Renee McGuinness testifies against gender-affirming care bill in Senate committee

/ February 22, 2023

For Immediate Release
February 21, 2023

Contact:
Vermont Family Alliance
A Parental Rights and Minor Protections Advocacy Group

Renee McGuinness from Vermont Family Alliance (VFA) testified against S.37 (@7:52) before the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare, citing potential negative health outcomes by codifying exclusively gender-affirming care and excluding any other types of care.

“The Vermont State legislature is inconsistent in their pursuit of health care choice for individuals, free from government interference,” McGuinness stated.

“Last year, legislators claimed Article 22, the reproductive liberty amendment to the State Constitution, would keep government out of decision-making between patients and their doctors.

“This year, S.37 and H.89 propose to codify gender-affirming care as the only type of care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria and incongruence that will be shielded from “abusive litigation” from other states, the only type of care that will be fully funded by insurance companies – making gender-affirming care a priority over all other types of health care – and shields practitioners from increases in malpractice premiums.

“Meanwhile countries in Europe are now reassessing and changing their standards of care due to negative impacts of exclusively gender-affirming care.

“S.37 and H.89 exclusively codify gender-affirming care in the definition sections of these bills, referencing 18 V.S.A. § 8351. (Act 35), which applies specifically to minors, making S.37 pertinent to minor protections and parental rights, because it dictates care for minors.

McGuinness requested the Committee review the Cass Review Interim Report on Gender Dysphoria Services for children and youth initiated by the UK NHS, after a lawsuit was filed against the UK Tavistock gender clinic.

A graph on page 33 of the Cass Review highlights a dramatic change in the case-mix from birth-registered males presenting gender dysphoria in early childhood to birth-registered females presenting in adolescence.

“The medical community has not provided evidence-based studies as to why there is a dramatic change in the case-mix. This rush to treat birth-registered females with exclusively gender-affirming treatment, under the dubious NEJM assessment that it is the only way to improve mental health and reduce suicidality, is as trendy as tonsillectomies, except with life-altering consequences,” McGuinness said.

When Senator Ruth Hardy stated there is nothing in S.37 that prevents parents from being involved in their child’s health care, McGuinness responded that S.37 only supports parents if they are gender-affirming.

The Committee vote on S.37 is scheduled for Wednesday, February 22.

Image courtesy of Public domain

Related posts

2 thoughts on “Renee McGuinness testifies against gender-affirming care bill in Senate committee”

  1. Obviously there are cases of true physiologic gender dysphoria, as there have been since the dawn of history. Unfortunately, our victimhood-oriented society has so thoroughly popularized gender non-conformance so that probably 90% of claims of being “non-binary” are simply a fashion craze, not unlike goth attire, tattoos, piercings and unnatural hair colorations…just another way to let your freak flag fly.
    Part of the problem is that the proponents of this anti-science social contagion and their handmaidens in the media have dominated the discussion with their own lexicon, using terms like “gender affirming” and “non-cisgender”. The proper description for removing or modifying body parts for the purpose of changing one’s outlook on life is MUTILATION. Specifically, the removal of reproductive body parts should objectively be referred to as spaying and neutering, like one typically does with stray cats and dogs. Data have shown that “transgender” individuals who undergo modification surgery have the same rates of suicide as those who have not. The suicide rate is tied to the underlying mental disorder.
    If a slim young girl develops anorexia because she “feels” obese, her family and friends obviously dont help the situation by “affirming” that perception. If someone harbors a delusional disorder and thinks they are Napoleon, they are not helped if those around them “affirm” this and address them as Mr. Bonaparte.
    The Vermont Family Alliance seems to be presenting objective criteria here that stands in stark contrast to a majority in the Legislature, trans-advocacy groups and the major media who do NOT have the best interests of youngsters at heart.

Comments are closed.