Defending the family

Share on MeWe Share on Gab E-mail article

Supreme Court: Public Advocate Upholds Ban on Butchering Children for Sex Changes

"The Butchering of children for sex changes is outlawed in 26 states and our brief filed before the Supreme Court upholds bans on such sugery. Some hospitals and government agencies ignore these bans but most governors and Attorney generals enforce the laws due to vigilant whistleblowers and complaints by detransition heros like Chole Cole and others. In this case we are attempting to reduce the comparison of necessary medical practices with optional and unnecesary removal of sexual organs or body parts for the transgender theory, taxpayers should not support transgender theory," says Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate.

To add weight to the brief and share the costs, we include others to our briefs as a regular protocol," says Delgaudio.

William Olson is our Public Advocate counsel.

EUGENE DELGAUDIO, PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCATE STATEMENT

Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate says "Our Public Advocate amicus brief filed today urges the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit decision ordering West Virginia Medicaid to pay for gender transition procedures.

The opinion was based on modern transgender ideology, finding no difference between removal of cancerous tissue and removing healthy body parts.

The Fourth Circuit based its decision on that court's Grimm v. Gloucester Co. School Board case - a case in which our firm filed four amicus briefs to prevent a girl from accessing the boys restroom. Now that seemingly innocuous (and erroneous) precedent is being badly misused. The circuit court relied on Standards of Care of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health ("WPATH"), but in recent months, an abundance of evidence has surfaced that WPATH is an advocacy group, not an independent medical organization.

Even the American Society of Plastic Surgeons rescinded its support for and is reassessing its position on transgender surgery. There was no justification to expand the Equal Protection Clause to require dangerous and irreversible procedures to make persons suffering a type of mental disorder feel better about themselves, " said Delgaudio.

LINK TO THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE BRIEF HERE