Why it's Wrong to Chemically Castrate Children
LIFESITE NEWS: FULL RULING-IMPORTANT DETAILS OF THE JAMES YOUNGER VERDICT
BY MADELEINE JACOB
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
DALLAS, Texas, October 29, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – LifeSiteNews has obtained a certified copy of the complete ruling in the case of seven-year-old James Younger, whose mother wanted him to undergo a gender “transition” against his father’s wishes.Mr. Jeffrey Younger was fighting to prevent his ex-wife Dr. Anne Georgulas from “transitioning” James into “Luna.” The custody battle over James and his twin, Jude, garnered national attention after initially being ignored by the mainstream media. LifeSiteNews and The Texan were the only news outlets present for the entire trial.Judge Kim Cooks ultimately ruled that Dr. Georgulas will not be able to “transition” the child into a girl without Mr. Younger’s consent, and placed a gag order on both parents preventing either of them from talking about the case with media until James and Jude turn 18.Judge Cooks made it clear she was not happy with the media attention the case received, and Dr. Georgulas’ lawyers brought up Mr. Younger’s speaking to the media. He said he felt the public had a right to know what was going on in the medical field.Judge Cooks did not uphold the jury’s ruling that the current order be modified to provide one of the parents with sole managing conservatorship. She ruled that Mr. Younger and Dr. Georgulas will be joint managing conservators. They will both need to agree on all medical, dental, and psychological/psychiatric care. If a counselor “determines it is appropriate,” Mr. Younger will be granted 50/50 custody in January or June 2020. Judge Cooks’ also mandated family counseling for the entire family.Judge Cooks is the same judge who, in 2017, awarded Dr. Georgulas “the exclusive right, after notifying the Father, to consent to psychiatric and psychological treatment of the children” and “the exclusive right, after notifying the Father, to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment involving invasive procedures.”The court also mandated counseling to address specifically outlined issues and issued an injunction against the parents “making disparaging remarks regarding the other parent in the presence of the children or in the children’s listening.”Judge Cooks gave the amicus attorney, Mr. Stacy Dunlop, the power to make medical decisions for the boys if Mr. Younger and Dr. Georgulas cannot agree.“If the parents cannot come to an agreement, they will make an appointment with Stacy Dunlop, the Parenting Coordinator, who will resolve the dispute by making a decision on behalf of the parents if they still disagree,” the ruling says.Specifically on medical, psychological, psychiatric, and dental issues, Mr. Dunlop will “resolve the dispute by making a decision on behalf of the parents if they still disagree after discussing the disagreement with Stacy Dunlop.”Dr. Georgulas has “the exclusive right to the services and earnings of the children, and the exclusive right to receive child support.”The ruling also outlines the court’s 68 findings. The court found “that there has been no abuse, neglect, or family violence by either parent to the children or from one parent towards the other.” The court found, “the mother made no request to surgically or chemically transition the child’s sex or to chemically castrate the child.”Evidence presented in court indicated Dr. Georgulas had referrals to the GENECIS transgender children’s clinic. Dr. Georgulas also testified that she consulted with the GENECIS clinic about James. Dr. Georgulas’ expert witnesses testified about the alleged benefits of “affirming” transgenderism in children, including the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.The court found that, “the State of Texas has no compelling interest to justify such interference as to entering Orders requiring the Father to affirm Luna and honor her [sic] choices, both inside and outside the home.” In other words, Mr. Younger will not be forced to use female pronouns to refer to his son.One of the court findings highlighted a statement from Dr. Albritton, the custody evaluator, that Dr. Georgulas was “over and above affirming.” The court also found that “the Mother has exceeded the scope of the exclusive rights and duties provided in the prior order.”The ruling also said that the state has not mandated the “transition” of James directly: “No Texas judge or Texas court nor the 255th family court of appeal has ordered the chemical castration, puberty blockers, hormone blockers, or any transgnder reassignment surgery on this child.”Gov. Greg Abbott, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Rep. Dan Crenshaw – all of Texas – and many conservative leaders weighed in on the case after it went viral.Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, tweeted: “We don’t let kids drink alcohol til 21. People want to move smoking age to 21. But we will allow a 7 year old to have his life and body altered like this? This is child abuse and the state should side with the father who is trying to protect the child.”The certified copy of the ruling can be read HERE.Follow all LifeSiteNews coverage of the James Younger case here._____________________________________________________________Dad who fought to protect son from gender ‘transition’ now under ‘unconstitutional’ gag order
BY MADELEINE JACOBrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:DALLAS, Texas, October 25, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The judge who ruled yesterday that seven-year-old James Younger’s parents will have 50/50 custody of him and joint decision-making over his medical decisions has placed both of them under a gag order. They are prohibited from speaking to the media about the case, which made national news after it was initially ignored by the mainstream media, until James and his twin Jude turn 18.Judge Kim Cooks of the 255th District Court included a gag order on Mr. Jeffrey Younger and Dr. Anne Georgulas in her custody ruling. Dr. Georgulas has been trying to orchestrate a gender “transition” for James against Mr. Younger’s wishes.During their messy legal battle, Dr. Georgulas’ attorneys focused on Mr. Younger’s engagement with the media during the trial, calling it an invasion of the boys’ privacy.The gag order on Mr. Younger is “clearly unconstitutional,” Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, told LifeSiteNews.“This is an outrageous decision by the court that clearly is unconstitutional under the First Amendment,” said Mr. Staver. “It is obvious with the court order that the judge has made some serious mistakes because this is fairly straightforward that you can’t gag a father from talking about his son to the media.”Jonathan Saenz, the President of Texas Values, called the gag order an “overreaction”:“The issuance of a gag order is clearly an overreaction in this case particularly since this case was going to be decided by a judge and not a jury, but it is also an indication that Jeff Younger realized he had to do everything he could to get his message out [because] up until this point the system had not worked the way it should.”Saenz shared his hope that this case will spur the state of Texas to pass laws protecting children.“Moving forward we are very encouraged that state [legislators] and leaders recognize the need to address the injustice that this situation highlighted and we hope that there will be an opportunity very soon to have protections in state’s laws for children and parental rights in our state on this issue.”Mr. Younger testified that he had not sought out any interviews and that he only accepted interviews with certain media. Mr. Younger also testified that he wouldn’t stop engaging with the media after the trial. He told LifeSiteNews, “I would like to protect every child in the United States from these abhorrent practices by the medical community.”Texas Solicitor General just issued brief calling gag order on another family unconstitutional
Gag orders have been issued in other parental rights cases. In addition to calling them unconstitutional, critics say they are used to prevent parents from sharing with the public what is being done to their children.When Justina Pelletier was taken from her parents’ custody after they disagreed with a doctor at Boston Children's Hospital, her parents were also gagged. Justina was ultimately reunited with her family, but is still recovering from the trauma of being seized by government officials and locked in a psychiatric ward for almost 16 months, where her physical condition also deteriorated.In July, a judge outside of Dallas issued a gag order on the Pardo family, whose four-year-old son was taken by the state over allegations of medical abuse, which came after his parents sought a second medical opinion.Just last week, Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins issued a brief on behalf of the State of Texas saying the gag order placed on the Pardo family is unconstitutional.“The gag order is a prior restraint on speech,” he wrote. “It is plainly overbroad and cannot be squared with the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees.”“Neither the trial court’s threadbare explanation nor the record justifies the substantial infringement on First Amendment rights.”Dr. Georgulas’ attorneys argued during the trial that Mr. Younger speaking with the press put his children in danger despite the lack of evidence of this.In his brief, Hawkins cited numerous cases setting the precedent for the unconstitutional nature of a gag order during court proceedings. He cited the need for evidence of imminent harm for the imposition of a gag order.“A court may impose a gag order only upon evidence of an imminent harm that cannot be addressed by less restrictive means. See Neb. Press, 427 U.S. at 562,” the briefing stated.Hawkins’ brief also addressed the use of gag orders to protect the privacy of juveniles both at a state and federal level.“Further, a ‘state’s interest in protecting juveniles’ cannot alone justify suppressing speech about a juvenile’s private information that was lawfully obtained. Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 443 U.S. 97, 104 (1979); see also In re T.T., 779 N.W.2d 602, 620 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009)”“The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld ‘legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally pro tected rights,’ New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 757 (1982), but has also cautioned that ‘the objective of shielding children does not suffice to support a blanket ban if the protection can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative,’ United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 814 (2000).”Follow all LifeSiteNews coverage of the James Younger case here.______________________________________________________________
