There are billions of reasons why Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz should never be allowed to occupy the Oval Office. Their passion for pushing transgenderism on children ranks in the top ten.
Since Harris announced Walz as her running mate, he has been under scrutiny for his support of policies that not only promote dangerous “gender-affirming care” treatments for children but also violate parental rights.
In April 2023, Walz signed a bill into law that aims to make Minnesota into a “trans refuge” state for trans-identified minors to seek out “gender-affirming care” without the knowledge or consent of their parents.
In an article for The Washington Post, author Fenit Nirappil defended the law, arguing that it is a significant step forward in protecting trans-identified children’s rights. The law grants Minnesota courts “temporary emergency jurisdiction” during interstate custody disputes if a child is unable to access puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and other forms of “gender-affirming care.”
“I cannot imagine the stress that families and individuals go through, but here in Minnesota, we’re going to be a place of refuge to make sure that they feel safe and welcome,” Walz said before accusing Republicans who restricted access to the treatments of “using the state apparatus to bring cruelty down on the most innocent amongst us.”
Critics like Matt Sharp, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), countered supporters of the law by pointing out how it empowers the state to subvert parental rights and facilitate the “transitioning” of trans-identified children. In an op-ed for The Hill, he explained how the law poses a direct threat to the rights of parents, warning that it could lead to situations where parents lose custody of their children for refusing to consent to giving them puberty blockers and hormone treatments.
Imagine a teenage girl in Ohio who regularly visits her rather woke aunt in Minnesota. The aunt thinks that her teenage niece’s parents aren’t sufficiently “affirming” of the girl’s desire to adopt a male identity. The parents know the devastating and irreversible harm puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones would cause their daughter, and so they’re not about to consent to them. The aunt files a lawsuit in Minnesota to gain custody of the girl and start her on a regime of the drugs.
Normally, Minnesota courts would dismiss the suit, recognizing that Ohio is the proper venue for the case. After all, that is where the niece and her mom and dad live, and where the girl’s pediatrician and counselor (who would have information about the girl’s physical and mental health) are located. Out-of-state attempts to get custody are usually decided based on the child’s home state.
However, under the new law, Minnesota courts are empowered to strip custody from parents who oppose gender-affirming care if the child is brought into the state.
The author brings up concerns that organizations like Planned Parenthood could exploit the law to assist children with getting “gender-affirming care” treatments against their parents’ wishes.
And it isn’t just woke relatives that receive a “get out of jail free” card when they abscond to Minnesota with a child who has been ripped from the arms of her parents, who are her best advocates and defenders. This law will allow Planned Parenthood and other gender clinics to push life-altering transition drugs on children with no meaningful oversight or accountability.
Under the Minnesota law, Planned Parenthood could easily encourage and even pay expenses for a teenager to travel to the state for harmful transition drugs. And it would do so with assurances that state law shields it, should the parents try to intervene to save their child from the lifelong consequences of these drugs.
Sharp’s clearly right on this. Walz’s “trans refuge” law will undoubtedly be used to undermine parental authority by empowering the state to make these decisions instead of parents. Those pushing these types of laws believe the state should be the ultimate arbiter of how to raise children, which is why any sensible adult should be concerned. It is nothing more than an expansion of government power.
What is especially troubling is the impact this will have on children suffering from gender dysphoria. Despite what folks on the left claim, “gender-affirming care” does far more harm than good in many cases. This is why several European nations have moved away from using it on kids. Laws like Minnesota’s show that people like Walz don’t appear to care about how this could ultimately harm the children they claim they are trying to help.
