Clementine Breen was 12 years old when she began taking puberty blockers prescribed by Dr. Olson-Kennedy at L.A.'s Children's Hospital. At 13, she was started on cross-sex hormones and her breasts were removed when she was 14 years old. When Breen's parents expressed concerns about starting her on testosterone, Olson-Kennedy pulled them aside and told them Breen was suicidal (she was not), and that Breen would kill herself if she wasn't given hormones to 'affirm' her identity.
Breen, now 20, has filed a lawsuit against Olson-Kennedy. But the damage is done. Breen's healthy breasts were removed in the name of 'gender ideology', and she can never get that back.
In Kansas, the Republican legislature passed the Help Not Harm Act, which was vetoed by Democratic Governor Laura Kelly, who said at the time that, 'Right now, the Legislature should be focused on ways to help Kansans cope with rising prices. That is the most important issue for Kansans. That is where my focus is.'
This week, the Kansas state legislature overrode that veto.
BREAKING: The Kansas state legislature just voted to OVERTURN Governor Laura Kelly's veto of the Help Not Harm Act.
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 18, 2025
This act, which bans s*x change surgeries and puberty blockers on minors, will now become law!
HUGE WIN for the people of Kansas pic.twitter.com/dyRH2WFKhF
Of course, this is being spun as an unjust attack in the press. The Kansas Reflector says the legislation 'targets' trans kids, and they wrote (emphasis added):
Recommended
Senate and House Republicans voted Tuesday to override Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto of legislation that bans gender-affirming care for minors, rejecting pleas from Democrats to turn attention instead to issues that would help Kansas families.
Republicans used their dominance in both chambers to summon the two-thirds majorities needed to override the veto with votes of 31-9 in the Senate and 85-34 in the House. The unscheduled votes caught Democrats off-guard.
Senate Bill 63 prohibits health care providers from providing surgery, hormones or puberty blockers to children who identify as a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. Health care providers who break the law will be stripped of their license.
It also prohibits the use of state funds for psychological treatment for transgender children, bans state employees from promoting “social transitioning” and outlaws liability insurance for damages related to gender-affirming care.
A national anti-LGBTQ+ group called Do Not Harm drafted the model legislation, which is billed as the “Help Not Harm Act.”
Kelly responded to the veto override by saying it was “inappropriate that the Legislature dictate to parents how to best raise their children.”
But the press aside, focus on what Kelly said about the veto override:
Kelly responded to the veto override by saying it was “inappropriate that the Legislature dictate to parents how to best raise their children.”
Really?
That's the argument Kelly -- a Democrat -- wants to make?
Fine, let's do that.
Kelly is the governor of Kansas, and that's where she should focus her governance. But she's also a Democrat, and her party has a very troubling record on parental rights.
We'll start in Minnesota, where former Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz signed legislation making the state a 'trans refuge' that would also take children away from parents who don't 'affirm' a child's 'gender identity.'
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.
...
But the Minnesota law and its ilk throw out this commonsense rule. If anyone — a parent, close relative, or even an unrelated adult — seeks custody of a child “for the purpose of obtaining gender-affirming health care,” then that person can take the child to Minnesota, where state courts now have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case. Those courts will decide custody of the child — and ultimately whether the child will be put on harmful puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones — based on Minnesota law.
In other words, as soon as the teenage girl crosses the Minnesota state line with her aunt or to visit her aunt, Minnesota courts are now armed to strip custody away from the girl’s caring parents in Ohio and award it to the aunt, who can immediately start the vulnerable child on dangerous transition drugs.
Indeed, in Walz’s Minnesota, putting kids on a one-way street toward the irreversible damage caused by puberty blockers, hormones and sterilizing surgeries is the official policy of the state.
Minnesota isn't alone.
California tried passing AB 957, which would have done the same and stripped parents of custody if they didn't enthusiastically support the sterilization and mutilation of their children.
Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill, however.
A California bill would require judges to consider a parent's acceptance or affirmation of their child's gender identity when weighing child custody disputes.
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday vetoed Assembly Bill 957, which lawmakers passed earlier in September. The Assembly approved the measure and sent it to the governor's desk on a party-line vote of 57-16.
In a veto message, Newsom urged caution that the bill's approach could be used "to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities."
"Moreover, a court, under existing law, is required to consider a child's health, safety, and welfare when determining the best interests of a child in these proceedings, including the parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity," Newsom's message read. "For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill."
Even though we've had many stories about children outgrowing the 'trans' phase and regretting the damage done to their body. Like the aforementioned Clementine Breen.
It's not just on trans issues.
Democrats oppose school choice and homeschooling, while they force kids into public schools that they then shut down for months on end in the name of 'COVID safety.' They wanted to remove children from the homes of unvaccinated parents.
They oppose parental notification laws, arguing it's none of the parents' business whether or not their daughter kills their unborn grandchild. A bill in California would've allowed children to get vaccines without parental consent.
During the Biden-Harris administration, the DOJ attacked concerned parents at school board meetings as 'domestic terrorists' for daring to question why pornographic LGBTQ materials belonged in classrooms across the country.
And it is there -- in the alphabet soup of LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ advocacy -- that the Left miraculously finds itself defending the concept of 'parental rights.'
Funny how that works.
Legislatures across the country regularly tell parents how to raise their children. There are legal requirements for school, age restrictions on driving, and some states prohibit the use of social media for children under a certain age. Try getting a piercing or a tattoo under the age of 18 without parental consent.
All of those things are state legislatures 'dictating' to parents how best to raise their kids.
With one fundamental difference: the Kansas law actually protects them from harm.
