Discover more from Women's Voices
"Children Cannot Consent": California Bill Encourages Medical Abuse of Minors
Last Tuesday, June 28, the California state assembly held a brief hearing on Senator Scott Wiener’s proposed legislation, SB 107, or the Trans Refuge Bill, which would allow parents from other states to bring their children to California to access transsexual surgeries and drugs euphemistically referred to as “puberty blockers”.
According to a legal analysis written by attorney Erin Friday, a member of the organization Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans (PITT), who also testified against SB107 on Tuesday,
“SB107 will make it possible for parents/minors to avoid even the most minimal of safeguards in place for life-altering medical procedures for children. Parents and third parties can avoid any scrutiny about what they are subjecting a child to. Simple and necessary guardrails can be avoided if the child can reach California, with or without parents or their consent.
Most alarming is that this bill only requires that the child – not the child and parents – be present in California for the purpose of obtaining gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care. This, of course, will open a flood of children, regardless of their parents’ or guardians’ approval, entering the state.
The language of the statute permits the patient –a child– to determine interventions that she believes are medically necessary for herself as well as those which align with her desired appearance. Medical interventions could include nullification surgeries, which are surgeries designed to remove secondary sex characteristics - for example, the removal of breasts and nipples, the closing up of the vaginal opening or the removal of the gonads and surgical shortening of the penis. For examples of these surgeries, please visit San Francisco’s Align Surgical Center, run by a WPATH doctor.
The bill additionally would prohibit law enforcement agencies from making, or intentionally participating in, the arrest of an individual pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant based on another state’s law against receiving or allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care.”
Wiener’s bill was designed to address legislation restricting the medical “transitioning” of minors as the number of US citizens concerned about these drugs and procedures being extended to children continues to grow.
Several states such as Texas, Idaho, Louisiana, Arizona and Alabama have proposed legislation which would allow parents and physicians to be investigated for supporting or providing the medical “transitioning” of those under the age of 18.
In February, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion classifying the medical interventions as child abuse, which was taken by transactivists such as Wiener as an indication that children will be removed from their families in cases which involve parents are seeking out drugs and procedures on their behalf.
Yet among those who spoke in opposition to SB107 was a parent named Ted Hudacko, who lost custody of his son for opposing such medical interventions. In 2019, Hudacko’s wife announced she was leaving him and taking their 15 year-old son, Drew, who was declaring a female identity.
According to The New York Post, “Ted was adamant that he did not want Drew to begin medical transition. Ted delved into the research on medical transition and gender dysphoria (severe discomfort in one’s biological sex). He learned that puberty blockers could impair cognition and diminish bone density. If given puberty blockers along with estrogen, Drew could become permanently infertile. Ted wasn’t even sure his son had gender dysphoria.”
The issue of Hudacko’s son’s self-declared identity came up in court during divorce proceedings, where Ted was asked if he would continue to love his son even if he deemed himself to be the Queen of England.
California Superior Court Judge Joni Hiramoto asked Ted Hudacko: “If your son [Drew] were medically psychotic and believed himself to be the Queen of England, would you love him?”
“Of course I would,” Hudacko replied, according to the court transcript. “I’d also try to get him help.”
“I understand that qualifier,” Judge Hiramoto replied. “But if it were—if you were told by [Drew’s] psychiatrist, psychologist that [Drew] was very fragile and that confronting him—or, I’m sorry, confronting them with the idea that they are not the Queen of England is very harmful to their mental health, could you go along and say, ‘OK, [Drew], you are the Queen of England and I love you; you are my child and I want you to do great and please continue to see your psychologist.’ Could you do that?”
On June 24, 2020, following her discussion with Ted about a hypothetical situation of his son pretending to be the Queen of England, Judge Joni Hiramoto granted Hudacko’s wife Christine sole legal custody of Drew on a temporary basis.
In addition to Hudacko, those who stated their opposition to the bill included concerned parents across a range of the political spectrum. Democrats spoke up out of concern for the health and well-being of children, despite criticism of gender ideology frequently being portrayed in the media as a right-wing agenda.
Of those who voiced support for SB 107 on Tuesday, several were representatives for well-funded lobbying organizations — including Planned Parenthood of California, which, with increased restrictions on abortion, has been shifting their business model from providing healthcare for women to selling wrong-sex hormones.
Notably, Wiener brought two men with him to testify on behalf of his bill: Martin Campos, operations manager of the Trans Family Support Service, and Ebony Harper, the Executive Director of lobbying group California TRANScends. Harper also serves as the board member for the Transgender Law Center, which is funded in part by the pharmaceutical organization Gilead Sciences. Harper was behind a coordinated campaign involving several transactivist groups to receive state funding, granted last year by Governor Newsom in the form of a $13 million subsidy for “medical services”.
SB107, which was approved by the California state assembly, does not protect human rights and dignity, but instead upholds the ability for pharmaceutical companies and medical clinics to profit off the exploitation of those who feel uncomfortable about their identity, bodies, or sexuality.
Detransitioners have increasingly begun speaking out about the medical abuses they have endured as a result of gender ideology. One such brave young woman, Chloe Cole, told the California state assembly of her experiences. Cole is 17 years old and was medically transitioned from the ages of 13 to 16.
Unfortunately, Cole’s testimony was not heeded by the California state assembly, which instead sided with the lobbyists being funded by pharmaceutical industries rather than prioritizing the health of children and the rights of parents to protect them from exploitation.
In effect, the medical abuse of a young girl attempting to flee womanhood was pitted against the testimonies of three well-funded men who share the belief that womanhood can be reduced to objectifying constructs — and the state sided with the men.
Chloe Cole told the California state assembly:
“My parents took me to a therapist who affirmed my male identity, and the therapist did not care about causality or encourage me to learn to be comfortable with my body. He brushed off my parents’ concerns about the efficacy of hormones, puberty blockers, and surgeries.
My parents were given the threat of suicide as a reason to move me forward in my transition. My endocrinologist, after two or three appointments, put me on puberty blockers and injectable testosterone.
At age 15, I asked to remove my breasts. My therapist continued to affirm me in my transition. I attended a top surgery class that was filled with around twelve girls that thought they were men, most were my age or younger.
None of us were going to be men. We were fleeing from the uncomfortable feeling of becoming women.
I was unknowingly physically cutting off my true self from my body, irreversibly and painfully. Our trans identities were not questioned. I went through with surgery. Despite having therapists and attending the top surgery class, I really didn’t understand all the ramifications of any of the medical decisions I was making. I wasn’t capable of understanding and it was downplayed consistently.
My parents, on the other hand, were pressured to continue my so-called ‘gender journey’ with suicide threat.
I will never be able to breastfeed a child. I have blood clots in my urine. I am unable to fully empty my bladder. I do not yet know if I am capable of carrying a child to full term. In fact, even the doctors who put me on puberty blockers and testosterone do not know.
Children cannot consent.”