The War Against the Planned Parenthood Organisation’; and we ought to begin with some historical context, in contrast with modern perceptions. So, today, a notable proportion of women in the country begin utilising a form of contraception at a young age. However, in the 1800s and early 1900s, usage of contraceptives was far less common due to laws prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives or simply information about contraceptives via mail or in other non-approved settings. Margaret Sanger sought to change this. Margaret Sanger is largely known for her work as an ambitious feminist leading the birth control revolution in America and, largely, around the world. However, Sanger’s motivations behind this work had dark roots in racism and eugenics.

Specifically, Sanger’s writings shed light on underlying motives of Sanger in her movement toward family planning: eugenics and racism. Sanger strongly backed the field of eugenics and saw birth control as an innovative and safe way to medically allow for limiting the abilities of certain populations to reproduce. Her eugenic beliefs also found themselves rooted in race, greatly affecting African American populations in America and furthering beliefs that people of color were lesser than or appropriate for being used as test subjects for medical advancements. Both of these belief systems drove Sanger’s fight for widespread, easy access to birth control in America.

For one, Sanger was a strong proponent of eugenics, and many of her writings demonstrated the clear link she saw between controlling reproduction of certain groups and birth control. Sanger believed that the country was suffering greatly due to uncontrolled reproduction, specifically the unstable majority of the so-called “feeble-minded” ─ which were primarily people of other races, and those living in impoverished conditions. And at the time, it was thought that feeble-mindedness was associated with “abnormally high rate[s] of fertility” ─ which was described as a “biological menace” ─ and many eugenicists believed that reproduction of feeble-minded people would only result in pauperism or insanity in the following generation.

Well, in light of this, Margaret Sanger argued so-called feeble-minded people should not be granted the  personal liberty to reproduce as much as “normal people”. Rather, she proposed the segregation and sterilization of feeble-minded groups. Specifically, she argued that every feeble-minded girl in her childbearing age needed to be segregated in order to prevent her from bearing “imbecile children”. Sanger also argued that “the male defectives are no less dangerous”, claiming that segregation of women would only handle part of the problem, and therefore, the immediate sterilization of men was needed in order to ensure that “parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded”. Therefore, Sanger demonstrated clear objections to free abilities to reproduce in “lesser than” groups of society, and she recognised the way in which birth control could help prevent population growth in the so-called feeble-minded groups.

Moreover, Sanger was particularly an important figure establishing the link between birth control and eugenics, as she saw it as a means toward backing the ideas of then-prominent eugenicists. She noted that eugenicists had been given “proof that reckless spawning carries with it the seeds of destruction” and saw birth control as the solution for eugenicists to aid in reducing the population of feeble-minded citizens. Sanger claimed “Birth control… is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method, and its adoption as part of the program of Eugenics would immediately give a concrete and realistic power to that science”. It is therefore clear that Sanger was a prominent figure in connecting a eugenics “problem” to the “solution” of birth control. All of this is to say that birth control, including abortion, had their beginnings in eugenics.

These eugenicist influences are also historically evidenced in Margaret Sanger’s writings and speeches. Years before the atrocities of Hitler upon the Jewish people during World War II, Sanger exposed herself as a racist and eugenicist. In her piece Morality and Birth Control, Sanger said that birth control “must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race” and that “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class.”

Also, on the topic of birth control, Sanger said in her book titled ‘Woman and the New Race’ that birth control “is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.” Then, on eugenics and selective breeding, Sanger wrote in her autobiography, (quote) “The eugenists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back to that and sought to first stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” (end quote). And so, evidently, her (own) words leave little question about Sanger’s views on race, the poor, and the disabled. Because of remarks like these, Planned Parenthood has struggled to remove the stain that Sanger herself left on her organisation.

But, it is not without trying: initially, Planned Parenthood and its cohort of allies tried to brand Sanger as a radical feminist of her time (not that that is inherently plausible). For instance, there have been many an article or glorification piece written about Margaret Sengar, on publications such as Time Magazine. And this branding of Margaret Sengar as a feminist has been a deliberate propaganda campaign. But, again, when you listen to Margaret Sengar’s own words, you realise it is hard to deduce genuine interest in women’ suffering, and what tends to stand out more is what I would call the feminist classics: namely, a misconception of society fuelled by a wrong ideology and worldview (in her case eugenics), bitterness from personal frustration, and the antagonisation of Christians and traditional values, such as the Church as a whole, as well as family and marriage.

LIBERALS HAVE LONG PRETENDED NOT TO KNOW MARGARET SANGER’S EUGENICIST HISTORY

Again, what is ironic about all of this is that many ultra-liberal and so-called politically correct people have long tried to maintain the pretence that Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood are models of what advocacy for women’s rights and liberty ought to look like. From the leadership at Planned Parenthood, to democrat politicians and executives in similarly aligned organisations – all of these parties tried to sell society on the lie that an organisation that sought to destroy some of them was somehow their liberator and ally in modern considerations of civil rights.

Well, that was until people began to ask the right questions, and looked beneath the feminist veil that cloaked Margaret Sanger’s reputation; and quickly it became difficult to pretend that Magaret Sanger was a feminist icon to be celebrated. And this was perhaps exemplified when, in April of 2021, The New York Times published an article titled “I’m the Head of Planned Parenthood. We’re Done Making Excuses for Our Founder”. In the piece, Alexis Johnson, the president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood, tried to put some distance between the founder and the organisation. Her words are damning; stating that (quote) “Up until now, Planned Parenthood has failed to own the impact of our founder’s actions. We have defended Sanger as a protector of bodily autonomy and self-determination, while excusing her association with white supremacist groups and eugenics as an unfortunate ‘product of her time.’” Johnson continues to state that, “…[Sanger] endorsed the Supreme Court’s 1927 decision in Buck vs Bell, which allowed states to sterilize people deemed ‘unfit’ without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge…” and, that “Sanger remains an influential part of our history and will not be but that Planned Parenthood must fully take responsibility for the harm that Sanger caused to generations of people with disabilities and Black, Latino, Asian-American, and Indigenous people.”

But, this article must still be viewed in light of the context it was published. It was published in 2021 – which is the politically correct, post-George Floyd riots era – where organisations with a tainted past had to pacify black people in a disingenuous effort to show some resemblance of comradery, while actually trying to maintain their customer loyalty.  But, before we proceed, here are democrats and liberals pretending that planned parenthood is the most important thing to ever happen to liberal democracies and civil rights discourse – you know, while pretending to be oblivious to its eugenicist aims.

THE MODERN EUGENICIST IMPACT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD ON AFRICAN AMERICANS

Now, someone could say: well, that was the past: Margaret Sanger is no longer at the helm of Planned Parenthood, and recent leadership has a new and non-eugenicist focus. To which I’d like to then propose that we evaluate the present-day contraceptive usage among African Americans. In essence, when we examine the rate of abortion in the United States, the words of Planned Parenthood‘s current leader fall flat. Her implication that the racially motivated quest of their founder was true but part of the past is questionable.

African Americans, in particular, have been disproportionately harmed by the evils of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger. In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control reported that the abortion rate among Black women was 24.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44, while White women had a much lower rate of 6.2 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. Moreover, although only 12.4% of the total U.S. population is Black, 39.2% of all abortions were performed on Black women.

Since 1973, more than 64 million babies have been aborted in the United States. Of this number, more than 20 million of them were Black babies. But the disparity doesn’t stop there. Not only are babies who are a racial minority aborted at significantly higher rates, but so are babies who are diagnosed with a disability. A 1995-2011 study estimates that among babies with a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome in the U.S., anywhere from 60%-93% were aborted. Unfortunately, prenatal testing has a high rate of false positives. Dr. Tara Sander Lee of the Charlotte Lozier Institute writes that, “Flipping a coin would be just as accurate,” as the Natera screening for Down syndrome in low-risk pregnancies. Thankfully, North Carolina passed a law in 2023 that prohibits abortions due to an unborn child’s race, sex, or Down syndrome diagnosis.

While Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s discrimination against racial minorities and people with disabilities, the national statistics do not back up their claims. And, while they do not speak of “weeding out the unfit,” there is no question that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, continues to follow eugenic practices that are more damaging to racial minorities and disabled individuals. And so, one of the actual big “inequities” facing black Americans is that they make up only 13 percent of the US population, yet account for about 40 percent of all abortions. Thankfully, many – especially in the Body of Christ have been fighting against this anomaly for years. For instance, 6 years ago when PP sought to open a new branch in Charlotte, North Carolina, Church leaders protested the effort, also raising awareness about the number of abortions being conducted in African American neighbourhoods.

Now, here is another reason we are discussing all of this today: The Biggest Planned Parenthood in the US Is Closing! When Planned Parenthood Prevention Park opened in Houston in May 2010, more than a dozen protesters demonstrated outside the 78,000-square-foot edifice, picketing, singing, and even weeping. This location gained widespread attention in 2015 when the Center for Medical Progress published clandestine videos from the clinic.

Many of the city’s pro-life organizations sprouted within a 15-mile radius of Prevention Park. Demand for their services was reported to have been on the rise since the Texas abortion ban took effect in 2022, BUT, this all culminated in a closure!

So, in October, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s operations will be taken over by Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, per local media reports. With the consolidation comes the closures of Prevention Park and a clinic in southwest Houston, leaving four remaining facilities on the outskirts of the city. In neighboring Louisiana, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast announced it will cease operations entirely, shuttering both the Baton Rouge and New Orleans clinics. Planned Parenthood also confirmed the closures but did not respond to requests for further comment.

In any case, pressure on Planned Parenthood has been intensifying for years, with Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin stripping away state dollars, mostly by removing Planned Parenthood’s eligibility for programs like Medicaid or Title X. This followed controversies surrounding how planned parenthood was utilising its allocated resources. In particular, with the $792 million Planned Parenthood receives in taxpayer funds annually, they performed approximately 1,100 abortions per day; administered synthetic hormones to minors and promoted trans ideology; and also supported the Democratic party politically in an effort to defeat Republicans in elections.

In addition to all of this, the ironically named Planned Parenthood has been notorious for predominantly pushing women towards abortion through their advocacy efforts and public campaigns. For example, in 2022, PPFA and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund launched a $16 million media campaign to raise awareness about abortion access amid threats to Roe v. Wade, emphasizing the right to abortion and targeting voters in key states. This included ads like “Our Bodies, Our Futures, Our Abortions” and relaunching sites like BansOffOurBodies.org. In 2024, they spent $40 million to support Democratic candidates who backed abortion rights, framing abortion as a critical electoral issue. These efforts aggressively promoted abortion, especially since Planned Parenthood’s political arm, called the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, engages in so-called voter education and lobbying to protect and expand abortion access. Here’s more on how they concealed information from state-sponsored booklets from a former worker.

However, thankfully, the tide is continuously shifting, in addition to the closure we see developing in Texas. In fact, with respect to formal legal recourse, the Supreme Court in the US has ruled in a 6-3 decision in the Medina v. Planned Parenthood case that state Medicaid programs can DEFUND Planned Parenthood. This is a huge breakthrough for the cause of life. Planned Parenthood should absolutely NOT receive a dime of taxpayer money. SIMILARLY, In June this year, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene launches investigation into Planned Parenthood’s use of taxpayer funds. And also incredibly, especially from a youth focus, in a groundbreaking lawsuit, detransitioner Cristina Hineman is taking on Planned Parenthood for its role in handing out opposite-sex hormone prescriptions like candy.

In addition to these measures of formal legal recourse, you’d recall the judge ruling, from a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey accusing Planned Parenthood of transporting minors out of state for abortions will move forward. The lawsuit is based on conversations between Planned Parenthood staff and a man from a conservative activist group who secretly filmed the staff while inquiring about an abortion for his fake 13-year-old niece. The video, which was captured in December, was posted on social media by the conservative activist group and self-proclaimed right wing news organisation that often conducts undercover stings.

Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which runs the Kansas City area clinic where the video was taken, asked that the judge dismiss the lawsuit shortly after it was filed. Furthermore, at a hearing in early June, John Andrew Hirth, an attorney for Planned Parenthood, said there was no proof the Kansas City area clinic broke the law. However, the Boone County Judge, Brouck Jacobs, found merit for moving forward with the case. This is an excerpt of the video in question.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

THE U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES REFUTES THE CLAIM OF GENDER AFFIRMING CARE

And now onto our main discussion on the recent war against gender affirming care. To begin with, children diagnosed with gender dysphoria a condition defined by distress related to one’s biological sex or associated gender roles—are increasingly being offered powerful medical interventions. These include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and, in some cases, irreversible surgeries such as mastectomy, vaginoplasty, or phalloplasty.

Recently, an umbrella review from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) states that “thousands of American children and adolescents have received these interventions,” despite a lack of solid scientific footing. In addition, while advocates often claim the treatments are “medically necessary” and “lifesaving,” the report concludes “the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects of any intervention on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long-term health, is very low.” It also cautions that evidence of harm is sparse—but not necessarily because harms are rare, but due to limited long-term data, weak tracking, and publication bias. But, ultimately, the review amounts to a scathing review of the assumptions, ethics, and clinical practices driving gender-affirming care in the US.

“GENDER AFFIRMING CARE” IS BASED ON A DIGRESSION FROM MEDICAL ETHICS

First, at the heart of the HHS critique is a reversal of medical norms. To appreciate this, we would have to consider that in many areas of medicine, treatments are first established as safe and effective in adults before being extended to paediatric populations. However, in the case of gender affirming care, the opposite occurred!

This is to say that despite inconclusive outcomes in adults, these interventions were rolled out for children without rigorous data, and with little regard for long-term, often irreversible consequences. This includes irreversible consequences such as infertility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone development, elevated cardiovascular risk, and psychiatric complications.

For example, puberty blockers, frequently marketed as a reversible ‘pause,’ actually interrupt bone mineralisation at a critical growth stage—raising the risk of stunted skeletal growth and early-onset osteoporosis. When followed by cross-sex hormones, as is common, the harms multiply. Known risks include metabolic disruption, blood clots, sterility, and permanent loss of sexual function. And yet, many clinics operate under a “child-led care” model, where a minor’s self-declared “embodiment goals” dictate treatment.

However, another issue with the child led model used in gender affirming care (in addition to its existence as a model), is the fact it is not based on any credible science – because children do not have a valid and objectively factual reason to claim gender dysphoria, without influence from environmental factors (i.e. social contagion, or the impact that contaminated food and pharmaceutical interventions have on hormones and biological development). This cannot be stressed enough, there is no such thing as organic gender dysphoria – there literally is no scientific basis for it AT ALL! RATHER, where its normalisation comes from is the intercession of medical science and social politics, meaning that it is the product of medical science being heavily influenced by pressure from those lobbying to make sectors of society bend towards political correctness and the LGBT agenda – thus leading to social contagion!

ARE CHILDREN CAPABLE OF CONSENTING TO LIFE-ALTERING MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS?

This brings us to one of the most critical issues to consider in the discussion on so-called gender affirming care – being child consent. More specifically, we ought to ask: Are children capable of consenting to life-altering medical interventions? Generally, we understand informed consent as meaning more than simple agreement informed consent requires a deep understanding of risks, alternatives, and long-term impact (meaning consequences of a choice or action).

This means that, by definition, children often lack full legal and developmental capacity for medical decision-making – because they do not possess sufficient maturity and mental reasoning or processing capacities to understand the gravity of irreversible decisions, beyond a temporary fixation of an assumed benefit. Therefore, when medical interventions pose unnecessary, disproportionate risks of harm, healthcare providers should refuse to offer them even when they are preferred, requested, or demanded by an under-age patient!

THE DECEPTIVELY CONSTRUCTED “MATURE MINOR DOCTRINE

But, the medical industrial complex that benefits from these procedures created a loophole to this issue on minor consent, through collaborating with lawmakers to form the mature minor or minor consent doctrine in a number of states – starting with vaccination and thus creating precedent for gender transitions. In essence, “Minor consent” – which refers to a child being legally able to consent to vaccinations or other treatments without parental consent – exists in multiple US states. For example, in California, minor consent is legal for some vaccines beginning at age 12, while in New York, there is no set lower age limit for a child to consent to Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination. Washington State is among the most extreme. The pro-vaccine organisation Vaxteen describes Washington’s “mature minor doctrine” as follows. They state that: In Washington, minors of any age do not need their parent’s consent to receive all healthcare services, including vaccinations. This is called a “mature minor doctrine” and essentially means that if you talk to your doctor/healthcare provider and they decide you are “mature enough” to make your own health care decisions, you can.

Of course, it is still vague what mature enough would mean, and based on how proponents of child mutilation surgeries have run away from directly addressing the argument that children are not mature enough to make decisions on permanent or temporary health decisions, you can probably deduce that there is no objective metric to measure the maturity of a child.

Well, in an interesting shift in events, even members of the alphabet community are recognizing that there is no basis for informed consent in so-called gender affirming care. For instance, Jamie Reed testified on the 9th of May in Maine in support of bill LD380, which would require parental consent to medicalise a minor. She correctly differentiates between consent and assent, detailing that in medical procedures driven by minors, at best all those children can provide is assent, meaning agreement to allowing the procedure to take place. However, this does not amount to informed consent, because often the children do not know the extent of the changes and harm they are agreeing to. The pendulum is swinging towards common sense.

Based on this concession from even the alphabet people, it further emphasises that supportive parents cannot shield clinicians from ethical responsibility. Especially considering that any children who present for transition also have autism, trauma histories, depression, or anxiety all of which can impair decision-making. Yet clinicians frequently misread a child’s desire to transition as evidence of capacity.

But, once again, there is no such thing as organic gender dysphoria (meaning gender dysphoria that is not influenced by environmental factors). And not only is there no organic gender dysphoria, but the actual mental illnesses that children are struggling with are being ignored, in order to justify the claim of gender dysphoria. There was even a trend (especially among medical professionals) of not questioning the unstable nature of gender dysphoria claims, and rather affirming the so-called transgender children, in the name of compassion. But, Vivek Ramaswamy correctly stated that that trend was based on a false dichotomy, that resulted in the assumption that compassion can only come with affirming gender dysphoria claims.

Ultimately, there is a general consensus that children are not regarded as fully mature beings who are capable of complete expression or legal consent. The reason for this is that children, in all that they progressively learn, do not always fully appreciate the complex concepts (which is why complex concepts are simplified and taught at their level of understanding), and they are also not fully able to appreciate the consequences of actions, even when they are taught those actions are wrong or right: as I’ve said before, this is part of the reason why five year olds do not drive, or why children do not have legal standing to represent themselves in court, or even why it is considered negligent for an adult to leave a child alone near a large body of water. And so, what is claimed to be intuitive knowledge from a child when they claim to be “mis-gendered” can not be regarded as an objective fact. Furthermore, it is to fail the parental or medical duty to care when children are allowed to transition, while making permanent decisions based on temporary feelings.

“GENDER AFFIRMING CARE” REPRESENTS A MORAL PROBLEM IN MODERN MEDICINE AND LAW

Considering that the medical industrial complex has manufactured a doctrine of minor consent to perform mutilation procedures on children despite the irreversible harms, it becomes evident that the problem is not only medical it’s moral. In light of this, in the aforementioned HSS report, the HHS accuses the medical establishment of abandoning its core duty: which is to protect vulnerable patients. The HHS argues that ideology and activism have taken precedence over evidence and caution.

This is to say that the evidence of the benefit of paediatric medical transition is very uncertain, while the evidence for harm is less uncertain. And among the most disturbing trends highlighted in the report is the sidelining of mental health support. Research suggests that most cases of claimed paediatric gender dysphoria resolve without intervention. Yet clinicians continue to proceed with irreversible treatments. Meanwhile, medical professionals have no way to know which patients may continue to experience the claimed gender dysphoria and which will come to terms with their bodies. This means that they perform treatments that aren’t based on a genuinely conceived mandate to care for the patient, but based on a careless disregard for their duty to care! A detransitioner adds to this account..

Well, you’d recall that in light of this, the Supreme Court in the US heard arguments of gender affirming care in December 2024, and indicated that the majority was leaning toward upholding a Tennessee law that restricts so-called gender transition treatments for minors. Now, this case (in essence) decides whether, under the US constitution, states are allowed to outlaw child mutilation in the name of gender ideology. But, now, a few years or even months back, this case would have been inconceivable because it was considered inherently wrong to allow children to consent to irreversible harm, which would be inclusive of the almost irreversible procedures that are conducted of so-called transgender children. Of course, what then happened is that trans activists intimidated people who opposed gender ideology (especially through the incorporation of cancel culture). What also happened is that there were a number of woke activist judges who were co-opted into the court system.

For instance, while the Supreme Court was hearing a case on whether banning the medical transitioning of minors violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, Justice Sotomayor argued that children denied “gender affirming care” may kill themselves or become drug addicts.

Let’s (once again) address this alleged threat of suicide, where children are denied so-called gender affirming care, as also articulated by Justice Sotomayor. I believe that this threat only has an impact because it is not actually analysed. And I do not necessarily blame parents for this: when a parent is told that their child is at risk of ending their life, that easily seems like the worst case scenario and thus has the potential to dilute their concerns about child mutilation, if they do not understand the full extent of the harms that child mutilation also brings. And so, compassion will likely move parents to want to save their children (at least as they are coerced to) – especially if they do not fully understand what the transition would mean for their children.

And so, to address this claim of suicide, let’s look at children (or former children) who are now speaking out against allowing minors to make choices that have an irreversable impact on them. SPOILER ALERT: these children and young adults are advocating hard against allowing minors to make such decisions because they are now dealing with the consequences of having been allowed to make decisions with permanent ramifications on the basis of temporary feelings. This is an excerpt from a documentary titled ‘THE GENDER AGENDA’, produced by the President of Loveworld Incorporated, and available on the Ceflix platform. He documentary zoomed in on cases of minors who were reflecting on having been allowed to make the decision to mutilate themselves.

What is interesting to note, is that children who opted for child mutilation, were actually coerced into it because even they were told they would end their lives if they did not transition! So, it appears that the threat of suicide originated from the medical practitioners who perform these surgeries of distribute the puberty blockers! SECONDLY, if children are not being told that THEY will end their lives if they do not opt for mutilation, they are often already struggling with mental health issues, like depression. Therefore, even in this instance, parents are not risking the lives of their children by refusing to opt for child mutilation – because the depression and mental health issue would exist independent of the option for mutilation or “transitioning”.

Finally, in refuting the suicide claim tha tis used to coerce parents, it is worth noting, especially from the young lady towards the end of the excerpt we just watched from the documentary, that a massive contributor to mental illness or depression is the regret that comes from having undergone the child mutilation processes and then realise that even when you detransition, you may never gain back your biological experiences and privileges, like starying a family. We all watched her weep and lament the sense that she does not think anyone can love her anymore, which I genuinely hope she knows is not true, because even if she was the only person on earth, Christ would have still died for her in his unwavering love for her.

THE GENDER ARE GENDER AS A WEAPON OF POLITICAL MANOEUVRING

But, seeing how gender affirming care has been systematically pushed, we also have to not miss that it has been organised as a political weapon – that is even being wielded by activist judges. And the idea that the gender agenda is a tool of political manoeuvring is not a mere statement or semantics – it really has become utilised in this manner. For instance, those who are proponents of the agenda use it to gain certain privileges or to institute changes in society that are to their favour – no matter how ridiculous. For instance, LA City in June 2024 took down a couple “no U-turn” traffic signs in Silver Lake, California because the signs are anti-LGBTQ. Really, it is almost disturbing how much this is a group that so desperately wants to be “oppressed” or “marginalised”, because that somehow validates their existence.

But, the use of the gender agenda as a political manoeuvering tool is not exclusive to privileges of the change to social standards and law; the gender agenda is now also mechanism for targeting those who dissent to it. In fact, we recently discussed the story of the DOJ’s charge against Dr Ethain Haim in Texas. More specifically, the DOJ unsealed an indictment against Dr Eithan Haim, who last year leaked evidence of cross-sex hormone procedures being performed at a Texas hospital despite the facility claiming to have halted them, with the surgeon facing four felony counts for alleged violations of a medical-records law that could land him in prison for up to 10 years. The DOJ announced on June 17 that it had charged Dr Haim for obtaining protected individual health information for patients who were not under his care, allegedly acting without authorisation and with intent to cause malicious harm to Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH).

We also discussed the fact that, in this case, the controversy actually centers on the fact that the TCH, which the largest children’s hospital in the country, publicly declared in March 2022 that it was halting “hormone-related prescription therapies for gender-affirming services” for minors, citing potential legal and criminal liability after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton declared that prescription of puberty blockers was “child abuse” under Texas law. And that, however, the documents leaked by Dr. Haim purportedly showed that the hospital continued to perform some “gender-affirming” therapies after the announcement, including one procedure on an 11-year-old three days after it made the declaration. And so, he was actually functioning as a whistleblower against an institution that was breaking the law in this case.

Written y Lindokuhle Mabaso