Regarding irreversible intervention, better later than sooner

Regarding irreversible intervention, better later than sooner

Regarding irreversible intervention, better later than sooner

A federal judge in the Sooner State has ruled that the current law against minors receiving "gender-affirming" treatments and surgeries is a "rational" one.

In the most recent legislative session, Oklahoma lawmakers passed and Governor Kevin Stitt (R) signed into law Senate Bill 613, which protects minors from gender manipulation and mutilation.

State Senator David Bullard (R), who carried the bill, says it is wrong to perform gender transition procedures on children. In fact, he suggests allowing them to mutilate their bodies is ultimately deadly.

"The studies have proven time and time again that 7-10 years after these surgeries, people are 19-20 times – not percentage, 19-20 times – more likely to commit suicide," Bullard relays. "We're killing these people by telling them we can cure their confusion by cutting them up."

Bullard, David (R-OK) Bullard

Surgery, he insists, does not cure mental problems, gender dysphoria in this case, and U.S. District Court Judge John Heil III appears to agree. He recently denied the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its cohorts a preliminary injunction against the new law.

"The Oklahoma Legislature can rationally take the side of caution before permitting irreversible medical treatments of its children," Judge Heil wrote in his order.

Sen. Bullard celebrates that but understands the fight is not over.

"If you think that the Left is going to just give you this country back, you're not thinking right, and you're not paying attention," he says. "This is but one attack, and we have so many of these different attacks on our kids that we have to stop."

"This is proof that we can win," Bullard adds about the court victory. "This is proof that we need to keep moving forward to protect our kids and our freedoms."

At least 22 states now have laws restricting or banning so-called "gender-affirming care" for minors, and most of those states face lawsuits similar to the one in Oklahoma.

In Arkansas, after a federal judge declared its ban unconstitutional in June – the first ruling to overturn such a prohibition – the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the state's request that a full court, rather than a three-judge panel, hear its appeal.