Gender-affirming ‘shield bills’ target minors, college students in Vermont

By Renee McGuinness

Both Rep. Martin LaLonde and Sen. Ginny Lyons have made it clear that H.89 and S.37 — two compatible bills that shield gender-affirming care practitioners and persons that assist others in procuring gender-affirming services from both civil and criminal litigation, prohibit increases in malpractice insurance, and requires health insurance companies to provide coverage for gender affirming services — prioritize the facilitation and protection of gender-affirming services for minors and young adults.

state of Vermont

Sen. Ginny Lyons and Rep. Martin LaLonde

Chairperson LaLonde provided context for H.89 to the House Judiciary Committee prior to legislative counsel’s walkthrough. He cited other states, such as Alabama, that are limiting or banning gender-affirming services for minors and youth, and the Joint Resolution (J.R.S. 53) passed last year that condemned the actions of these states. He stated, “We’re further committed to exploring all available options to ensure that transgender youth and their families are safe in Vermont to make the best medical care decisions for themselves in consultation with their health care providers. … H.89 would create a so-called ‘shield law’ to protect Vermont doctors, nurses, and others for providing reproductive or gender-affirming health care that is legal here in Vermont.”

During legislative counsel’s walkthrough of S.37 in the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare,  Chairperson Lyons commented in regard to Section 9, “When we talk about gender-affirming health care services — we’re talking about a fairly young population, so adolescent population, ‘it could be any age,’ legislative counsel interjected, it can be any age — right now, the waitlist, for example, is pretty high in the adolescent group, so yeah, it’s important to have some counseling or support services or something available.”

While legislators claim S.37 and H.89 provide protections against litigation from other states, Lyon’s comments are relevant to Vermonters in that Section 9 of S.37 compels the Department of Health and the Green Mountain Care Board to consult with “relevant stakeholders,” identify areas where gender-affirming health services, abortion, and birth care are not available within a 50-mile radius within Vermont and make recommendations to facilitate access to these services in areas that are underserved.

Both in-state and out-of-state college students, of legal age of consent and out from under the guiding protection of their parents or guardians, will have facilitated access to gender-affirming care under Section 12, which requires the University of Vermont and colleges in the Vermont State College system, such as Northern Vermont University, to provide “readiness plans” for gender-affirming and reproductive health services.

Section 11 of S.37 allows licensed retail and institutional drug outlets to install over-the-counter contraception and emergency contraception vending, possibly making these drugs and pregnancy prevention products accessible to minors without parental knowledge or consent.

Sen. Randy Brock, R-Franklin, posed a series of questions about parental involvement in their minor child’s gender dysphoria treatment after Lyons provided the second reading of S.37 on the Senate floor Thursday, March 16, culminating in  Brock asking Lyons (at 55:20) whether there is any requirement that parents be involved in their minor child’s psychological care regarding the minor child’s gender dysphoria. Lyon’s responded, “Whether it’s a medical counselor or M.S.W. (Master’s in Social Work), or whomever it is, the practice in this area is to reach out to families.”

Under 18 V.S.A. § 8350, a minor may consent to legally authorized outpatient psychotherapy and counseling treatment without parental consent.

Legislators serving on both the House and Senate Committees insist H.89 and S.37 do not affect parents’ rights to “participate” in their children’s health care, yet only gender-affirming care is legally protected under both bills, to the exclusion of all other types of care, such as extended exploratory psychological care. In combination with provisions in H.89 and S.37 that facilitate and protect exclusively gender-affirming services, parent’s rights to direct, and not merely participate, in their children’s and young adult’s health care, are severely undermined and by default, usurped.

H.89 has passed the House and has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. S.37 passed in the Senate for a third reading.

Renee McGuinness is a member of the Vermont Family Alliance.

Image courtesy of state of Vermont

10 thoughts on “Gender-affirming ‘shield bills’ target minors, college students in Vermont

  1. So how is it, if you have sex with a 10 year old, you go to jail?

    Yet the child can get a sex change, hidden from parents?

    If 10 year old and 4 year olds can make such significant changes in their lives, shouldn’t they be considered eligible to vote? Shouldn’t they be considered adult enough to make the determination that they want consenting sex? Shouldn’t they be able to hold a job at 10 and 4 years of age? Why can’t they drive, surely they should be able to drive a car too, just need a booster seat and pedal extender’s.

    Can you see how absurd this is?

    We are letting them, the press and the son’s of darkness shape our world, to control the narrative, it’s bat guano crazy.

    Any elected leaders calling this out? Chime in…this is the most free platform in the state.

  2. Germany 1934. If people don’t know why this is happening now…it happened before. Nothing new under the sun. Globalists, eugenists, Ukraine, CCP…infiltration, not invasion.

  3. This is a disgrace to humanity. Children at 13 14 15 16 17 are still growing and unsure who they are. Why would anybody with common sense allow children who are psychologically unable to make decisions to just disfigure and harm themselves. No wonder Vermont is removing all liability from these horrific practices by doctors and insurance companies.

  4. Get real there are only 456 in Vermont that are Trans less than .004% of 656K Vermonters. the WOKES in Montpelier have destroyed Vermont. Their goal is allow the a vocal minorities to rule the majority. Time to get out of Vermont too many demoratics whose goal is to crush the majority they are invaders to Vermont from liberal.

    • Exactly Joy.
      So what these legislators are now trying to do is create ‘a customer base’ for this place.

      Big Pharma=China is at the roots of all of this (which has now captured the CDC)
      I just read last night that 19 states have now formed a coalition to ban the mutilation/sterilization of kids with these gender changing ‘treatments’.

      It’s always about following the money.
      How sick it is that we are being led/controlled by people that are so easily bought- and are apparently not even intelligent enough to get this.

  5. So lemme’ see. VT WOKE legislators are “all in” that young, immature children, NOT PARENTS, have the choice & rights to go thru painful, life changing, and possibly not easily reversible…gender changes? However? These same WOKE legislators do not believe the same adolescents are “mature enough” to be able to buy a pack of cigarettes or a six pack of beer? WOKE legislators mandate, by their own law, you must be 21 to have a beer and a smoke? Does anyone see how insane this is?

    Get out of Vt, ASAP.

Comments are closed.