3 ms·
1. It was an order, not a law 2. It was a clarification of existing rules 3. It does not make "supporting your child's gender transition" a jailable offense.
by vorpalhex 5y ago
1. It was an order, not a law
2. It was a clarification of existing rules
3. It does not make "supporting your child's gender transition" a jailable offense.
The order says subjecting a child to invasive medical procedure can be abuse, and that doctors and teachers have a legal requirement to report abuse.
Here is the order for your reading pleasure:
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-dfps-to-investigate-gender-transitioning-procedures-as-child-abuse https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-dfps...
- Dylan16807 5y ago"As OAG Opinion No. KP-0401 makes clear, it is already against the law to subject Texas children to a wide variety of elective procedures for gender transitioning, including reassignment surgeries that can cause sterilization, mastectomies, removals of otherwise healthy body parts, and administration of puberty-blocking drugs or supraphysiologic doses of testosterone or estrogen." Where "subject" appears to be the most general form possible, as far as I can tell from context. Even puberty blockers are on this list! You're not supporting a gender transition if you can't touch hormones at all.
- CRConrad 5y ago> "As OAG Opinion No. KP-0401 makes clear, it is already against the law to subject Texas children to ... removals of otherwise healthy body parts" Wow, finally a law against infant male circumcision! In Texas, of all places; whodathunkit.