Maine bill would allow gender-affirming care for out-of-state children
"Democratic state representatives are proposing a bill to expand gender affirming care access in Maine.
The bill would allow Maine to take temporary emergency jurisdiction over children who haven't been able to get gender-affirming care in other states and provide them with those services.
It also would protect healthcare providers in Maine from out-of-state subpoenas surrounding the care.
This comes after state lawmakers gave preliminary approval to another bill that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to receive gender-affirming care without parental consent."
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
First, when the term “ gender-affirming care” is used, what exactly is that and what does it entail? If the person is of legal age by Maine law I guess it is their call. If the person leaves a state where they are not of “legal age” I guess it would fall in the realm of the parents and their care of their child(ren). If parents choose to let their children go to Maine for such care, that is a choice they will make or have made for their child(ren).
@soar2newhighs The problem is that more and more blue states are now passing bills that take parents out of the equation when a kid claims to be trans.
@NativePortlander1970 I hear what you’re saying but I think it is a lot more complicated than saying that parents are out of the equation. That’s my feeling on this. Again it IMO it DOES come down to the parents. They are the ones who have to carry this fight.
@soar2newhighs I'm no attorney, so maybe those who are can chime in...but essentially the bill gives the state "temporary jurisdiction" over a child that crosses state lines. Wouldn't it then become a federal issue? If something like this passes, I would imagine it ends up with the SCOTUS.
@BizSuitStacy Technically that would put federal laws under jurisdiction since it becomes interstate. I'll give you a good example, the state of Illinois just banned the sale of semiautomatic rifles, BUT federal law still allows their residents can still go into Michigan, Wisconsin, iowa, and Missouri, to buy a simple Ruger 10/22 .22LR if they want, and Illinois cannot do jack shit to stop them from bringing them back in.
@NativePortlander1970 hmmm...not sure I agree with the analogy. Even if the purchase of a firearm is made out of state, the buyer is still subject to their state's firearm laws. The firearm retailer checks the residency of the buyer prior to the sale to verify. If ok, the purchase takes place, and the firearm is then transferred to an FFL in the buyer's state where the background check and any other state laws (such as waiting periods) apply before the buyer takes possession.
@NativePortlander1970 I understand what you are saying and agree re: constitutionality, but states violate the 2A all the time. If you look at online ads for AR-15s, for example, the retailer includes the disclaimer that he/she will not sell to residents of the following states where the gun is banned.
@BizSuitStacy Trump needs to list the ATF, along with all the other treasonous alphabet agencies, with his day one disbandments, then EO a federal Constitutional Carry law, eliminate gun free zones, and tax restrict states until they repeal all of their infringements.
When people were pointing out the problem with gun violence in Chicago, it was Barry Obozo who spread the lie that Illinois residents were simply going to Iowa, where the laws weren't as strict, to buy their guns. While it's true that residents of Illinois can purchase guns in Iowa, and it's true that Iowa's gun laws aren't as strict as those in Illinois, Obama intentionally left out the part that Illinois residents are still subject to Illinois state firearm laws. You might be able to circumvent the background via private sale, and you might find an unscrupulous dealer - though it's unlikely. But Obama wanted people to believe that criminals were crossing state lines to get guns, and that's why Chicago gun violence is out of control - which is total 🐂💩. Gun grabber were using the same argument for DC. Criminals go to Virginia, where the gun laws are far less stringent. More horse shit. DC's gun laws make Chicago's look like a cakewalk by comparison. Yet DC's firearm homicide rate per capita is 16 times higher than the national average...and higher than any of the 50 states. Yet another inconvenient truth for the gun control crowd.
@BizSuitStacy I thought you'd like it, the second amendment is federal and should not be infringed by the states, DC v. Heller made it very clear, whoever passed it as law that states could regulate other states in purchasing should be held for treason.
