KAMALA HARRIS, CHEATER AND SCHEMER, A HEARTBEAT AWAY
Joe Biden’s pick of Kamala Harris from California is extremely important. Biden will be 78 if elected, the oldest person ever to hold the office. He’s already showing signs of deterioration and it seems highly unlikely that he will be able to seek a second term. He may well not make it through his first term.
From the standpoint of pro-family issues, both Biden and Harris would be terrible, but Harris would be a true disaster.
I managed the successful Proposition 8 campaign in California reaffirming in the state constitution that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Harris was elected California Attorney-General (barely) in 2010, two years after Proposition 8 passed. By then, the initiative was being challenged in federal court.
A homosexual judge, himself involved in a long-term same-sex relationship, presided over the case. (He never disclosed his conflict of interest during the trial.) The judge ruled that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution and declared it invalid.
This is where Harris’ duplicity became particularly evident. As Attorney-General, Harris ignored her oath of office and refused to defend Proposition 8 in court – a legally binding, validly enacted constitutional provision approved by millions of Californians. Eventually it died for lack of a defence.
As Attorney-General, rather than prosecuting Planned Parenthood for illegally harvesting and selling body parts of aborted infants, Harris instead prosecuted the undercover journalists who documented Planned Parent-hood’s misdeeds.
She also was a co-sponsor of legislation that attempted to force pro-life crisis pregnancy centres to publish information to their clients about how they could get a free or low-cost abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated it.
Extract from Frank Schubert on the iFamNews website August 14, 2020.
‘TRANSITIONING’ PROCEDURES DON’T HELP MENTAL HEALTH
The world’s largest dataset on patients who have undergone sex-reassignment procedures re-veals that these procedures do not bring mental health benefits. But that’s not what the authors originally claimed. Or what the media touted.
In October 2019, the American Journal of Psychiatry published a paper entitled, “Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilisation Among Transgender Individuals after Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study.” As the title suggests, the paper claimed that after having had sex-reassignment surgeries, a patient was less likely to need mental health treatment.
Well, now the editors of the journal and the authors of the paper have issued a correction. In the words of the authors: “The results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care.”
But it’s actually worse than that. The original results already demonstrated no benefits to hormonal transition. That part didn’t need a correction. So, the bottom line: the largest dataset on sex-reassignment procedures – both hormonal and surgical – reveals that such procedures do not bring mental health benefits.
In fact, the authors point out in their correction that on one score – anxiety disorders – patients who had sex-reassignment surgeries did worse than those who did not: “Individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had received gender-affirming surgery were more likely to be treated for anxiety disorders compared with individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had not received gender-affirming surgery.”
You would think patients suffering from gender dysphoria would want to know that.
Extract from Ryan T. Anderson on The Daily Signal website, August 3, 2020.
