Idaho's new law requires parental permission for nearly all health care a minor receives. A 13-year-old’s pregnancy gets caught up in the consequences

[ThatRobGuy]

That's nice. What's the rationale for this particular law and the obvious metric tons of quantifiable benefits it had provided society? You know, the facts that make it like seat belt laws and not just pandering to made up culture war issues.

The net benefit of keeping parents in the loop (as a general rule) is two fold:

A) It involves the people who will ultimately have to pay for the services in most cases.

The "keep things from the parents because there's a chance they could get mad" rationale ends when the first payment is due correct? What?...are they going to get a bill in the mail from Boston Children's Hospital that just has one line item for "miscellaneous services" with the patient info redacted?


B) When it comes to treatments of any kind, adults (IE: parents, or guardians over 21) tend to have a little more real-world experience and know some things about the healthcare system that young people simply do not. (Things like when it does and doesn't make sense get a second opinion, being able to distinguish a good medical system vs. poor one...being able to spot a cash-grab situation where a "credentialed physician" may be recommending things that aren't actually needed, etc...)

That last one is of particular concern in the gender confirming care space. Based on how some of the larger gender affirming care practices in the country have been conducting business, they operate more like chiropractors than actual medical specialists (in a sense that, they seem to see everyone walking through the door as "a good candidate for the service they provide")


But if you boil it down to just a more basic question "Are 12-15 year olds rational and non-impulsive enough to make bigger choices that could have long term consequences?"

Why don't we allow 15 year olds to enlist in the military?
Why don't we allow 15 year olds get married?
Why don't we allow 15 year olds open up lines of credit?
Why don't we allow 15 year olds to consent to sexual activity?
Why don't we allow 15 year olds to get a tattoo?
Why don't we allow 15 year olds buy a gun?

The reasons and rationales given as to why we don't allow 15 year olds to do anything of the things mentioned above, would be the exact same reasons for why they shouldn't be navigating the healthcare system without a parent/guardian.

 

[rjs330]

Everyone see the cascading excuses - it didn't cause harm, well, at least not big enough harm, and by the way, whatever it did is an outlier so let's ignore it.

Well let's test this theory that it's an excuse rather that reality.

Did it cause harm?
Did it cause big harm?
Is it an outlier?

Speaking of pretty obvious, posts which attempt to make this about the posters rather than addressing what they wrote are.

Well when one show an opposition to parental rights then pointing it out doesn't seem to be so bad. It gives one perspective on reasons for opposing this law. This is about an established position which you have taken. Not sure why you would be offended over your own position?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"whatever it did is an outlier so let's ignore it."

How is that different than any other realm of policy making or government mandate?

Are vaccine requirements to enter public schools bad? because we know, for a fact, that if you require millions and millions of people to take them, at least a handful of rare outliers will experience something like a severe allergic reaction after having them administered.

Are those outliers a good enough reason to scrap the whole thing?

 

[rambot]

I say with about 70% certainty that in cases of life and death in Alberta if the parents cannot be found in time, doctors are permitted to use their best judgement to save a life.

 

[BCP1928]

So you support a law requiring parental consent for medical treatment?

Yes, with reasonable scope for treatment based on medical judgement where the consent of a parent or guardian cannot be reasonably obtained in a timely way--as in the OP case. If a purpose of the law is to "prevent adolescents from discussing issues such as birth control and gender identity with doctors, counselors and other adults unless their parents are informed first" then it should specifically say so.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, with reasonable scope for treatment based on medical judgement where the consent of a parent or guardian cannot be reasonably obtained in a timely way--as in the OP case. If a purpose of the law is to "prevent adolescents from discussing issues such as birth control and gender identity with doctors, counselors and other adults unless their parents are informed first" then it should specifically say so.

On that I'd agree...

My first post in this thread echoed the fact that specificity is paramount when making laws. You'll never be able to achieve 100% mitigation of unintended consequences, but they could've gotten that risk a lot lower than they did.


And for the record, I'm not even 100% against adolescents having the option to talk to someone other than their parents about certain things within a limited scope.

For instance, if there's a 16-year-old who claims they've made up their mind that they're going take things to the next level to have sex with their girlfriend, they're of the mindset that nobody's going to talk them out of it, but their parents think condoms (or any birth control) is evil, and they go to a free clinic that offers condoms...give them the condoms...it's the lesser of two evils. Best case scenario, they change their mind and the box of Trojans collects dust in the sock drawer...worst case scenario, a teen pregnancy is prevented.

That's not a major life-altering thing that can't be "un-done" if they should happen change their mind. (as adolescents are known to do...the impulsive nature of youth is why we restrict entirely, or require parental consent, for a wide variety of other things)


Some of the things this law is aimed at preventing are major life altering decisions that can't be "un-done" so easily. If you're a biological female who's just "100% sure you should've been male" and you start down the path of doing hormones (which are being dispensed way too freely and thoughtlessly... Planned Parenthood is touting on their website that you can get hormones after your first visit with no referral from a mental health provider, that's a problem) and you do it for a few years. There's no un-ringing that bell. There's no mulligan after you've already got kidney damage, a deepened voice, and start growing chest hair.

I've shared it before, and I can get the link if you don't believe me, but there was a high profile case here in Ohio involving a trans-identifying minor against their parents in a court case involving Cincinnati Children Hospital's Gender Affirming Clinic (the 4th largest one in the country, not some fringe rag-tag outfit by any means). While the judge ruled in favor of the minor on that particular case, they made it a point to weigh in on how concerned they were by the fact that, while it was warranted in that particular case, the Cincinnati Childrens gender clinic, in their 7 years of operation, literally deemed 100% of people who walked through the door as "good candidates for gender affirming care".

That's why I said these gender clinics operate more like chiropractor's offices, where no matter what you walk in the door with, they claim you need the thing they have to offer.

If the 4th largest orthopedic practice in the country was deeming 100% of people who walked through the door as "good candidates for back surgery", it'd be raising some eyebrows... and most would take umbrage with the idea that a 15 year old could walk into said practice (without their parents) claiming they have back pain, and consent to the back surgery.

There's a reason why the European countries (that progressives often cite as a model for "How the US should do things") have pulled back on this kind of stuff.

 

[BCP1928]

On that I'd agree...

My first post in this thread echoed the fact that specificity is paramount when making laws. You'll never be able to achieve 100% mitigation of unintended consequences, but they could've gotten that risk a lot lower than they did.


And for the record, I'm not even 100% against adolescents having the option to talk to someone other than their parents about certain things within a limited scope.

For instance, if there's a 16-year-old who claims they've made up their mind that they're going take things to the next level to have sex with their girlfriend, they're of the mindset that nobody's going to talk them out of it, but their parents think condoms (or any birth control) is evil, and they go to a free clinic that offers condoms...give them the condoms...it's the lesser of two evils. Best case scenario, they change their mind and the box of Trojans collects dust in the sock drawer...worst case scenario, a teen pregnancy is prevented.

That's not a major life-altering thing that can't be "un-done" if they should happen change their mind. (as adolescents are known to do...the impulsive nature of youth is why we restrict entirely, or require parental consent, for a wide variety of other things)


Some of the things this law is aimed at preventing are major life altering decisions that can't be "un-done" so easily. If you're a biological female who's just "100% sure you should've been male" and you start down the path of doing hormones (which are being dispensed way too freely and thoughtlessly... Planned Parenthood is touting on their website that you can get hormones after your first visit with no referral from a mental health provider, that's a problem) and you do it for a few years. There's no un-ringing that bell. There's no mulligan after you've already got kidney damage, a deepened voice, and start growing chest hair.

I've shared it before, and I can get the link if you don't believe me, but there was a high profile case here in Ohio involving a trans-identifying minor against their parents in a court case involving Cincinnati Children Hospital's Gender Affirming Clinic (the 4th largest one in the country, not some fringe rag-tag outfit by any means). While the judge ruled in favor of the minor on that particular case, they made it a point to weigh in on how concerned they were by the fact that, while it was warranted in that particular case, the Cincinnati Childrens gender clinic, in their 7 years of operation, literally deemed 100% of people who walked through the door as "good candidates for gender affirming care".

That's why I said these gender clinics operate more like chiropractor's offices, where no matter what you walk in the door with, they claim you need the thing they have to offer.

If the 4th largest orthopedic practice in the country was deeming 100% of people who walked through the door as "good candidates for back surgery", it'd be raising some eyebrows... and most would take umbrage with the idea that a 15 year old could walk into said practice (without their parents) claiming they have back pain, and consent to the back surgery.

There's a reason why the European countries (that progressives often cite as a model for "How the US should do things") have pulled back on this kind of stuff.

The whole business with trans advocacy has been a disaster for the Democrats. They should have thrown them under the bus after gay marriage. There's not that many, and it wouldn't hurt them all that much to stay in the closet for a while longer for the good of the party. As it is, the issue has been more divisive of the working class vote than any of the other culture war battle fronts.

 

[KCfromNC]

How is that different than any other realm of policy making or government mandate?

Are vaccine requirements to enter public schools bad? because we know, for a fact, that if you require millions and millions of people to take them, at least a handful of rare outliers will experience something like a severe allergic reaction after having them administered.

Are those outliers a good enough reason to scrap the whole thing?

Depends on the balance of harm vs. good, I'd imagine. And whether the law was passed based on sound fact-based public policy reasons vs. pandering to culture war nonsense.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Depends on the balance of harm vs. good, I'd imagine. And whether the law was passed based on sound fact-based public policy reasons vs. pandering to culture war nonsense.

While pandering may factor into it, it's not purely for pandering.

If you look at the data:
Among youth ages 13 to 17 in the U.S., about 300,000 youth identify as transgender.

Report Reveals Sharp Rise in Transgender Young People in the U.S. (Published 2022)

New estimates based on C.D.C. health surveys point to a stark generational shift in the growth of the transgender population of the United States.

www.nytimes.com

We're not talking about "just a few people" anymore. There's over a quarter of a million teenagers now claiming they're transgender, and that number seems to be increasing rapidly.


Attempting to pump the brakes and give more thoughtful consideration to this (as opposed to the fast-track, "affirmation is the only way", approach) is sound public policy. Thus the reason why European countries have pumped the brakes on it with provisions ranging from requiring extended periods of counseling, requiring parental consent, and in a few cases, outright restricting hormone use for people under 16.

Increasing Number Of European Nations Adopt A More Cautious Approach To Gender-Affirming Care Among Minors

For several years, Europe has been moving in a different direction from the U.S., as Europeans exercise greater restraint when treating children with gender dysphoria.

www.forbes.com

The fact that Idaho's laws were clumsily worded doesn't mean the underlying idea was bad, it was just poor execution on their part.

For instance, if a public policy maker was aiming to alleviate traffic jams and accidents in a city by converting to mostly one-way streets, and they haphazardly put something together that ended up with people getting stranded at the ends of one-way streets with no way to get out...while the execution was obviously poor, that doesn't mean "hey we've got way too many traffic jams and accidents, we should try to lessen that" was a bad idea.

 

[BCP1928]

While pandering may factor into it, it's not purely for pandering.

If you look at the data:
Among youth ages 13 to 17 in the U.S., about 300,000 youth identify as transgender.

Report Reveals Sharp Rise in Transgender Young People in the U.S. (Published 2022)

New estimates based on C.D.C. health surveys point to a stark generational shift in the growth of the transgender population of the United States.

www.nytimes.com

We're not talking about "just a few people" anymore. There's over a quarter of a million teenagers now claiming they're transgender, and that number seems to be increasing rapidly.


Attempting to pump the brakes and give more thoughtful consideration to this (as opposed to the fast-track, "affirmation is the only way", approach) is sound public policy. Thus the reason why European countries have pumped the brakes on it with provisions ranging from requiring extended periods of counseling, requiring parental consent, and in a few cases, outright restricting hormone use for people under 16.

Increasing Number Of European Nations Adopt A More Cautious Approach To Gender-Affirming Care Among Minors

For several years, Europe has been moving in a different direction from the U.S., as Europeans exercise greater restraint when treating children with gender dysphoria.

www.forbes.com

The fact that Idaho's laws were clumsily worded doesn't mean the underlying idea was bad, it was just poor execution on their part.

For instance, if a public policy maker was aiming to alleviate traffic jams and accidents in a city by converting to mostly one-way streets, and they haphazardly put something together that ended up with people getting stranded at the ends of one-way streets with no way to get out...while the execution was obviously poor, that doesn't mean "hey we've got way too many traffic jams and accidents, we should try to lessen that" was a bad idea.

I think it's mainly pandering. The religious anti-trans crowd here would not accept a European style approach to it anyway. It has been positively asserted and affirmed in this forum that a person who believes himself to be trans is either clinically mentally ill or a wicked pretender. Any approach which admits that trans is an actual phenomenon is anathema.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The whole business with trans advocacy has been a disaster for the Democrats. They should have thrown them under the bus after gay marriage. There's not that many, and it wouldn't hurt them all that much to stay in the closet for a while longer for the good of the party. As it is, the issue has been more divisive of the working class vote than any of the other culture war battle fronts.

I don't think anyone has to be "thrown under the bus" per say...

Public polling would suggest that the majority (even the majority of republicans) are in favor of anti-discrimination laws aimed at protecting the LGBT community from things like employment and housing discrimination.

However, being on board with a more cautious approach to certain things certainly would've been a better idea in terms of reaching independents and centrists.

The ways/methods being proposed by activist groups are very different than how people would approach any other mental health issue.





I've used the analogy before of comparing gender dysphoria to body dysmorphia, while I realize there are some differences, there are also a lot of similarities.

Body dysmorphia is extremely common among the bodybuilding community (a prevalence of over 40%).

Depression and Suicidal ideation is also common in that community (among people who never think they're big enough)

Taking anabolic steroids (that allows them to see themselves grow a noticeably rapid pace) makes them feel better and temporarily alleviates some of those feelings of depression (because they view it as a tangible form of progress toward what they view as their ideal body)


It would be the equivalent of it a 16 year old adolescent male (who already appeared to be physically fit) said "I gotta have bigger muscles...I just have to, I know I'm too small, I need to get bigger, if I don't get steroids to get bigger, I'm going to kill myself because I can't be truly happy in my own body"

Most parents (of either political persuasion) would say "we need to seek some sort of mental health care for him, this isn't normal"

If a political entity started pandering to "No, a jacked mass monster with 24-inch arms is who they actually are on the inside, you have to let them take steroids...it's life saving healthcare, look at this data, in a study of bodybuilders with body dysmorphia, the rates of depression and suicidal thoughts went down by 40% in the 3 years after they started steroid use" "If you don't just go along with this, you're a bad parent"

That notion wouldn't sit well with a lot of people...

 

[rjs330]

I think it's mainly pandering. The religious anti-trans crowd here would not accept a European style approach to it anyway. It has been positively asserted and affirmed in this forum that a person who believes himself to be trans is either clinically mentally ill or a wicked pretender. Any approach which admits that trans is an actual phenomenon is anathema.

I don't think that's correct at all. I would love the approach they've now taken. And it can't be pandering if there is a large amount of clinicians and countries who have moved away from the Affirmative Care model and to a clinical issue where parents have to be involved. So I don't know who exactly their pandering to in your scenario. You have to be aware that it isn't just religious people involved.

And you may be surprised to know that the Europeans also believe it is a mental illness and they also believe autogynaphelia is an issue.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't think anyone has to be "thrown under the bus" per say...

Public polling would suggest that the majority (even the majority of republicans) are in favor of anti-discrimination laws aimed at protecting the LGBT community from things like employment and housing discrimination.

However, being on board with a more cautious approach to certain things certainly would've been a better idea in terms of reaching independents and centrists.

The ways/methods being proposed by activist groups are very different than how people would approach any other mental health issue.





I've used the analogy before of comparing gender dysphoria to body dysmorphia, while I realize there are some differences, there are also a lot of similarities.

Body dysmorphia is extremely common among the bodybuilding community (a prevalence of over 40%).

Depression and Suicidal ideation is also common in that community (among people who never think they're big enough)

Taking anabolic steroids (that allows them to see themselves grow a noticeably rapid pace) makes them feel better and temporarily alleviates some of those feelings of depression (because they view it as a tangible form of progress toward what they view as their ideal body)


It would be the equivalent of it a 16 year old adolescent male (who already appeared to be physically fit) said "I gotta have bigger muscles...I just have to, I know I'm too small, I need to get bigger, if I don't get steroids to get bigger, I'm going to kill myself because I can't be truly happy in my own body"

Most parents (of either political persuasion) would say "we need to seek some sort of mental health care for him, this isn't normal"

If a political entity started pandering to "No, a jacked mass monster with 24-inch arms is who they actually are on the inside, you have to let them take steroids...it's life saving healthcare, look at this data, in a study of bodybuilders with body dysmorphia, the rates of depression and suicidal thoughts went down by 40% in the 3 years after they started steroid use" "If you don't just go along with this, you're a bad parent"

That notion wouldn't sit well with a lot of people...

Which is how the Democrats are playing it, which is what I think they should "throw under the bus." The rank and file of teachers and other professionals who have to deal with trans kids--and least the ones who I know or have reliably heard about--take a much more moderate position along the lines you have suggested.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't think that's correct at all. I would love the approach they've now taken. And it can't be pandering if there is a large amount of clinicians and countries who have moved away from the Affirmative Care model and to a clinical issue where parents have to be involved. So I don't know who exactly their pandering to in your scenario. You have to be aware that it isn't just religious people involved.

And you may be surprised to know that the Europeans also believe it is a mental illness and they also believe autogynaphelia is an issue.

I doubt very much that European professionals have taken the position that all trans is either insanity or a wicked pretense, which is what you have argued here as a religious position.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This include life threatening emergencies? Yikes!!!

The world is getting so far beyond absolutely STUPID! I can’t imagine how bad it will be when my kids are my age.

Child gunshot victim, “Somebody call his parents, then if they say it’s ok apply pressure and call 911”!

Child choking, “Somebody call his parents, ask if it’s ok to use the Heimlich maneuver”!

Anybody with any common sense at all knows that when a child’s life is at stake you treat the child REGARDLESS of what the parent decides because if they choose not to treat their child in a life threatening situation THEY’RE NOT FIT TO BE PARENTS and CPS should remove the child from their custody! I’m not one to usually use exclamation points in my posts but this is beyond stupid! If my child was to die because one of these stupid people refused to treat him or her because they couldn’t get ahold of me I’d be going to jail for quite some time for physical assault. If I know that a child is going to die if I don’t do something I don’t care what their parents say I’m going to help that child whether they like it or not. If they have a problem with that I’ll report them to CPS and claim that they’re unfit parents because that’s obviously how these types of situations should be handled.

 

[BCP1928]

The world is getting so far beyond absolutely STUPID! I can’t imagine how bad it will be when my kids are my age.

Child gunshot victim, “Somebody call his parents, then if they say it’s ok apply pressure and call 911”!

Child choking, “Somebody call his parents, ask if it’s ok to use the Heimlich maneuver”!

Anybody with any common sense at all knows that when a child’s life is at stake you treat the child REGARDLESS of what the parent decides because if they choose not to treat their child in a life threatening situation THEY’RE NOT FIT TO BE PARENTS and CPS should remove the child from their custody! I’m not one to usually use exclamation points in my posts but this is beyond stupid! If my child was to die because one of these stupid people refused to treat him or her because they couldn’t get ahold of me I’d be going to jail for quite some time for physical assault. If I know that a child is going to die if I don’t do something I don’t care what their parents say I’m going to help that child whether they like it or not. If they have a problem with that I’ll report them to CPS and claim that they’re unfit parents because that’s obviously how these types of situations should be handled.

You forget that the OP involved a very young pregnant girl exhibiting abnormal symptoms. There would definitely be troubled legal waters ahead for those doctors, almost no matter what they did.

 

[com7fy8]

Why not? It would the law’s fault. If you are suggesting a the correct course of action is it ignore the law why not change the law?

Why not blame the law? Yes, blame the law, plus blame the person who lets a child die when the person could have saved the child's life.

Plus, yes, change the law. Of course, you might just make sure about if the law really does mean to let the child die. If the law does not actually say to let children die when parents can't be reached . . . there can be some kind of room for interpretation.

We see how humans can get exact opposite meanings from the same part of the Bible. So, surely ones interpreting the law might be quite able to get exact opposite understandings.

Has anything like this gotten to a real judge . . . that you know of? Has any doctor on purpose let a child die because parents could not be reached? Or, has one saved a life while not reaching parents and then has gone to court? How has a real judge handled something like this, if anyone knows?

I would say a judge has authority to countermand anyone who tries to use the law against someone who has saved a child's life.

And I think there are legal matters in which they have given someone medical care because it was understood the person would have wanted it, if he or she were conscious to make a decision. Like this, I suppose a judge could rule, after consulting the parents, that they would have given permission, and therefore dismiss.

If I were a judge and a law said, "Let the child die if you can't reach the parents," I think I could pray and come up with something. "Good" lawyers can be known for mumbo-jumbo-ing anything into or out of legal existence; so I am sure a judge could do this to get the doctor off. Even more directly I could sentence the doctor to fifty years for saving the child's life, and suspend the sentence, and give the guy community service doing extra hours of his or her practice wherever he or already works And order the case and record sealed so no screwballs could use it against him. Take a confession so it does not go to jury and public trial, and give community service with a sealed record that can never show up on any computer search.

And get the law changed or clarified.

 

[Larniavc]

Plus, yes, change the law.

Excellent. We agree.

 

[BCP1928]

Why not blame the law? Yes, blame the law, plus blame the person who lets a child die when the person could have saved the child's life.

The thing is, the OP case is not a clear cut case of life or death, but it still presents serious legal issues. What you have is a 13 year old girl with an abnormal pregnancy of an unknown nature. Just the age of the child makes it a medically tricky situation. The cause of the abnormality is unknown and the treatment may require risking the health, if not the life of the patient and the possible loss of the fetus. All this requires the best medical judgement of the attending physician. At the same time he has hanging over his head not only the parental permission law, but a draconian abortion law as well, and the threat that anything he does will be judged not by his medical peers but by a magistrate entirely ignorant of medicine and may well land him in prison. There's a reason why OB GYNs are leaving Idaho, and it's not because they are pro-abortion or trans ideologues.

 

[com7fy8]

judged not by his medical peers but by a magistrate entirely ignorant of medicine

In any case, thank you for the very clear and complete and thorough explanation.

I think it is possible that a judge with experience and smart can understand medical matters.

But I get what you are saying. And in case such specialists are leaving, may be they know that I don't know what I am talking about, about if judges maybe are experienced and smart!! lolololololol

Another problem could be if the pregnancy came by rape by a family member and treating her could bring that out, in which case complicit parents might just kind of disappear so their child can't be treated and interviewed; and who knows what could happen to her after she is taken home, if she lives. However . . . if the parents do not approve of her being treated and she dies . . . there might be legally required autopsy work and investigation which could result in more trouble for parents, than if they approve her treatment. I suppose they could get hit with negligent homicide plus answer for the rape. But I am guessing with what I understand.

Thank you