34

ACTION ALERT: #California's Transgender Wellness Bill, which sets up 'trans-approved only' pathways to funding transgender health support in the state, has been taken up again by the Senate Health Committee. This legislation would institutionalize 'affirmation-only' treatment in a dangerous way, and not provide funding for any dysphoria treatment that wasn't 'affirmation-only.' #AB2218 will be heard on Aug. 10. Contact CA senate health committee members to vote NO. Full list of committee members and contact info here: https://shea.senate.ca.gov

ACTION ALERT: #California's Transgender Wellness Bill, which sets up 'trans-approved only' pathways to funding transgender health support in the state, has been taken up again by the Senate Health Committee. This legislation would institutionalize 'affirmation-only' treatment in a dangerous way, and not provide funding for any dysphoria treatment that wasn't 'affirmation-only.' #AB2218 will be heard on Aug. 10. Contact CA senate health committee members to vote NO. Full list of committee members and contact info here: https://shea.senate.ca.gov

23 comments

[–] Shinjin_Nana 18 points (+18|-0)

Yes, because while the state is seriously in debt, we need to provide men with fake tits. Go CA, go.

[–] Owl [OP] 18 points (+18|-0)

Well, that's not exactly what it does. What it does do is institutionalize a 'trans-approved only' approach to trans health, by requiring any funding to be approved by 'authorized' trans groups only. There is no actual funding in the bill anymore, the original $15 million was stripped out. But it still only supports 'affirmation-only' trans health care, which is very bad news and sets a dangerous precedent. The way it's written ensures that no organization that advocates 'watch and wait' will ever be supported by the state, when and IF there are funds appropriated to it.

[–] Shinjin_Nana 5 points (+5|-0)

the original $15 million was stripped out

This is good to hear.

Honestly, as a Californian, the fight back against the trans issue won't be here. CA's head is firmly planted between it's butt cheeks and deep inside the rectum. What would happen, if it happened, would be that there would be a change of leadership at the next election and a voter repeal of the implemented 'trans fund' on the next ballot.

[–] Owl [OP] 5 points (+5|-0)

I hope you'll call the Senate Health committee members anyway! Perhaps that committee has more sanity than the rest of the state. xx

[–] gcfemale 3 points (+3|-0)

That institutionalization is far more radical and dangerous...

[–] gold_bee 10 points (+10|-0)

Thank you for posting this! Great to have practical ways to exercise our rights as voters and take action.

[–] Owl [OP] 7 points (+7|-0)

You are welcome! It's important to not let this gain such a strong foothold. Always best to CALL the senators (leave messages), but if all you can do is email, then do that. NO on #AB2218! xx

[–] gold_bee 4 points (+4|-0)

Yes, it's very easy to get lulled into complacency or think "it's not that big of a deal".

The reality is that mountains are made of molehills and seemingly sweeping change is the culmination of a multitude of small individual acts. Every bit matters!

[–] hellamomzilla 3 points (+3|-0)

I thought it was tabled in committee for the rest of the year?

[–] Owl [OP] 8 points (+8|-0)

Everyone thought so. They must have pressured them to take it up. You can check the legislative status here. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml I set up an alert on it so I get notified by email when it moves through the process. It's definitely back.

[–] notgonnabenice 1 points (+1|-0)

OP, maybe it'd be better to start a new post with a title like Tabled Affirm-Only CA Bill Brought Back Weeks Later or something to notify people. I thought there were multiple CA bills, but it turns out the bill someone had said was already defeated is this one.

[–] hellamomzilla 2 points (+2|-0)

I called every Senator on the committee. I only got through to two live people -- one a Dem and one a Republican. The staffer for the Dem was fairly rude, but the Repub's staffer noted I was obviously calling about 2218 and said, "You want the Senator to vote no?" before I got much further than, "I'm calling about a vote for a bill coming up next week..." I also left messages with all but one committee member, whose voice mail was full. I'll try back with them tomorrow.

I urge any other members who live in California to do the same.

[–] notgonnabenice 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

Is this the same one? How many are there? https://www.ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/470/calif-senate-committee-kills-bill-to-fund-trans-hormones-breast-and-genital-ampu

I thought those people were given copies of Shrier's book and heard expert testimony.

Dr. Quentin Van Meter, an Atlanta-based board-certified pediatric endocrinologist, who CP interviewed in December 2018 about the harms of Lupron when used as a puberty blocker in gender dysphoric children, testified against the bill in the state Assembly earlier this year.

The doctor told legislators during the hearing that children who are prescribed cross-sex hormones for gender confusion have “significant mental health issues” that continue even after hormone use. He also warned that the state would be sued in the coming years for funding such treatments since they cause sterility, destroy healthy tissue, and lead to other permanent damage.

[–] Owl [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

So that all happened, yes. It's the same bill. The chair of the Senate Health committee had indicated he would not bring the bill for a committee vote, effectively 'killing' it. However, after pressure from trans advocates, they are now bringing the bill to a hearing and possible vote in the Senate Health committee on Monday August 10. If approved in committee, it may then go to the full Senate for a vote, or it may go to another committee--not sure.

For those interested, you can track the bill here and even set up email alerts as it progresses. (requires creating an account). http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2218

[–] hellamomzilla 1 points (+1|-0)

It's the exact same bill. And, it looks as if even though it was reported as tabled for the year, it's being brought up a mere few weeks later. I'm guessing the TRAs twisted arms and are trying to slide this through because people think it's done for a while.

I just spent a half hour calling all the members of the committee and leaving messages urging them to vote no. If you live in CA, please do the same. I left a LONG message with Senator Pan, the chair who is also a pediatrician and mentioned that this was very quick turnaround for a bill which was supposed to have been tabled for the remainder of the year. Hopefully, more people are doing the same.

[–] notgonnabenice 1 points (+1|-0)

Thanks for the info and for your efforts. Btw, how do they confirm you live in CA?

We really need some place to track this stuff. I already added a proposal in circle, but we should have some sort of chart.

[–] Ygritte 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

And I thought it was too radical for the trans la la state of California.

obviously, the trans cultists did their favorite shtick and probably twisted some arms behind the scenes.

Good luck to all challenging this bill!

[–] Owl [OP] 6 points (+6|-0)

No doubt the upped the pressure with false claims of risk and marginalization. To which we should counter the Health cmte members with facts about rising detrans numbers and recent lawsuits and studies now showing surgery doesn't help!

"After the article “Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study” by Richard Bränström, Ph.D., and John E. Pachankis, Ph.D. (doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080), was published online on October 4, 2019 in the American Journal of Psychiatry, some letters containing questions on the statistical methodology employed in the study led the Journal to seek statistical consultations. The results of these consultations were presented to the study authors, who concurred with many of the points raised. Upon request, the authors reanalyzed the data to compare outcomes between individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had received gender-affirming surgical treatments and those diagnosed with gender incongruence who had not. While this comparison was performed retrospectively and was not part of the original research question given that several other factors may differ between the groups, the results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts in that comparison. Given that the study used neither a prospective cohort design nor a randomized controlled trial design, the conclusion that “the longitudinal association between gender-affirming surgery and lower use of mental health treatment lends support to the decision to provide gender-affirming surgeries to transgender individuals who seek them” is too strong. Finally, although the percentage of individuals with a gender incongruence diagnosis who had received gender-affirming surgical treatments during the follow-up period is correctly reported in Table 3 (37.9%), the text incorrectly refers to this percentage as 48%. A corrected article will be posted on August 1, along with a postpublication discussion captured in the Letters to the Editor section."

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080

[–] Ygritte 4 points (+4|-0) Edited

As I'm not in the US, I don't know if I can help. But definitely, send them all the evidence that GRS is expensive, dangerous, and with no solid proof of any long-term mental health improvement. Especially this study published in AJP. This site is also very helpful and is being curated by experts: https://www.segm.org/