Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube

Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee discussed S.B. 295, An Act Concerning State Law Protections for Health Care Providers and Patients Related to the Provision of a Legally Protected Health Care Activity.

The bill would shield providers of abortion and "chemical and surgical mutilation" practices otherwise known as "gender affirming care" as a "legally protected health care activity" in Connecticut.

Republicans opposed the bill.

"This bill, like some of the bills that we did last year, tries to hide certain conduct through euphemism," explained State Rep. Doug Dubitsky. "Sex change surgery is not reproductive health care services."

Dubitsky said if adults "want to hack off body parts" then "God bless you" but says children "should not be subject to this kind of mutilation."

"It's baffling to me that we would allow minors -- minors -- to cut off their breasts, to cut off their penises, to change their very physiology when they don't have the mental capacity to make those decisions," lamented Dubitsky.

He pointed out the hypocrisy of the democrats arguing last week that a "person's brain is not developed enough to make a decision about whether or not to commit a crime until they're 26 years old" in relation to SB 503, but somehow a 16-year-old boy is old enough to tell a doctor that he wants to "cut off his penis."

Dubitsky introduced an amendment (A) that would restrict any doctor from treating a child under age 18 with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, sex reassignment surgery or other gender affirming care.

Sen. Gary Winfield opposed the amendment, and asked his colleagues to oppose it too, because "it really has impact on lives."

He believes children do not have "higher level governing capacity" when it comes to making snap decisions -- like whether to rob a store -- but that those same children do have the capacity to make an informed decision about undergoing treatments that may result in sterilization and a lifetime of sexual dysfunction... because they are talking to a doctor.

There were no other comments, so Dubitsky asked for a roll call vote, but his amendment failed.

But Dubitsky tried again with a second amendment, taking into consideration Winfield's comments that young people's brains develop at different ages for different issues.

"Maybe a 17-year-old kid isn't old enough to determine whether or not to commit a crime but is old enough to determine whether they should have body parts cut off," said Dubitsky. "Doesn't sound right to me, but for the purposes of today, okay."

"How about 12-year-olds?" asked Dubitsky. "There is no way we can say that a 12-year-old or an 11-year-old has the mental capacity to make the decision to have her breasts cut off and be sterilized for life. An 11-year-old kid? No way! I don't care what metric you use. No 11-year-old kid in this state should have a licensed doctor perform sex change surgery on her. None. It's barbaric. It should be criminal."

Dubitsky proposed a second amendment (B), which was basically the same as the first one but with the age lowered to 12 years old:

Dubitsky believes that any doctor who treats a child under the age of 12 with gender affirming care should lose his license, and go to prison.

Winfield led the opposition, and accused Dubitsky of misrepresenting his comments.

Winfield tried to clarify his earlier comments with a healthy serving of word salad on how the "the science" supposedly shows young people act differently in different situations and that sometimes executive functions work and sometimes they don't.

Then he asked legislators to reject the amendment.

State Sen. John Kissel pointed out the fact that children's brains aren't even wired to make higher order decisions until age 12 -- that is, in fact, "the science" according to education experts.

State Rep. Craig Fishbein reminded legislators about how during the pandemic, they urged everyone to "trust the science" but now the democrats don't want to "trust the science" even though the largest physicians group - the American Medical Association - along with the American Society of Plastic Surgeons both said it's time to stop gender affirming care for minors.

"You either trust the science or you don't," said Fishbein. "What we're talking about here is kids."

State Rep. Tom O'Dea pointed out that the science is clear on the subject of gender affirming care for minors.

"What's going to change this is good lawyers suing hospitals and doctors who mutilate - permanently - children," said O'Dea. "I don't know how some people look at themselves mutilating a 10- or 11-year-old, and so I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. We should not be doing this on children."

Winfield still urged legislators to oppose the amendment.

State Rep. Jason Doucette asked Dubitsky why his amendment was even germane to the underlying bill. Dubitsky explained that the democrats keep changing the language and definitions of what "gender affirming care" really means. Doucette disagreed, and said he doesn't believe changing the definitions is germane to the bill.

Stafstrom tried to make the point that this bill is about a shield law, and that another committee should be deciding about which medical procedures should be authorized in the state.

He claimed to have found "at least some research" that indicates that gender-affirming surgery on minors already is not permissible under Connecticut law or regulations and that nowhere in the country were surgeries being performed on children under 18 that involved removal of organs.

Maybe Stafstrom missed the Family Institute's article, Connecticut Is Paying For Genital Mutilation of Minors As Young As 15???

Or Attorney General William "Lawfare" Tong bragging about how he just secured a court order to "protect" harmful gender affirming care for young people?

After the meeting Dubitsky took to Facebook.

"Today in the Judiciary Committee, I introduced an amendment to protect children under TWELVE years-old from the barbaric practice of "gender affirming care" i.e.: puberty-blocking drugs and sex change surgery," he wrote. "These unconscionable acts of butchery permanently disfigure and sterilize little children far too young to consent to such life-destroying mutilation of their still-developing bodies."

"All of the Republicans on the Committee voted to end these horrific practices," Dubitsky continued. "Every single Democrat voted for this terrible child abuse to continue."

Here are the Vote Tally Sheets for both Amendment A, no gender affirming care for children under 18, and Amendment B, no gender affirming care for children under 12.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'