antonio, Texas, was killed. The other three officers shot Sunday are expected to survive.

Seeking ways to ease police-community tensions has been a near constant topic of public conversation in the wake of such violence. Perhaps Fort Worth police officers found just the “ticket” to help ease some of that tension. (For more from the author of “Texas Police Officers Respond to Traffic Violations With Turkeys, Not Tickets” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Liberal Hypocrisy: Apparently Non-Discrimination Only Applies to Conservatives

/0 Comments/in , /by

A disgruntled liberal who says “discrimination” is wrong says she’ll discriminate against America’s most prominent immigrant because of her choice of husband:

A fashion designer whose styles have been sported by Michelle Obama is boycotting dressing Melania Trump, saying she encourages “my fellow designers to do the same” when it comes to outfitting the next first lady.

“As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom and respect for all lifestyles, I will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next First Lady,” Sophie Theallet wrote in a letter this week.

“The rhetoric of racism, sexism, and xenophobia unleashed by her husband’s presidential campaign are incompatible with the shared values we live by,” Theallet wrote about President-elect Donald Trump.

“I encourage my fellow designers to do the same,” she continued.

“I am well aware it is not wise to get involved in politics,” the fashion maven wrote. “That said, as a family-owned company, our bottom line is not just about money. We value our artistic freedom and always humbly seek to contribute to a more humane, conscious and ethical way to create in this world.”

For years, conservatives have been accused of bigotry, hatred and more for not celebrating the issue of the day propagated by liberals. Opposing abortion means we hate women, stopping illegal immigration means we think brown-skinned people are sub-human and upholding the rule of law in cities means we want to keep blacks down (even though America’s largest cities have long been run by Democrats).

The two new causes célèbres have been non-discrimination laws that consist of state-sanctioned attacks on the beliefs of Christians who may not want to participate in, or otherwise endorse, the LGBT agenda. A lawsuit in Washington State based around such a law could cause a 72-year old florist to lose everything she owns because of her beliefs about marriage, and priests in Massachusetts could be jailed for using biologically accurate pronouns.

Will liberals defend Melania Trump from this hypocrisy? After all, they stood up for Hillary Clinton when she enabled her husband’s abuse of women. All Melania did was marry Donald Trump. (For more from the author of “Liberal Hypocrisy: Apparently Non-Discrimination Only Applies to Conservatives” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Committee: High Schoolers Can’t Handle Evidence Against Darwinism

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Thursday, I testified in Austin, Texas about the latest skirmish over how evolution is taught in Texas public high schools. I want it taught, warts and all. Darwinists want it taught as airbrushed and unquestionable dogma.

The state school board meeting was called to consider initial steps to streamline the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Streamlining is fine, in principle. The problem is that some of the proposed changes to the evolution section water down four passages that call on students to learn about, analyze and evaluate some of the growing evidential challenges to modern evolutionary theory.

So, for instance, what are we to make of the sudden appearance of new species and fundamentally new body plans in the fossil record? Neo-Darwinism says these animal forms evolved very gradually as part of the evolutionary tree of life, but the pattern in the geological column paints a different picture. Shouldn’t biology students be able to exercise their critical thinking skills by wrestling with this conundrum? The majority on the biology committee weren’t keen on that idea. They struck the sudden appearance language from the TEKS and argued that high school students aren’t mature enough to hear about it and ask intelligent questions. Not “developmentally appropriate,” the committee report said.

And, besides, said Karyn Ard, the chair of the biology curriculum review committee, there’s not enough time to cover it during the school year. There’s too much other material they have to cover. Ditto the growing mystery surrounding the origin of the first life.

Since I substitute taught in the Austin Independent School District for a year before I started graduate school, I could sympathize with Ard when she emphasized the wide disparity in student ability and the challenge teachers face to cover all the assigned material adequately. At the same time, the very real effect of the committee’s streamlining is to get rid of just those areas that best expose kids to the growing evidential challenges facing evolution, while leaving behind all kinds of pro-Darwinian propaganda woven into the fabric of the leading high school biology textbooks.

Covering for Darwin

Significantly, the pro-Darwin Texas Freedom Network (TFN) has had it in for these four hot-button passages ever since the passages made their way into the TEKS a few years ago. So it’s no surprise that TFN is celebrating the proposed deletions.

Ard told the board that the biology committee’s motives were focused squarely on streamlining, that she wasn’t even aware of the TFN until recently, and that their proposed deletions were not in any way politically motivated. My first reaction was: Really? The committee just happened to water down precisely the four passages the pro-Darwin TFN named as public enemy number 1, and the committee includes a vocal Darwin defender, Ron Wetherington, but somehow it was never the committee’s intent to put a giant thumb on the scale for Darwin?

Wetherington himself testified a bit later and made it abundantly obvious that he’s had it in for these four passages since they first made it into the TEKS. Some able cross-examination from conservative state school board member Marty Rowley (Amarillo) further underscored this fact.

In all fairness, Ard may indeed have been largely unaware of what was at stake, or at least had little interest in or knowledge about the origins controversy and was merely happy not to have to cover it during a biology course jam packed with other material. She insisted that when Wetherington debated evolution with molecular biologist Ray Bohlin and Baylor University chemistry professor Charles Garner during their curriculum revision meetings, she and several of the other committee members were at sea, unable to follow the discussion.

OK, but that brings me to the second thought I had on hearing Ard’s plea of non-political motives: Intent is secondary. The primary issue is effect. And the effect of watering down these four sections of the TEKS would be to give biology teachers who want to teach the scientific controversy over modern evolutionary theory less cover than they have now.

And here’s why that’s a problem. The national Darwin lobby is in the habit of targeting and persecuting teachers and professors who dare call into question Darwinian dogma. The Discovery Institute, where I now work, has come to the aid of many teachers and professors who have been targeted by militant Darwinists intent on suppressing the evidence against modern evolutionary theory. That pattern of attack and suppression is why Texas biology teachers with the courage to teach the controversy can use all the cover that the state board of education and the TEKS can give them.

More hearings are set for early next year, and a final meeting and decision in April. It’s in Texas’ best interest that at least eight members of the board (a majority) find the clarity and courage to do the right thing by voting to preserve these key passages in the current standards, standards that free biology teachers to safely teach students to critically scrutinize evolutionary theory, warts and all. (For more from the author of “Texas Committee: High Schoolers Can’t Handle Evidence Against Darwinism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Entitled Couple Live-Tweets Their Abortion Journey, but What About Their Baby’s Right to Live?

/0 Comments/in , /by

A blessing and a curse of the Internet is that it allows us to peek into the living rooms — even bedrooms — of other people’s lives. Often now, many people invite us into their lives purposely, and reveal intimate details intentionally, for altruism, pity — a redress of grievances — and so on. Last week, an Irish woman was so frustrated and outraged she couldn’t have an abortion in her country (abortions are banned in Ireland) that she trekked to Liverpool, England. She documented the entire journey live, Twitter-ranting, complaining, and justifying her decision as she went.

The circumstances

The Daily Mail reported that, using the name “Heartbroken&Punished,” an anonymous couple living in Ireland began tweeting the story of her unfolding abortion. The couple, who already has one living child with a several disability, left that child in care of family members in order to travel to Liverpool, about 150 miles away, to abort their unborn baby. Prenatal testing had revealed the unborn child had “Edwards syndrome, which is a fatal foetal abnormality.” The father said, “We were told that even if carried to full term, the period of life would be counted in the minutes and hours after birth.” According to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, abortion is only legal in Ireland if the life of the mother is at risk.

In their pinned tweet, the couple writes that they tried several times to conceive, despite knowing that baby too would risk the same genetic abnormality as their first child. They were told if the wife gave birth to a child with Edwards, “if carried to full term the period of life would be counted in the minutes and hours after birth.” The father called it a “crushing sentence” and the “most humane thing possible to do to a baby that will never survive.”

The couple wrote about how they chose to document their journey because they “hope this may enlighten those who do not want to listen or even allow the people of this country to decide for themselves” since their government has “kicked the can down the road and we must decide if we can allow this to happen.”

The blame game

The majority of the tweets were aimed at the Irish government. In fact, almost every tweet along the journey includes the hashtag “it’s time to repeal,” referring to Ireland’s law. In 2014, less than 4,000 women travelled to the U.K. to receive an abortion due to Ireland’s strict law. The woman concluded because she decided to abort her children, due to the results of the genetic testing, her “country doesn’t care.”

Because of the unborn child’s diagnosis with Edward’s, the couple assumed they have no other choice but abortion and then assumed the government should allow it, simply so they don’t have to be inconvenienced. Both these conclusions, while understandable (and indeed heartbreaking) are misinformed.

Tell me: Is there anything more ironic than complaining about the hardship it’s been to travel to abort your child? More narcissistic than demanding you’re so entitled, your government should adjust its laws so you can terminate your baby? Indeed, nothing says your “country doesn’t care” more than forcing a woman to travel a few miles to abort her child. How selfish; how egocentric; how greedy.

Wrong on both counts

The idea of getting an abortion to end a pregnancy — especially in cases of rape, incest, or when a child will likely not survive long past birth — can be understandably attractive to a woman or her husband, it is still wrong. Adoption is always a viable, positive option that is truly a “win-win-win” for mom, baby, and a couple waiting to adopt — particularly in the case of rape or incest. And according to this news story, there are 14 times more couples in Ireland waiting to adopt than there are children to adopt. In the case of fetal abnormalities, like the unborn child of this couple, it would likely be more humane to allow the baby to be born and die a natural death. Babies feel pain during abortion as early as 8 weeks. (It appears this mother was about 12 weeks along.) This outcome, while still tragic, may have been less painful for baby, and less emotionally devastating for the parents — and it certainly would have avoided a trip to Liverpool. Abortion, contrary to popular belief, is rarely a humane option for baby or mom.

Not only that, but it’s deeply saddening to see the couple attempted to use this experience as a way to redress their grievances to their government — to appeal to change their abortion law. They essentially argued, “I want to terminate my baby. How dare the government not acquiesce to my every whim!” While the story did pick up traction, think of how upside down that sounds when the people of Ireland think abortion is a right and the government should provide it. I can assure you, the unborn babies growing in the wombs of Irish mothers are thankful for Ireland’s law, even if a few frustrated mothers are not. (For more from the author of “Entitled Couple Live-Tweets Their Abortion Journey, but What About Their Baby’s Right to Live?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton: ‘All I Wanted to Do Was Just to Curl up’ This Past Week

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that in the week since her stunning loss in the presidential election, there have been times when she’s wanted to hole up at home and “never leave the house again.”

But she urged her supporters to stay engaged and fight for the values that propelled her campaign.

“I will admit, coming here tonight wasn’t the easiest thing for me,” she said to the audience at a gala for the Children’s Defense Fund. “There have been a few times this past week where all I wanted to do was just to curl up with a good book or our dogs and never leave the house again.”

But Clinton struck a positive note, saying that her presidential campaign was about the “country we love.”

“And about building an America that is hopeful, inclusive and big-hearted,” she said during the ceremony, where she was being honored for her child advocacy work. (Read more from “Clinton: ‘All I Wanted to Do Was Just to Curl up’ This Past Week” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘The Lord’s Been Good’: Mother Reunited With Daughter After 62 Years

/0 Comments/in , /by

In 1954, Goldie Waltman was young, single and unemployed. She’d just given birth to a daughter, Patricia Lorenz, when she realized she couldn’t take care of the baby and left her in the care of a couple she’d been staying with. She prayed for her daughter every day, but leaving her wasn’t easy. “I gave her up, and it was the hardest thing I ever did in my life,” the 85-year-old Waltman said, in a story reported by Fox8.

She kept her daughter a secret from her five children born later. Waltman’s daughter Kellie Taylor said that it was at a doctor’s visit five years ago that she and another sister found out about Lorenz. The doctor asked Waltman how many children she had and she said six. “No, you have five,” her daughter said. When Waltman responded, “No, I have six,” her daughters realized they had a sibling they never knew.

For the last five years the family has searched for Lorenz without luck. Two weeks ago, Waltman connected with her daughter through ancestry.com and the two sent messages back and forth. Waltman got a phone call the same day from the little girl she gave up so long ago. “She said ‘It’s Patty,” and I said ‘Oh!’” said Waltman.

Waltman’s family flew Lorenz to see her mother this week, reuniting mother and daughter after 62 years. “I finally got to see her,” said Waltman. “The Lord’s been good. I didn’t think this would ever happen.”

Lorenz was just as excited to see her birth mother after searching for her for 47 years. “I don’t know how to explain it,” she said. “I’ve been excited about coming to meet her and see her for so long, and it’s like a reality come true.”

Lorenz will meet the rest of the family throughout the weekend. (For more from the author of “‘The Lord’s Been Good’: Mother Reunited With Daughter After 62 Years” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Infantilized Campuses Threaten Our Nation’s Future

/0 Comments/in , /by

What are we to make of higher education when students and institutions respond to the recent presidential election with cry-ins, canceled exams, therapy dogs, Play-Doh, coloring books, group screams, Legos, bubble-blowing, and trauma counseling? Well, college “ain’t what it used to be.”

For some time, higher learning has been a political matter, one where the primary aim is to usher students into the club of elite (supposedly enlightened) progressive opinion. Gone is the formation of keen, analytical habits of mind and rational argument.

The result is not just a poorly educated student body, but an infantilized one. Mature discourse is out, and fragility, dependence, and bad temper is in.

Rather than cultivate habits of sustained and sober thought, we encourage manufactured outrage and self-indulgent victimhood. Anyone who has spent time with 2-year-olds recognizes the behavior. In our case, however, we appear to cultivate it on our campuses.

An infantilized campus is bad enough, but it becomes intolerable when these are the places where leaders of a self-governing republic are usually formed.

Regardless of party or position, a citizenry incapable of facing adversity or unwilling to reason about and discuss difficult, public things will not likely produce leaders who can do so. If college campuses steep our future leaders in habits of entitled fragility, the only politics they will be able to imagine is that of the tantrum.

Tellingly, this is exactly the kind of politics we have seen on campus, and, increasingly, off campus as well.

A darker view would regard our infantilized campuses as something more sinister than the accidental byproduct of politicized higher education. When the noise of a tantrum becomes a primary political instrument in place of reason, persuasion, and evidence, then volume, not thought, wins the day.

And volume is coercive. When 2-year-olds throw tantrums, they attempt to force matters and get their own way. A set of people taught not to reason but to huddle in safe spaces and throw the occasional tantrum is a people taught to impose their will. They have not been denied a voice; rather, they are intent upon being the only voice.

This is not to say that all post-election anxiety is necessarily irrational. But it is a lack of the aforementioned habits that makes aggression and extremism so common.

Genuine higher learning requires (among other things) time, intense application of thought, patient reflection, and maturity. Rather than an education in elite and coddled groupthink, real learning is an education in honed and sound thinking—thinking that is not victim to every fleeting passion.

This is precisely the kind of learning poet Robert Frost had in mind when he wrote, “So when at times the mob is swayed/ To carry praise or blame too far,/ We may choose something like a star/ To stay our minds on and be said.”

If we cannot restore the “higher” to higher education, if we cannot put down our Play-Doh and take up our Plato, it’s unlikely we’ll see a return of either to our politics or our learning. (For more from the author of “How Infantilized Campuses Threaten Our Nation’s Future” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

DC City Council Approves Assisted Suicide Again, Sends Bill to Mayor’s Desk

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Washington, D.C. city council voted again to approve assisted suicide, sending the bill to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s desk.

On November 1, the city council voted 11-2 to pass Bill 21-38, the Death With Dignity Act. On November 15, the council approved the bill 11-2 again. The Death with Dignity Act would allow doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to patients who they think have less than six months to live.

The November 1 vote featured a heated discussion of the bill in which numerous pro-assisted suicide members of the city council became choked up describing how they had watched relatives suffer before death. In her arguments in favor of the bill, Councilmember Elissa Silverman recalled how her grandmother had been hooked up to a ventilator.

There was no debate before the November 15 vote. Councilmembers Brianne Nadeau and Yvette Alexander, the same councilmembers who opposed the bill on November 1, voted against it Tuesday. (Read more from “DC City Council Approves Assisted Suicide Again, Sends Bill to Mayor’s Desk” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mother Sues as County Gives Teen ‘Sex Change’ Treatment

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Minnesota mother is suing local school and county officials for allegedly attempting to facilitate her teenage son’s “sex change” and usurping her parental rights.

In a lawsuit filed on Wednesday morning, Anmarie Calgaro accused Child Services and education officials in St. Louis County of denying her the right to raise her 17-year old son. The lawsuit also names multiple non-profits that have assisted the minor, identified as only “J.D.K.” in the suit, in claiming legal “emancipation” from his mother.

Calgaro is asking a federal court to revoke the county’s ability to deny her rights as a parent until she has her day in court. She is also demanding access to all records related to J.D.K., as well as attorney fees.

Erick Kaardal, a Thomas More Society Special Counsel and Calgaro’s attorney, told The Stream that J.D.K.’s claim of “emancipation” — that is, providing “a minor child … the same legal rights and obligations as an eighteen year-old adult,” according to Kaardal — is invalid because neither the teen nor state officials have proven Calgaro to be a deficient parent.

“There are no set standards” in the state, explained Kaardal. Emancipation “would be determined case-to-case; if there were a court hearing, the minor would have to prove that the conduct of a parent or parents is such that they have given up control and custody of the minor.” However, “under Minnesota Statute § 144.341, it appears that a minor who is living separate from his parents or guardian — with or without consent — and is managing his personal financial affairs ‘may give effective consent’ to medical services.”

The Stream was unable to reach County Child Services officials or state judicial officials about the state’s view of emancipation.

Kaardal said that “the minor child was simply rebellious at the time” when he claimed emancipation, but that things have improved. “Presently, they are communicating with each other and have visited each other in person. Ms. Calgaro has and continues to encourage J.D.K. to maintain their relationship. Ms. Calgaro has welcomed him home.”

Meanwhile, county taxpayers are on the hook for J.D.K.’s treatment. “Medical services are being paid or approved or both by St. Louis County through related agencies and entities providing the services to J.D.K.,” said Kaardal.

The State Law

The legal basis for the county to facilitate J.D.K.’s “sex change”can be traced back to Minnesota’s Minor’s Consent to Health Service Act passed in 1971. [Minnesota Statutes – Chapter 144, Sections 144.341 – 144.347] Kaardal quoted a March 2006 Minnesota Public Health Association publication as explaining the law was meant to address “the critical and unmet health needs of minors during a time of enormous social change.”

Kaardal further quoted the document:

Changes in family structures and the broadening of the individual rights of minorities, women and children showed that minors were particularly vulnerable if they needed to seek health services. While Minnesota law was silent on the ability of minors to access health services, practitioners declined to see or treat minors without parental consent, fearing potential liabilities. Minors, apprehensive of parental reactions, embarrassment or disrupting family harmony, were not receiving needed health services, often jeopardizing their health and future lives.

(For more from the author of “Mother Sues as County Gives Teen ‘Sex Change’ Treatment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.