ADAM COLEMAN: ACLU's lawsuit against child sex changes smudges legal line between children and adults

There is a socially agreed upon line that distinctly separates children from adults, beginning at the age of 18, allowing us to discard our childish ways under guardianship and live a fully accountable life where our decisions, no matter how harmful they are, become our own to bear.

This separation is meant to protect children from themselves, as their weakness is seeing beyond what is right in front of them. Their desire for instant gratification and affirmation is what they want in the moment, but the adults in the room understand that what you may want now is not always what's best for you in the long run.

However, there are activist organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), that are purposefully attempting to have society question this line's legitimacy under the guise of equal rights and protections.

On May 10, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the state of Montana over a bill recently signed into law by the governor banning child sex changes alleging that this bill violates the Montana Constitution which states, "No person shall be denied equal protection of the laws." 

Montana has become the latest of several states that are being sued by the ACLU for banning child medical transitioning, including Indiana.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU alleges: "The Act, on its face and as applied, denies patients equal protection of the laws on the basis of their gender identity, transgender status, and sex. It discriminates on the basis of gender identity, which is also a form of discrimination on the basis of sex."

Emily Flower, Attorney General Austin Knudsen's spokeswoman, rebuked the ACLU's claims by stating, "The new law provides commonsense protections for Montana children - who can't even enter into contracts or buy cigarettes or alcohol - from harmful, life-altering medications and surgeries. This lawsuit is an attempt by a leftist organization to push their radical, fact-free gender ideology on Montanans and circumvent the lawmaking process since they didn't get their way in the election."

Their lawsuit also claims that this law also violates a parent's right to transition their child as they deem necessary, including the parent's right to seek irreversible surgeries and hormones for their children. 

"The fundamental right of a parent to make decisions regarding the care of their children, including, among other things, the 'upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of their children.'"

What the ACLU is attempting to do is conflate the rights of adults and children by arguing that Montana's constitution of equal treatment must be applied throughout the age spectrum, which is a radical advocacy of law.

Children are not given the full range of rights as adults, and this is purposefully done to protect children. Yet, the ACLU is so singularly minded on producing the outcomes of allowing children to transition to the gender of their choice that they're willing to cast aside social and legal norms to achieve it.

The alleged treatments that they're advocating for children are all experimental and elective procedures, meaning there is no emergency health risk by not committing to having children undergo chemical castration through puberty blockers or any other life-altering surgeries as a child.

Child transition advocates are attempting to use high-risk, permanent chemical and surgical procedures as a method to affirm and remedy the mental anguish of children when there is no other circumstance that we would allow children to endure this level of health risk to indirectly resolve a health problem.

As if arguing for the child's right to consent to mutilation isn't enough, the ACLU is also attempting to challenge how the law violates a parent's right to co-sign their child's desire to transition.

While parents have the right to dictate their child's upbringing and health care, parents aren't given complete autonomy over their children. Parents are still tasked with upholding certain standards under the law as to how they treat their children.

A parent may decide that they are perfectly fine with feeding their child dog food and keeping them in a basement cellar, but this behavior would be considered a gross violation of the treatment of their child, requiring the state to remove the child from the home for the child's protection.

With children, we should always err on the side of caution and remain vigilantly wary of people and organizations that are attempting to step on that protective line between children and adults.

If that line disappears, so will the safety of our children.


Image: Title: gianforte romero
ADVERTISEMENT

Opinion

View All

Charlie Kirk and Michael Seifert: Google Ai’s wokeness isn’t just a bug, it indicates a deeper sickness

"This tech giant that used to be sort of the pinnacle of innovation has now revealed that they're not...

West End theater bans white people from performances of play about slavery

"Let's not act as though we do not know that culturally black audiences and white audiences respond t...

DAVID KRAYDEN: Nikki Haley is the new Liz Cheney

Her game is not about winning but about making victory for former President Donald Trump as agonizing...