BREAKING: the judge in the #ProtectJamesYounger case has ruled that the father will have a say over medical decisions, including the "transition" of his son. This is the best outcome we could hope for in a horrible situation all around. I think our outcry made a real difference.— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) October 24, 2019
I'm less sanguine about this development. It may well be that the judge was caught off-guard by the scale of the backlash, both popular and by other segments of the TX political establishment. But the judge has the final say, and to my knowledge the judge has consistently sided with the mother.
My suspicion is that the judge's action is a ruse to preempt the state investigation (by the TX Attorney General's office and the Texas dept. of Family & Protective Services). It takes some pressure off the judge. The story dies down. The judge might then side with the mother on puberty blocks and cross-hormone "therapy". While that would instigate a new campaign and might launch a new state investigation, it buys the mother time to press ahead with her plans to chemically castrate the boy.
Keep in mind, too, that you can't count on having social conservatives in the TX political establishment in years to come. The balance of power might shift.
BTW, the judge is up for reelection. Hopefully voters will turn her out of office.
So I'm inclined to be cynical about the judge's latest ruling. The only outcome that matters is what actually happens to the boy. It would be fatally naive for social conservatives to assume we "won", that's safely behind us, and it's time to move on to other issues. Don't take your eyes of this case. Keep monitoring developments.
I agree.
ReplyDeleteAnd the boy will tragically continue to be horrifically traumatized every moment he spends with his mother.
Apparently the mother is a pediatrician who has been getting terrible reviews online in part because she tries to meddle in other people's lives. Like trying to persuade other people's kids about transitioning their sons into "daughters".
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong here, but she might be practicing outside her scope of practice and/or failing to provide standard of care practice as a pediatrician. (I would have thought this falls under the purview of a child psychiatrist, not necessarily a pediatrician.) If so, then she could open herself to medico-legal action against her. She could potentially even be stripped of her medical license. In any case, something social conservatives could look into.