Oh really? I wonder why?
During a House hearing Wednesday, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) debated witness Dr. Meredithe McNamara, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Yale School of Medicine. When Crenshaw asked McNamara about benefits of trans procedures for kids, she couldn’t name a single study that pointed them out.
Crenshaw recently proposed provisions that would remove federal funding from hospitals who provide transgender procedures for minors. Said procedures would include things like puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones or surgeries.
As reported by the "Washington Examiner," Crenshaw’s resolution would “remove federal dollars from facilities that perform these controversial treatment therapies in a similar manner as the Hyde Amendment removes funding for abortion procedures.” Essentially, training hospitals who teach about how to treat trans kids would be denied funding from the federal government. Presently, 58 hospitals receive that funding but if Crenshaw's proposal is instated, its highly likely that number would go down.
As a matter of fact, 70 percent of taxpayers opposed the “barbaric treatment” on minors, as Crenshaw mentioned to assist his point that these treatments shouldn't receive federal funding.
In his exchange with McNamara, the so-called “doctor” was obviously against Crenshaw's proposal yet couldn't name any concrete evidence for why these procedures were beneficial to kids.
McNamara simply kept saying “standards of care” was her reason for supporting these procedures for kids.
This is a radical new movement that is performing permanent physiological changes to children with no evidence of any benefits. pic.twitter.com/BV9at1G7At
— Rep. Dan Crenshaw (@RepDanCrenshaw) June 14, 2023
“Everything I’ve said here today comes from a place of deep honesty and conviction about the care that I provide and the community that I am a part of,” McNamara said.
Crenshaw asked McNamara to identify a study or journal to support her claims.
"Tell me a journal that has done systematic reviews that cites different evidence, that cites strong evidence for benefits of these therapies,” he stated.
“The standards of care were developed based on extensive–,” McNamara responded.
“You’re not telling me any journal, you’re not telling me any study,” Crenshaw commented. Yet again she claimed some gibberish about “standards of care.”
“The standards of care — that’s not a journal, that’s not a study, that’s not an organization, that’s not an institution. You’re just saying words,” Crenshaw said. “Name one study.”
Of course, McNamara couldn’t name any of the benefits of trans surgeries for kids because - well, there are none. There’s nothing positive about chemically or surgically castrating anyone, nevermind a child. There’s nothing beneficial about mutilating an innocent, God-designed body to fulfill a complete and utter delusion. There’s no perks of training doctors on how to provide life threatening and life changing procedures to kids that frankly, do not need said procedures at all.
Crenshaw’s argument pointed that out clearly while squashing McNamara’s, so-called "rebuttals."
