Rantz: WA laws now allow teen gender reassignment surgery without parental consent
By: JASON RANTZ (MyNorthwest. com)
Under a new law, health insurers must cover “gender-affirming” care, including surgical treatments that were previously denied coverage. Democrats rejected a proposal to apply the new law to patients over 18 years old.
It’s one in a series of new laws that, taken together, allow children as young as 13 years old to make serious health care decisions. The consequences are immense.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Another law making it easier for minors to transition without parental guidance
Last year, via SB 5889, Washington Democrats forced insurers to cover gender dysmorphia treatment and gender-affirming care for minors between 13 and 17, without parental consent. It mandates that insurers deal directly with the patient without requiring the policyholder's authorization.
It builds on SB 5904, which provides outpatient mental health treatment without parental consent for the same age group.
All communication must go directly to the patient. The insurer may not disclose the patient's medical information to outside parties, like the policyholder, unless given permission. The policyholder, in this case, is the parent.
The standard of care for gender dysphoria in youth is outlined by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). It includes everything from puberty-blocking hormones and speech therapy, to laser hair removal and counseling on binding. But it also asks doctors to affirm the choice of some to undergo surgical procedures to help them match their gender identity.
For some transgender patients, WPATH says, "relief from gender dysphoria cannot be achieved without modification of their primary and/or secondary sex characteristics to establish greater congruence with their gender identity."
"Mental health professionals should not impose a binary view of gender. They should give ample room for clients to explore different options for gender expression. Hormonal or surgical interventions are appropriate for some adolescents, but not for others," WPATH notes.
Technical update on language downplays the seriousness of law
The new law is just a minor update to technical terminology on the surface. But it's much more than that.
SB 5313 bans an insurance provider from categorically rejecting cosmetic, gender-affirming treatments when deemed medically necessary by a health care provider and when prescribed to a patient, consistent with their gender identity.
Up until this law, gender reassignment surgery and other procedures like facial reconstruction or laser hair removal were considered cosmetic by health insurance companies. Due to its classification as cosmetic, health insurers did not usually cover the procedures, even when doctors medically recommended them.
The bill was signed into law by Governor Jay Inslee in 2021 and went into effect on Jan. 1, 2022.
Is this about bigotry?
The bill's sponsor, State Senator Marko Liias (D-Lynnwood), argued at the time of its passage that it was in response to other states banning treatment for minors. He labeled the bans as "transphobic."
"I am proud that our state is sort of standing up to this hysteria sweeping the country of intolerance and hatred of trans people," Liias told Crosscut. "We are going the opposite direction saying that, here, people are welcome and we support them."
But the direction that Liias is going means cutting parents out of the decision-making process, allowing a child to alter their body permanently.
It's also a curious move since Washington law bans minors from using tanning beds. Lawmakers, including Liias, voted for that ban to protect children from the harmful effects of UV rays. Now Democrats allow your child to go through feminizing hormone therapy and some surgical procedures independently.
One Senate Republican supported the bill, and all House Republicans rejected it.
Liias finally weighs in with an evasive response
Initially, Liias did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Instead, the Senate Democratic Caucus spokesperson sent a statement arguing "there is not a specific mention of gender affirming care in statute." She argues that means gender reassignment surgery would still need parental consent.
But SB 5889 mentions explicitly "gender dysphoria" and "gender affirming care." And Liias' bill covers "gender affirming" surgical procedures.
When asked to clarify their statement with the language in the bills, the spokesperson did not respond. But at the behest of the Senate Democratic Caucus, Liias finally responded.
I asked Liias if he supports gender reassignment surgery for minors either with or without parental consent. He would not answer directly but implied he supports it with or without parental consent.
"There is not a short or simple answer on what care is appropriate for which individuals. In short, I support the ability of all trans people to access medically necessary care. Medical providers use established standards of care in consultation with patients and their caregivers as appropriate," Liias wrote in an email to the Jason Rantz Show on KTTH.
He linked to the American Academy of Pediatrics with an example of pediatric care guidelines. It does offer guidance to avoid surgery, such as "pubertal suppression in children."
But it also notes that the process of gender affirmation may include: "'top' surgery (to create a male-typical chest shape or enhance breasts); 'bottom' surgery (surgery on genitals or reproductive organs); facial feminization and other procedures."
"I don't believe that lawmakers or insurance companies should make determinations of what care is appropriate, that decision is best left with our health agencies, medical professionals and patients," Liias says, failing to mention parents.
Republicans saw this coming
Republicans argue the current laws do not require parental consent for these surgical procedures if the patient is between 13 and 18, assuming a patient is able to find a willing doctor.
"This is wrong — 13-year-olds are not mature enough to make gender reversal surgery decisions and need parental support during this time," State Representative Michele Caldier (R-Port Orchard) told the Jason Rantz Show on KTTH. "The same legislators who pushed the age of purchase of tobacco products from age 18 to 21, now claim 13-year-olds are able to make the solo decision whether to get their trachea shaved or a mastectomy."
"I am a foster parent who takes in hard-to-place teens. These kids need my help for simple day-to-day tasks. I couldn't imagine them making life-changing decisions without my support or their parent's support," Caldier added.
The direct intent of SB 5313 wasn't to offer surgical treatment to minors. But combined with previously passed legislation, it's now possible.
Republican lawmakers saw this coming. It's why they saw only one defector.
State Senator Phil Fortunado (R-Auburn) attempted to amend SB 5313. His amendment inserted language that would deny gender-affirming treatment to patients under 18. But Democrats, who have control of the legislature, rejected it.
On the House side, Caldier tried to at least tighten the language.
Instead of blanket support of cosmetic gender-affirming treatment, Caldier wanted a slightly higher bar to be met. Procedures would only be covered "if the treatment or services will improve the overall mental health of the enrollee."
Again, Democrats rejected it.
This isn't about trans rights
Many Democrats who support this kind of legislation try to silence critics by labeling them transphobic and intolerant. It's a cheap and disingenuous attempt to shut down reasonable opposition.
Parents have the biggest role to play in the well-being of their children. But progressive lawmakers and activists pretend parents are abusive if they dare to question their kid's position that they're transgender.
No, 13-year-olds aren't mature enough at that age to determine they can handle a gender reassignment surgery.
Unfortunately, unless a parent immediately and unquestionably accepts their kid's feelings at the time, the Left deems them to be unfit parents. And they believe that if a child even suspects their parents might say no to a life-altering surgery, the child should have the right to move forward on their own.
It's an easy position for politicians or activists to take when they don't have to deal with the consequences the way a child and his or her family would.
This isn't responsible lawmaking, either
Will there be a rush of 13-year-olds getting gender reassignment surgery without parental consent as a result of this law? No. But this is another step Democrats are taking to redefine gender. And, in time, teenage gender reassignment surgeries could become more frequent.
There are endless stories of people regretting their transitions. They felt betrayed by doctors who refused to question their decisions, eager to appear supportive rather than inform them of the consequences. When outlets tell these stories, progressive activists scream claims of bigotry.
There are also clear examples of children shutting out parents who are supportive.
Most teens go through a phase of being untrusting of parents or wanting to keep something private — issues much less sensitive or serious than gender reassignment surgery.
Breaking the bond between child and parent
These laws intentionally disconnect a parent and child. When did breaking up a family connection lead to societal benefits?
The legislature could have easily created a carve-out for minors who have a legitimate reason to keep some treatment private from abusive parents. But they chose not to. This isn't about the child, it's about a greater political movement. And these children are being used to forward it.
Teens who question their gender identity deserve our support and compassion. I can't imagine what it's like to have that particular feeling. But I certainly know what teenage years feel like as someone who is gay. It can be awkward and isolating even when you do have someone to talk to.
These Democrat laws do not serve these children. They're being deprived of the support they're owed by adults using them to make political statements. Having gender identity conversations with loving parents, however awkward, is better than letting an activist politician push teens down a path they're certainly not ready to handle on their own.
Tags
Who is online
144 visitors
Trolling, taunting, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Any Comments or Postings that concern anything but the Article Topic In the opinion of the Seeder are subject to immediate deletion without warning as off topic....
I lived on Whidbey Island, WA in the late 70's and it was a paradise. Last I heard it is liberal Yuppie Heaven now. Very sad.
Yeah the political climate in the Puget Sound area makes California look like conservative heaven...
Yep, on many occasions I had to make ambulance runs from the Naval Hospital at Whidbey Island, taking the ferry across Putrid Sound to the Naval Hospital at Bremerton. It was a nice trip up until we left the ferry. Could not wait to drop our patient off and get back on the ferry to Oak Harbor. I hated the SeaTac area even back then.
And the political war against families continues...
Would you like your child to be making life altering decisions and undergoing major surgeries without your knowledge?
Under Washington State Law, it is now a requirement...
Can not legally buy a beer but OK to change sexes. something is very fouled up there
yeah can't legally buy a gun, cannot legally buy cigarettes, cannot legally vote, cannot legally drive a car or obtain a license to drive...
Why is it they cannot do all these things? Cause they are not grown up enough to responsibly make such decisions, and the arguments against having those rights is usually that their brains are not developed enough to comprehend the consequences of the decisions involved...
Yet they are capable of making permanent life altering decisions regarding their health....
who pays the bills?
Who ever pays for the insurance, usually the parents...
Does private insurance actually cover this sort of thing. I only ask because our public insurance up here doesn't
That's what the law was all about, forcing the insurance carriers to cover it... The age/privacy regs were already on the books, but couldn't be acted on cause the insurance carriers either wouldn't pay for it outright or wouldn't pay for it without parental notification/consent...
This effectively funds the policies of the LGBTQ crowd which are a very powerful PAC/Lobbying group here in WA...
Such idiocy.
SMH
yep, the idiocy of brilliance....
Last sane person to leave Washington State, don’t forget to turn off the lights.
While there's no Federal Law every State has laws requiring a person be 18 years old to get a Tattoo and some allow under 18 with parental consent. So under 18 is to young to decide on their own about getting Tattooed but they can get a sex change at 13, how fucked up is that.
Unfortunately, this is what passes as "logic" to many progressive liberals.
Pretty damn stupid, isn't it?
Yes, I agree. I believe a child's medical decisions and any changes to their selves such as tattoos, piercing's, plastic surgery or any sort of physical augmentation or drugs/chemicals/treatments should be decided upon by the child's parent or guardian.
Not as many as some conservatives want to believe.
I agree. Teen years can be tough and emotional, you’re going through a lot of changes as you transition into adulthood. You don’t want to end up regretting a life altering decision.
IMO no child should be allowed to proceed with this without a parent’s knowledge.
Here in the State of Washington, a 13 year old girl can get pregnant, go to her school nurse and arrange an abortion without her parents even knowing about it... Courtesy of Planned Parenthood...
It is her body and her choice. A parent should not be able to force her to carry a child against her will, especially if that child was the result of incest or sexual assault, possibly by the father?
You are aware of the big huge assumption in your statement?
What 13 year old has money to pay for elective surgery? What hospital admits 13 year olds without a parental guardian or proof that they can pay? I’m sure these laws aren’t forcing providers to assume these risks.
They aren't forcing providers to provide the services, they ARE forcing the insurance carriers to pay for it if a provider says it is needed and the child agrees to it...
Which means if the counselors can convince the child he/she needs a sex change operation, and a provider is willing to do it, the families medical insurance MUST pay for it...
My step daughter is now my step son, but insurance won’t cover any type of reassignment surgery and neither will his parents. I don’t pretend to understand his condition, all I know is that he is a lot happier as a he than a she.
That should change Imo. That is why people run off to other countries and get questionable surgery.
Which means if the counselors can convince the child he/she needs a sex change operation, and a provider is willing to do it, the families medical insurance MUST pay for it...
Have you noticed how often you couch your comments in your own bias? Reading this, one would think counselors are out there seeking innocent children to turn into Frankenstein freaks. That’s not how it works, at all. It takes years of counseling before a counselor would be convinced by the patient (who sought out their service, not the other way around) that gender reassignment would be appropriate. And it starts with years of hormone therapy and noninvasive methods, not surgery. My stepson is in his 20s but had been seeing a counselor for years before being approved for hormone therapy. (She) would have done it sooner if it were that easy. As a female she had large breasts, but they are barely noticeable now, without any surgical procedures.
I should also mention that there is nobody in his life that is not accepting of his choice - even the ones who go to church every Sunday. He has a job that he started as a female, and even has a girlfriend who is an extremely sweet girl that bends over backwards to help out anyone in need. Like I said, I don’t get it myself, but it’s not my choice and I have no problem with the decisions other people make for themselves.
This I can agree with Hal, and I don't care what an adult choses for their life entirely none of my business... I'm happy that it worked out so well for your family...
The problem is this is AIMED at children. Children have to be counseled most of the time on which direction is up, and it is believed by certain persons that they are capable of making permanent life altering decisions when they can't even rationally decide which pokemon cards they want...
AND it has happened.... It's called conversion therapy (the other direction than the religious one) and it's the law in the State...
I tend to agree with you. I don't see this letting 14 or 15 years olds run off and get a sex change behind their parents backs.
It's not about teens running off to get this stuff, but if they actually decide to do it, the LAW fixes a way for them to get it done without informing the parents...
Uh huh. Kids can't get an appendectomy without consent.
So said that that Drs are performing GRS on a 13-year-old? A 13-year-old would be very lucky to get approved for hormones. The youngest person in the US who has had gender surgery is 17-18.
There's been quite a few Trans Female athletes that are re-writing the female athletics record books, former Male athletes that would be lucky to place fourth in a male competition....
I think the biggest controversy coming up in the future... It will have the potential capability of cutting most natural female athletes completely out of sports...
These are the dumbest cartoons that I have seen in years. A person's psychological gender identity, which is a trans people is different from their biological gender, is innate and cannot be changed. It is not a choice and more than their eye color or their height.
The trans people aren't rewriting women's sports. The trans population is less than 1% of the population. The idea that someone would claim to be trans just to compete in female sports is absurd, especially after a year or more of HRT that atrophies muscle and adds fat to the body, plus decreases their athletic drive.
Yeah I'm sure, unfortunately the facts are that trans females are re-writing the record books with records no true biological female has ever in the history of human kind been able to match... And yeah, there are athletes who have switched, not because of their actual gender dysphoria, because of the money the potentially will get from media and product endorsements...
You are aware that nobody participates in high visibility sports just for the sport of it anymore, aren't you?
On that basis alone, all they have to do is declare they are gender dysphoric and claim to be female and get a psychologist to certify their beliefs, with that certification in hand, the sports organizations HAVE to let them compete...
No drugs at all... Ain't it wonderful? Even those that do go thru the complete transformation, still maintain enough residual male muscle strength and tone to easily best most females in strength competitions, even those females taking performance enhancing substances...
Bigger lungs, larger heart with larger capacity to pump blood faster, stronger & larger bone structure...
There are some women that can compete on a male level, but few and far between...
I posted a link to one such story of an athlete who is now overjoyed that he/she is now a world #1 competitor after the trans... Couldn't even make national level teams as a man...
The issue is a factual one... and no it's not something the trans are responsible for, but yes there are those that will take EVERY advantage they can, even permanently altering the gender of their bodies if that is what it takes......
Trans females in women's sports are a statistical aberration and will never be a threat to CIS females, but you need a boogeyman to rail against, so not trans people are that target.
Do you think that trans males(who were born female and have male levels of testosterone and strength) would be more even in women's sports, or did you forget that they exist, just as conservatives did when the issue was the use of female bathrooms?
Those so called aberrations are rewriting record books where they are and do huge damage to the ability to compete with a chance to win of actual real women in the given sport where these frauds are present.
Tell it to the females who worked their butts off to excel in their sport only to get beat by someone who used to be a man. It’s not right and basically destroys one of the main advances of title nine.
Nah but you have managed to rationalize that all is copacetic with this problem. When nothing could be further from the truth.