Thursday, March 03, 2022

Some Slightly Good News

Politically this may already be a dead issue. Arguably it did what Abbott wanted it to do: helped him squash his farther-right wing primary opponents. Oddly, that analysis/argument doesn't apply to Paxton, who is in a runoff. Perhaps for him it was a liability? Inquiring minds (like the judge in this hearing) want to know: The AG is already preparing an interlocutory appeal. They can read the tea leaves. But the AG opinion on this is crap, and won't stand the merest scrutiny (the governor's order is based on the AG opinion; they are two sides of the same coin). Here's part of what they're fighting about:

When the [DFPS] employee asked her supervisor for clarification about how DFPS would implement this new directive, she was put on leave, the plaintiff said. Two days later, an investigator from Child Protective Services visited the family and interviewed the parents and child.

The AG's argument is "No, we didn't mean that!  We just meant there MIGHT be child abuse possible!"

The opinion from the attorney general was intended to show “not that gender-affirming treatments are necessarily or per se abusive, but that these treatments, like virtually any other implement, could be used by somebody to harm a child,” Assistant Attorney General Ryan Kercher said.

Kercher argued that Abbott’s letter was merely clarifying a “concern” that gender-affirming treatments could never be considered child abuse.

Meachum challenged that argument, asking how common it is for the governor to issue directives like this to DFPS. Kercher said he did not know. The judge said she would rule by the end of the day Wednesday.

This is government by terrorism, and there is no excuse for it. DFPS doesn't have the manpower to investigate every family with a transgender child in it (few as those actually are).  It's doing this because the family brought it to them and they had to investigate their own employee, or face the wrath of the governor.  If Beto doesn't run on this against Abbott, doesn't run on the idea of NOT interfering the the parent/child relationship or the doctor/patient relationship, then he's a damned fool.  No, it won't sweep him into office on a blue tidal wave, but it will mark a clear distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans, and the use of government power.  That's an issue that runs bone-deep in Texas.

This is something no one should have to go through, and Greg Abbott should be forced to defend.  He didn't want the "nanny state" making kids wear masks at school, but he does want the government to prosecute parents and destroy families because they seek medical care for their child.  And he is terrorizing families and their children to win an election.
One does wonder if DFPS will investigate anyone else who’s not in their offices. Or what DFPS is going to do for employee morale. As I was saying: Beto needs to go after this one. Government cruelty is something people will rally against.
at

2 comments:

  1. rustypickup8:32 AM

    I think this is the other reason that the reactionary members of the Supreme Court will ultimately overturn Griswold. It's no so much contraceptives, but the right to privacy on which Griswold is founded. Without a right to privacy, the state can regulate the sex act, and also gender, gender transition, etc. I haven't seen the ACLU/Lambda filings, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are at least in part based on Griswold and progeny that provide for a right to privacy that would include sex, gender, family relations and such. Overturning Roe is only the beginning, not the end.

    ReplyDelete