This week Arkansas made history by becoming the first state to protect children with gender dysphoria from puberty-blockers, cross-sex hormones, and mutilating sex-reassignment surgeries. On Monday, Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson vetoed the bill, arguing that it abandons conservative principles of limited government. Thankfully, the legislature overrode his veto on Tuesday afternoon.
By claiming that this bill goes against conservative principles, Hutchinson disregards the seriousness of so-called “gender-affirming treatments” for children with gender dysphoria, which prevent the normal development that happens during puberty. These “treatments,” which often dismiss underlying mental health concerns, are experimental, and have dangerous side effects, leaving children chemically castrated. Chemical interventions are frequently followed by mutilating surgeries to create the appearance of opposite-sex genitalia, and double mastectomies have been performed on girls as young as 13.
“Limited government” does not mean that the government should allow experimentation on children, or that we cannot unequivocally say that it is wrong to tell a child that he or she was born in the wrong body. And “limited government” certainly does not mean that the government gets to abdicate its responsibility to protect children from abusive practices at the hands of adults.
Furthermore, Hutchinson’s view of “limited government” in this case is wildly inconsistent with existing Arkansas law. As Family Policy Alliance’s Autumn Leva has pointed out, a minor in Arkansas cannot get a piercing or tattoo on their nipples or genitalia, even with parental consent. Leva writes,
If a tattoo or piercing on nipples or genitalia is harmful to children and prohibited, then these sex-change interventions—which halt the natural development of breasts in female children, can include the removal of breasts and genitalia of healthy children, and can render male and female children sterile before the age 18 regardless of whether their genitalia or breast tissue are altered—are also harmful and should be prohibited.
Thankfully, Arkansas’s legislature understands that Hutchinson’s “limited government” argument doesn’t hold water and took decisive action to protect young people in their state.
Hutchinson is not the only governor to display an unwillingness to stand up to the transgender lobby. Recently, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem vetoed her state’s Save Girls’ Sports bill which would have protected fairness and opportunity in women’s and girls’ sports. Before the bill passed, Noem had pledged her support.
Hours after the Arkansas legislature overrode Hutchinson’s veto, Governor Tim Walz tweeted, “To all trans youth in Minnesota: You are loved and valued.” But Walz’s version of “loving and valuing” young people in Minnesota who struggle with gender dysphoria includes telling them that they were born in the wrong body and that they should be subjected to damaging experimental treatments.
In the past few years, Minnesota cities have been implementing draconian counseling bans that severely limit what licensed counselors and therapists working with minors who experience gender dysphoria can say to their clients, keeping children and teens from compassionate care. Under these bans, anything other than affirming a child or teen’s feelings of discomfort with their body, telling them that they are in fact born in the wrong body, and ushering them toward harmful, life-altering treatments is considered “conversion therapy” and can result in a mental health professional losing their license. Governor Walz has called for a statewide version of these bans.
If Governor Walz truly loves and values young people in our state who are struggling with gender dysphoria, then making sure that they can get the mental health care they need ought to be one of his top priorities. Instead, he has done the opposite. By embracing the transgender agenda, Walz is accepting and promoting legalized mutilation and abuse of children. Like Hutchinson, he is shrugging off his duty to the children of his state.
Governors cannot be “neutral” on this issue. Legalization gives tacit endorsement to these “treatments” and enables those who would sacrifice the wellbeing of young people in order to advance an agenda. By saying that this ought to be legal, Hutchinson and Walz are saying that it is acceptable to chemically castrate and mutilate children. According to Hutchinson, this is “limited government.” According to Walz, it is “loving and valuing” young people.
