Sometimes, and for some of us, it does not seem possible that certain news stories could possibly have an element of truth to them. Yet, Fox reported that in Seattle girls as young as 11 years old are able to obtain IUDs, without parental consent.
As if that were not bad enough, Fox also reported that 15 year-olds in Oregon may get gender reassignment surgery without parental consent, and paid for by the State's Medicaid program. Fox noted that a 15 year-old in Oregon could not drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo or go to a tanning salon. Snopes took issue with the Fox story. Yet, they did not disprove nor negate the essential elements of the story. Snopes reported that the age of consent for medical treatment in Oregon has been 15 since 1971. (My guess would be that such a measure was enacted to allow for abortions.)
However, Snopes also agreed that in early 2015 Oregon did include "gender dysphoria" as one of the conditions covered by the state's Medicaid program. The real beef that Snopes seemed to have was the way the article was written - the spin. There was no proof that a 15 year-old had yet undergone such a surgery. There was no indication that a doctor would be willing to perform such a surgery without parental consent.
So, accepting the Snopes' version - so what? Who actually believes that a 15 year-old is mature enough, with enough life experience, to make a decision that will affect them for the rest of their lives? Who believes that a 15 year-old should even have the power to make such a decision? This is insanity; or, as Michael Savage says, a "mental disorder."
Reference was made to an article by the "Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry." That article referred to a 2008 study claiming that "most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty." Johns Hopkins Medical Center apparently stopped performing gender reassignment surgeries after at least one study revealed that, long term, the suicide rate for transgendered individuals was about 20 times higher than that for a comparable non-transgendered population.
Just a thought. Notice has Obama has no problem linking the deaths of blacks to racism. It does not matter that so many blacks are killed by other blacks. It's racism. So how come Obama is unable to see the connection between the deaths of thousands around the world with radical Islam. I guess racism is rampant, but radical Islam is non-existent. Or, does Obama, as a leftist, let his beliefs dictate his reality? Such a refusal/inability to view the world accurately might just be considered a mental disorder.
Whoever thought that the idea of "sanctuary cities" made any sense? As noted in my 3 part series entitled "The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny," we are no longer a country of laws applied equally. If we were, certain people (Lois Lerner? Hillary Clinton?) might face prosecution. The idea of sanctuary cities merely reinforces the notion that anybody can do what they want. It is outrageous for local governments to claim that they do not need to comply with federal immigration laws. Well, mostly outrageous.
Part of the problem is that the federal government often will not enforce their own immigration laws. Now, an illegal immigrant who was a convicted felon and deported 5 times, was free to roam the streets of San Francisco and murder a 32 year-old woman named Kathryn Steinle. The Feds, specifically ICE, asked SF to keep the perpetrator in custody if they were going to release him. ICE had turned him over to the local authorities for prosecution on a drug charge. But the locals decided not to prosecute and released the soon to be murderer.
The locals decided they had no obligation to hold the man absent a warrant or court order. In fact, based on one federal district judge's decision, the locals felt it was illegal to detain the man. This is all insanity. If someone who is a convicted felon and who has been deported 5 times cannot be held by local authorities until ICE can pick him up, there is something very wrong and laws need to be changed.
The first change should be eliminating all federal aid to cities or states that pass sanctuary laws. The next obvious problem is the porous border. This perpetrator was deported 5 times and made it back in a sixth time, allowing him to commit murder. Deporting him again would have been meaningless. We need to strengthen our border security; and if the only way to do so is to build a wall then let's do it. If our border is that porous, then perhaps we need to institute prison time for violation of our immigration laws.
I would exclude minors from any prison time. And I would not agree with a 5 year sentence for an initial violation, as some have proposed. Rather, if we pursue such a policy, I would give increasing amounts of time for each new violation. Perhaps 6 months initially, then 1 1/2
years, then 3 years, then 5 years. It appears that some deterrent is needed.
But, now you sound like Donald Trump. No. No one has been able to explain to me why those citizens of nearby countries should be allowed to come here illegally, just because they can walk across the border, while citizens of far away countries mostly wait in line for the proper paperwork and opportunity to come. Do you allow your neighbors where you live to sneak into your house anytime they want to do so? I doubt anyone does - not even liberals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment