<h2 id="">Where assisted suicide is legal in the U.S.</h2>In the United States assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington State, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, New Jersey, Vermont, Hawaii, and Washington, D.C.Currently, there are about twenty states considering such legislation including Florida, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Tennessee, as Maya Goldman <a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/02/09/medically-assisted-death-states" id="">reported</a> for Axios.&nbsp;<h2 id="">Unpacking the push for assisted suicide&nbsp;</h2><h3 id="">A drastic solution to a deeper problem</h3>A broken healthcare system has caused assisted suicide to become a default solution for many cancer patients according to Mercy Health CEO Emeritus Michael D. Connelly. He considers assisted suicide to be a solution for a symptom — patients wishing to die — that does not address a potential root cause of the problem —&nbsp;a broken healthcare system. Patients in despair, afraid of prolonged suffering from painful treatments are not given the information they need to be able to choose hospice and palliative care instead of death, he <a href="https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2024/02/23/physician-assisted-suicide-hospice-palliative-care-247366" id="">argued</a> in America Magazine.<blockquote id="">The real problem with physician-assisted suicide is that it attempts to treat symptoms (patients no longer wishing to live) and not the cause of their despair (a broken health care system). Patients are not educated about, nor referred to, hospice and palliative care in a timely fashion. So they end up receiving excessive and painful treatments that add unnecessary suffering. They turn to assisted suicide from fear of being “overtreated” by the health system.</blockquote>Evidence for this, he states, is the fact that 70 percent of patients who have elected assisted suicide are cancer patients interested in avoiding the suffering that chemotherapy and radiation treatments entail.<blockquote id="">One piece of evidence for this view is a recent study by the Penn School of Medicine showing that more than 70 percent of those who selected physician-assisted suicide over a 20-year period were cancer patients, who often undergo extensive chemotherapy and radiation treatments. In some cases, these treatments might be avoided by timely referrals to palliative care.</blockquote><h3 id="">Ethical concerns and potential abuses</h3>Connelly also pointed out that countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and Australia, which have permitted assisted suicide for decades, have seen a weakening of safeguards against potential abuses. As such, some Canadian and Australian practitioners are reconsidering their practice of medicine because of the increased social pressure for patients to choose assisted suicide. He quoted one Ontario, Canada physician who is considering leaving geriatric medicine because of family pressure on patients to end their lives early.<blockquote id="">David D’Souza, a physician in Ontario, told me, “I think already there’s a lot of abuse going on, and I’m seeing it in my own practice,” including when families pressure loved ones to die so that estates or insurance payouts become available sooner. “It’s making me think twice about whether I should be continuing in geriatric care.”</blockquote>President and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities Helene Berger <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/365326-how-assisted-suicide-laws-are-creating-a-duty-to-die-medical-culture/?platform=hootsuite/page/175/" id="">raised</a> the same concern in an article for The Hill. Berger noted that there are no checks and balances to prevent abuse of the disabled and elderly. She pointed to the pressure of family members and abusive caregivers on frail patients to end their lives and the lack of supervision of the process may even lead to those relatives or caregivers picking up the prescription and administering the drug themselves.<blockquote id="">But there is more cause for alarm. In states where assisted suicide is legal, nothing prevents a relative who stands to benefit from the patient’s death from steering that person towards suicide, witnessing the request, picking up the lethal dose, or even administering the drug. The same goes for abusive caregivers. No witnesses are required when the lethal drugs are administered, and despite assurances by assisted suicide proponents, there are no checks or balances that would prevent abuses.</blockquote><h4 id="">Doctor forcibly injects woman</h4>These ethical concerns are not hypothetical. In one case in the Netherlands, a 74-year-old woman with Alzheimer's was forcibly euthanized, <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5994261/Probe-Dutch-doctor-asked-family-hold-woman-dementia-resisted-euthanasia.html" id="">according</a> to Debbie White for Mail Online. The woman had an advance directive authorizing her doctor to kill her when her condition became severe. <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5994261/Probe-Dutch-doctor-asked-family-hold-woman-dementia-resisted-euthanasia.html" id="">‍</a>However, whenever the question came up she repeatedly said it wasn't time. After being admitted to a care home, the woman's husband persuaded the doctor that she wanted to die. <blockquote id="">She had written an 'advance directive' asking to be killed if the disease became too severe.</blockquote><blockquote id="">But whenever the issue of asking to die was raised, she also added: 'Not now, it's not so bad yet'.</blockquote><blockquote id="">However, after she was admitted to a care home, seven weeks before her death, its specialist doctor was persuaded by the Dutch woman's husband that she wanted the lethal injection.</blockquote><blockquote id="">The elderly woman was reported as being in tears, stressed and angry, and she was found wandering the care home during the night, searching for her husband.</blockquote>On the scheduled day of death, the doctor put a sedative in her coffee. When sedatives failed to work and the woman became aware of her surroundings she fought the injection. The doctor then asked family members to hold her down as she gave her the lethal shot.<blockquote id="">The report said the unnamed woman then appeared to become aware of her surroundings, and the doctor prepared to inject her with a lethal dose of the drug thiopental.</blockquote><blockquote id="">It added: 'When the physician tried to administer the thiopental, the patient sat up. This is what the physician had previously referred to as physical resistance.</blockquote><blockquote id="">'The family then held her and the physician quickly administered the rest of the euthanatic.'</blockquote>A watchdog report about the incident concluded that the doctor was trying to prevent the woman from objecting when she put the sedative in her coffee and couldn't be sure the woman really wanted to die. <blockquote id="">By giving a sedative covertly in a cup of coffee she had 'wanted to deprive the patient of the possibility to resist... [and then] when the patient did respond negatively, the physician wrongly failed to consider whether this could be interpreted as an important sign that she did not want a needle to be inserted'.</blockquote>Although the doctor was investigated, she was ultimately <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/doctor-netherlands-lethal-injection-dementia-euthanasia-a7564061.html" id="">exonerated</a>.<h3 id="">No longer just a solution for unbearable pain</h3>A broken healthcare system has enabled assisted suicide to become a default option for individuals who fear losing autonomy and dignity at a later point in their illness. Connelly writes that "what starts as a “compassionate” and rarely used option can metastasize into something like euthanasia, especially in certain populations."Assisted suicide was ostensibly legalized as a compassionate measure for people who were expected to die within the next 6 months, many of whom live with unbearable pain. But, as Connelly wrote, the reasons for people choosing to die have changed from a means of avoiding pain to a means of retaining autonomy and avoiding loss of dignity, which is predominantly important to white males who are not religiously affiliated.<blockquote id="">The Penn School of Medicine study indicates that the people who have chosen physician-assisted suicide since it was legalized in their states tend to be white, male and religiously unaffiliated—and also that they most often cite a loss of autonomy and dignity as the reasons for choosing suicide, rather than for relief from physical pain.</blockquote><h3 id="">A duty to die</h3>Connelly focuses on physician-assisted suicide as a solution for the elderly, stating that it "does not adequately answer the problem of older citizens facing a dire death experience." However, it’s not only the elderly or white males who choose assisted suicide. Berger’s concern is for vulnerable populations, which include but are not exclusively elderly, white, or male, likely to be mistreated by medical professionals when viewed by family members as emotional or financial burdens.<blockquote id="">Multiple studies show that people with disabilities, senior citizens, poor people, and people of color are more likely to be mistreated by medical professionals, and the likelihood of being mistreated increases if family members view them as an emotional or financial burden.”</blockquote>Not wanting to be a burden on family members as a reason for choosing assisted suicide has increased to the point that she believes it will soon become a “duty” to die.<blockquote id="">When it comes to assisted suicide, we see in states like Oregon, where assisted suicide has been legal for two decades, the percentage of Oregon deaths attributed to a patient’s reluctance to “burden” their families rose from 13 percent in 1998 to 40 percent in 2014.</blockquote><blockquote id="">This reveals that the right to die “option” for some vulnerable populations has quickly become more like a duty to die.</blockquote><h2 id="">Valuing life</h2>The ethical concerns surrounding assisted suicide raise important questions about the value society places on human life. The decision for a society to legalize assisted suicide rather than focusing on providing life-affirming options such as hospice and palliative care and focusing on supporting patients through difficult times is a sign of a broken healthcare system. This raises deeper questions about the role of government and the healthcare system itself in promoting death as an option rather than focusing on improving healthcare and promoting life.In a follow-up article, we will explore how the structure of healthcare—from insurers’ reluctance to fund life-prolonging treatments, to the normalization of assisted suicide as a medical option in some countries—contributes to this troubling trend. We will also address concerns about systemic issues like doctors' time constraints and errors in diagnosis — flaws in the system that push people toward assisted suicide. These systemic failures call for reflection on how we can shift toward solutions that prioritize proper treatment, and improve end-of-life care so that suicide is not considered a preferable option.‍Related articles:<ul id=""><li id="">‍<a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/could-canada-be-profiteering-from-euthanasia-and-transplants-like-the-ccp" id="">Is Canada profiteering from euthanasia and transplants — like the CCP?</a></li><li id=""><a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/are-maid-organ-donors-really-dead-when-their-organs-are-harvested-waiting-five-minutes-after-the-heart-stops-for-a-maid-death-may-not-be-long-enough" id="">Are MAiD organ donors really dead when their organs are harvested? Waiting five minutes after the heart stops may not be long enough</a></li><li id=""><a href="http://are-organ-donors-really-dead-when-their-organs-are-harvested-if-youre-really-dead-then-no-organs-can-be-extracted/" target="_blank" id="">Are organ donors dead when their organs are harvested? 'If you’re really dead, then no organs can be extracted'</a></li><li id=""><a href="http://are-organ-donors-really-dead-when-their-organs-are-harvested-if-youre-really-dead-then-no-organs-can-be-extracted/" target="_blank" id="">Is organ harvesting driving euthanasia? The ugly truth about why Canada leads in MAiD organ donor transplants</a>‍</li><li id=""><a href="http://www.thegoldreport.com/news/the-harsh-reality-of-euthanasia-exposing-the-myth-of-a-peaceful-passing-part-1" id="">The harsh reality of euthanasia: Exposing the myth of a peaceful passing</a></li><li id=""><a href="http://www.thegoldreport.com/news/euthanasia-by-the-numbers" target="_blank" id="">Euthanasia by the numbers: Canadian doctors have already killed the equivalent of a small city</a><a href="http://www.thegoldreport.com/news/is-euthanasia-compassionate" target="_blank" id="">‍</a></li><li id=""><a href="http://www.thegoldreport.com/news/is-euthanasia-compassionate" target="_blank" id="">Is euthanasia compassionate if offered to those who don’t want to die and doctors misjudge imminent death?</a></li><li id=""><a href="http://www.thegoldreport.com/news/white-coat-euthanasia" target="_blank" id="">White coat euthanasia: A license to kill in the name of care?</a></li><li id=""><a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/medical-assistance-in-dying-maid-a-cruel-way-to-die-but-not-to-the-onlooker" target="_blank" id="">Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) - a cruel way to die but not to the onlooker</a></li><li id=""><a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/disabled-in-canada-doctors-may-pressure-you-to-end-your-life" id="">Disabled in Canada? Doctors may pressure you to end your life</a>‍</li></ul>‍

Euthanasia out of control

'The family then held her and the physician quickly administered the rest of the euthanatic'

Disney has reportedly shelved an episode of the animated children’s show “Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur” because it contains a transgender plotline.Posts on the social media platform Bluesky appeared to show Disney staff members who worked on the show bemoaning the decision, Breitbart <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2024/11/20/disney-removes-childrens-cartoon-episode-about-transgender-athletes/" id="">reported</a> Wednesday.&nbsp;“One of the projects (episode) I worked on is getting shelved because of which party that won the recent election,” wrote Derrick Malik Johnson, a storyboard artist on “Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur” in a since-deleted post. “It breaks my heart knowing this impactful and amazing [episode] is now about to be consider [sic] a lost media episode.”The episode featured Brooklyn, a transgender teen volleyball player who claims to be a girl. Brooklyn has Pride flag kneepads and a trans sticker on his water bottle. When he visits the high school of the main character Luna Lafayette, he tries to join the girls’ team but is stopped by an evil trans-hating coach who uses a magical key to lock him up.“If you put attention [sic] to details about the character, you can figure out about what theme [the episode was based on] and why it was canned,” a user claiming to have worked on the show wrote on Reddit.A Disney source reportedly <a href="https://gizmodo.com/moon-girl-devil-dinosaur-season-2-censorship-trans-episode-disney-2000525143" id="">confirmed</a> to Polygon that the episode was cut from the 2025 schedule but denied it was related to this month’s election results. The source said the decision was made over a year ago to be “respectful of the role that parents play in the discussions they have with their children.”<h2 id="">‘It was good to go’</h2>Social media comments from other Disney employees, however, suggest the decision to pull the episode was made more recently.&nbsp;“Disney should be ashamed of themselves for canning this episode,” wrote Emmy Cicirega, a storyboard artist on several Disney shows. “You don’t get to approve approve approve something and then destroy it at the last minute, shattering the crews [sic] hard work and hopes.”<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Disney should be ashamed of themselves for canning this episode. You don’t get to approve approve approve something and then destroy it at the last minute, shattering the crews hard work and hopes. <a href="https://t.co/40QsPNhRMx">https://t.co/40QsPNhRMx</a>&mdash; Emmy Cicierega (@EmmyCic) <a href="https://twitter.com/EmmyCic/status/1857438915327627677?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Matt Braly, creator and executive producer of the Disney series “Amphibia,” responded to Ciciriega’s post saying the episode had already been approved by the company’s Standards and Practices Department (S&amp;P), which reviews content for compliance with ethical, moral, and legal standards.“If an episode got this far, it was approved multiple times by multiple divisions, only to suddenly be struck down at the last second? Total break down of process and spitting on your team’s careful/thoughtful work. S&amp;P approved this ep. It was good to go,” he said, adding in a second post: “The action being preemptive makes it so much worse to me. The absolute cowardice and second guessing when actually this is when this content is needed most.”<h2 id="">A megacorporation with a ‘not-so-secret gay agenda’</h2>The decision is considered surprising for a corporation that in 2022 boasted about its efforts to make children open to homosexuality. In a video posted by journalist Christopher Rufo in March 2022, Disney Television Animation Executive Producer Latoya Raveneau <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/disney-executive-producer-admits-to-gay-agenda-adding-queerness-wherever-she-could/" id="">admitted</a> to a “not-so-secret gay agenda” for children’s programming and “adding queerness” wherever she could.“In my little pocket of Proud Family Disney TVA, the showrunners were super welcoming . . . to my not-at-all-secret gay agenda,” Raveneau said in a staff meeting. “Maybe it was that way in the past, but I guess something must have happened . . . and then like all that momentum that I felt, that sense of ‘I don’t have to be afraid to have these two characters kiss in the background.’ I was just, wherever I could, adding queerness . . . No one would stop me, and no one was trying to stop me.”Disney has donated millions to “LGBTQ+” causes and <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/they-went-in-on-their-own-de-santis-signals-no-amnesty-for-disney" id="">ignited</a> a feud with the State of Florida over a bill that prohibits teachers from discussing their sexual preferences with school children.‍

Disney scraps episode over transgender plotline

Surprising move by megacorporation that boasted ‘not-so-secret gay agenda’

When is the publication of a scientific study news itself? When the study concerned has been either rejected or withdrawn from no less than 18 scientific journals before finally finding a home.‍<h4 id="">As if you needed proof that they're hiding things from you</h4>The study, which now appears in the <a href="https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/a-systematic-review-of-autopsy-findings-in-deaths-after-covid-19-vaccination/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email" id="">Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law</a> journal, is titled: “A Systematic Review Of Autopsy Findings In Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination,” and was conducted by a number of prominent scientists whose names will be familiar to those with a COVID-sceptic mindset — Nicholas Hulscher, Paul E. Alexander, William Makis, Harvey A. Risch, Peter A. McCullough, and others.The authors describe their study in terms that make it clear how consequential they believe its findings are:<blockquote id="">The largest COVID-19 vaccine autopsy study to-date, providing robust evidence that COVID-19 vaccines can cause death...</blockquote>‍<h4 id="">Going, going too well, gone</h4>The study first appeared in Preprints with The Lancet on July 5, 2023. As the name suggests, this journal features studies that have yet to undergo peer-review (for accuracy, clinical significance, etc.) and its purpose is to draw attention to important early-stage research. The study did indeed garner a great deal of attention — within 24 hours of appearing on the Preprints server, the abstract (a concise summary) had been viewed 124,947 times, and the entire study was downloaded 3,400 times.It was then that the editors of the journal stepped in and removed the study from the web server, with the vague explanation that its conclusions “were not supported by the study methodology.”<blockquote id="">This preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study's conclusions are not supported by the study methodology. Preprints with The Lancet reserves the right to remove a paper that has been posted if we determine that it has violated our screening criteria.&nbsp;</blockquote>According to epidemiologist Nicholas Hulscher, one of the lead authors, the study had initially satisfied screening criteria, and he concluded that the journal’s behavior “raises grave suspicions of censorship.”&nbsp;What followed was a series of attempts to find a new home for the study, throughout July, August, and September of 2023. <figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-fullwidth" style="max-width:276px" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="fullwidth" data-rt-max-width="276px"><div id=""><img src="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/673cefc39f14468937592aa5_673cef3a5757771c6df1df7e_list%2520of%2520rejected%2520journals.png" loading="lazy" alt="__wf_reserved_inherit" width="auto" height="auto" id=""></div></figure>‍<h4 id="">Number-one trending in the scientific world</h4>Finally, the study was accepted by Forensic Science International (owned by the Elsevier publishing house) where it first appeared in print and online on June 21, 2024, after being peer-reviewed. There, just as in its previous journal, it garnered a huge amount of attention and within two weeks it had become the number-one trending research paper worldwide across all subject areas (according to the Observatory of International Research).<figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-normal" style="max-width:49%" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="normal" data-rt-max-width="49%"><div id=""><img src="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/673cefc39f14468937592a9a_673cefa4c4bcc24679f5249b_number%25201%2520research.png" loading="lazy" alt="__wf_reserved_inherit" width="auto" height="auto" id=""></div></figure>The study’s <a href="https://www.altmetric.com/details/164720183#score" id="">metrics </a>reveal that it was in the 99th percentile of views and the top 5 percent of all research ever tracked by Altmetric. It was also an astonishing success for Forensic Science International, becoming its most read article ever by a factor of almost 100.‍<h4 id="">Going, going sensationally well, and gone again</h4>Three weeks passed — and then Elsevier <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824001968?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email" id="">withdrew </a>the study. In what one of the study’s authors calls a “flagrant violation of their own withdrawal policy,” not even the abstract of the study remains to be viewed.<figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-normal" style="max-width:42%" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="normal" data-rt-max-width="42%"><div id=""><img src="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/673cf06041297ee12b302081_673cf038c4d28e08dc4e31e2_study%2520withdrawn%2520elsevier.png" loading="lazy" alt="__wf_reserved_inherit" width="auto" height="auto" id=""></div></figure>‍Elsevier’s editors explained their decision as being due to inappropriate citation of references, inappropriate methodology, errors, lack of factual support for the conclusions, and failure to cite evidence pointing away from their conclusions. They claimed that they had been prompted to investigate the article — after it had passed professional peer-review — after receiving complaints from unnamed “members of the scientific community.”The study’s authors composed and submitted a rebuttal of all the complaints, to no avail. Elsevier then sent the study to two other peer-reviewers who concluded that it was “not suitable for publication.”‍<h4 id="">If you can't join them, beat them</h4>That was the picture on August 2, 2024. However, also in 2024, a new journal was established and named the Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law journal. In November, it accepted the study for publication.The experience of being targeted in a discriminatory manner and censored is familiar to many of those working for this new journal, who include Peter McCullough, Harald Walach, Aseem Malhotra, Paul Marik, Pierre Kory, Richard Urso, Retsev Levi, and Tess Lawrie.Meanwhile, most of the major scientific publishers, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Sage Publications and Taylor &amp; Francis, have formed a cartel under the umbrella of the&nbsp;International Association of Scientific, Technical,and Medical Publishers.&nbsp;This group controls fully two-thirds of global journal publications, and has recently been sued in a class action lawsuit for alleged “tremendous damage to science and the public interest” due to the restrictions it places on which material reaches the public.It is no secret that <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197141" id="">close to half</a> of all medical journals have such close links to the pharmaceutical companies that they have problematic conflicts of interest. Furthermore, almost 60 percent of all peer-reviewers for the major medical journals have received substantial sums of money from the drug companies for a total of over $1 billion paid out — between 2020 and 2022 alone.‍<h4 id="">An end to $cience?</h4>The Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law journal <a href="https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/restoring-science-to-its-true-path-a-call-for-integrity-rigor-and-public-engagement/" id="">describes</a> its mission as one of restoring integrity to scientific research by separating drug company money from the scientists researching their products:<blockquote id="">To restore integrity in scientific research, it is imperative to disentangle funding from the scientists conducting studies. This can be achieved by creating an intermediary funding pool, where contributions from pharmaceutical companies, nutraceutical firms, and other entities are managed independently, preventing direct influence over research outcomes. This model would ensure that studies — whether on pharmaceutical products, natural supplements, or novel therapies — are conducted to maximize efficacy and minimize adverse events.</blockquote>The editorial board stresses that science, especially in recent years, has descended into what they call “a misleading, artificial consensus,” and that restoring a genuine search for truth is something they seek to be part of:<blockquote id="">Science, at its best, is a disciplined quest for truth — a systematic approach to understanding the universe through observation, experimentation, and reasoned debate. Unlike the adversarial nature of courtroom drama, where opposing sides battle for a verdict, science thrives in a space where ideas are rigorously tested against each other in a constructive, non-contentious manner. However, the practice of objective science has been increasingly compromised. Too often today, scientific discourse is shaped not by critical inquiry or empirical evidence, but by narrative enforcement via a misleading, artificial consensus.</blockquote>‍<h4 id="">Role of the public crucial</h4>The business of publishing scientific research is a highly lucrative one — Elsevier’s CEO, Erik Engstrom, was the third highest paid CEO in the Netherlands during much of the past decade, earning over 30 million Euros. With such a concentration of power over which research sees the light of day, promoting and enforcing the “standard narrative” has perhaps never been easier, unless one goes back to the days when the Catholic Church suppressed the advance of science using the threat of excommunication to enforce its decrees.Establishing a rival journal, small though it may currently be, could mark a turning point in the world of research. The editors of Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law, in their editorial, appeal to the public to further their mission by reading, critiquing, and — perhaps most importantly — holding scientists to account.<blockquote id="">As the landscape of science continues to evolve, the role of the public is becoming increasingly critical. The democratization of knowledge — fueled by digital access and the rise of citizen science initiatives — empowers the public to act as both critical consumers and active participants in scientific research. The public is now uniquely positioned to provide valuable feedback, identify flaws, suggest alternative interpretations, and hold researchers accountable.</blockquote>‍The information contained in this article is for educational and information purposes only and is not intended as health, medical, financial or legal advice. Always consult a physician, lawyer or other qualified professional regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition, health objectives or legal or financial issues.

On 19th attempt, damning COVID shot study finally published

Study now appears in new, independent journal which seeks to 'restore scientific integrity'

A recent <a href="https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2024-11/GCM24-1112%20Topline%20-%20Transgender%20Issues.pdf" id="">survey</a> from Napolitan News Service has found that Americans overwhelmingly oppose gender ideology, including medical mutilation procedures for kids, allowing men in women’s spaces, and sexualizing children.The poll of 1,000 registered voters conducted last week found that 75% of Americans said men should not be allowed in women’s sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers, while 13% say they should.&nbsp;On whether schools should teach children about exploring or changing gender identities, 68% of voters said no and nineteen percent said yes. Of those who said yes, 35% believe gender ideology should be taught beginning in middle school, 32% believe it should start in high school, 16% said late elementary, and 13% believe it should be taught in grades K-3.When asked if teachers should be required to notify parents when children want to change their names, pronouns, or gender identities, 73% of respondents said yes while 17% said no.Lastly, 72% of Americans think it should be illegal to provide medical mutilation procedures such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or genital surgeries to children under 18. Eighteen percent of respondents said they support it. The number of Americans who oppose these procedures, which includes 86% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats, has jumped 10 points since August, <a href="https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/polling/mon-most-americans-across-political-isle-are-against-transgender-surgery" id="">according</a> to Just the News.Overwhelming <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1720808982/Medical_Mutilation_White_Paper_1804e8ca1a.pdf?updated_at=2024-07-12T18:29:43.454Z" id="">evidence</a> shows that these procedures — which some refer to as “gender-affirming care” — often sterilize children, deprive them of sexual satisfaction in adulthood, and cause serious psychological and emotional harm.&nbsp;<h2 id="">SCOTUS to rule whether medical mutilation can be banned</h2>The legality of medical mutilation interventions for kids is currently being argued before the US Supreme Court in United States v. Skrmetti.The Department of Justice filed the lawsuit against the State of Tennessee after the state’s legislature passed SB1 last year. SB1 is a law that prohibits healthcare providers from performing any procedures on children to promote a “gender identity.” A physician or hospital that gives a child puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or performs sex change surgery can face a $25,000 fine per violation, professional discipline, and civil lawsuits.The Biden-Harris administration is arguing that the ban violates the 14th Amendment by discriminating based on sex, even though the law applies to male and female minors equally. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, and a decision is expected by July 2025.‍

Protecting your
Medical Freedom
and Civil Liberties

Medical Mutilation

Support RFK Jr. for HHS Secretary

Latest Work

Euthanasia out of control

Disney scraps episode over transgender plotline

On 19th attempt, damning COVID shot study finally published

Americans overwhelmingly oppose gender ideology, poll shows

Latest Videos

How Much IsYour Freedom Worth?