California isn’t the only state working overtime to protect institutions and doctors who perform gender affirming care without regard for individual patient needs. Delaware is in the process of passing HB346, which protects doctors from liability from patients, including patients who continue to identify as trans, but might be harmed from hormones and surgery. For example, if there is a botched surgery, there is no recourse. If/when this bill passes, gender doctors are immune from accountability.
Read the entire bill here.
This is a short article on the bill: Gender-Affirming Care bill moves forward in Delaware)
Synopsis of bill: (copied and pasted from the bill text)
This Act updates House Bill 455 from the 151st General Assembly by providing the same legal protections afforded providers of contraceptive and abortion services to providers of gender-affirming health care.
In summary, this Act does the following:
(1) Clarifies that medical professionals who provide gender-affirming health care cannot be disciplined for such services even if such services are illegal or considered to be unprofessional conduct or the unauthorized practice of medicine in another state, so long as such services are lawful in this State;
(2) Prohibits health care providers from disclosing communications and records concerning gender-affirming health care without the patient’s authorization in any civil action or proceeding, with some exceptions;
(3) Protects health care providers from out-of-state civil actions relating to gender-affirming health care treatment that is legal in Delaware, including the issuance of a summons or the enforcement of subpoenas relating to such cases;
(4) Creates a cause of action for recouperation of out-of-state judgments relating to gender-affirming services that are lawful in Delaware; and
(5) Prohibits insurance companies from taking any adverse action against health care professionals who provide gender-affirming health care services.
I was asked by a policy analyst of the Delaware Family Policy Council to submit a statement because I bring expertise and credentials. Below is my statement:
My name is Pamela Garfield-Jaeger. I’m a licensed clinical social worker with over 20 years of experience in the mental health profession. I became a social worker because I am committed to protecting vulnerable people and that is why I am against HB 346, which protects doctors, not patients, including trans patients.
There is a common belief that a person should go ahead and get risky and painful surgeries, or take puberty blockers and hormones that cause a host of long-term health issues because “at least the person is alive”. The slogan “Affirmative Care Saves Lives” is put on repeat and is seen all over the ACLU and other organizations that promote themselves as the people who supposedly care about protecting the vulnerable. However, by repeating the idea that one can only transition or die by suicide is one of the most irresponsible things an organization can do, and mental health experts have known this for decades.
In this bill, WPATH guidelines are quoted as standard of care. I invite you to review the WPATH files, which reveals in their own words that there is nothing ethical or scientific about WPATH. WPATH willingly does surgeries on severely mentally ill patients. They discuss nullification surgeries and other procedures that any reasonable person would NEVER believe are ethical. Should people with complications from these surgeries have no recourse? Aren’t these the people we care about? I do.
Everything the gender medicine industry is doing is experimental, from puberty blockers to cross sex hormones to surgeries. None of it is FDA approved. I wonder what the motivation is to protect doctors who are administering experimental procedures on severely mentally ill patients is. Its certainly NOT about protecting trans rights.
A one-size fits all approach to patient care will always bring about casualties. How many people living a life of disability, suffering, infertility, or death is OK for you?
Please think about who this bill is really protecting and do the right thing for the voiceless who have been silenced by powerful activists.
Thank you.
Unfortunately, the bill passed the committee. The representative of Delaware Family Policy Council sent me this after the hearing, “The actual legislators in support outnumbered those in opposition. It ultimately passed the committee.”
Do you live in Delaware and care about the well-being of vulnerable patients, (trans or not?) Get in touch with Delaware Family Policy Council and let your voice be heard!
Pamela Garfield-Jaeger is a licensed clinical social worker in California. She completed her MSW in 1999 from New York University. She has a variety of experience in schools, group homes, hospitals and community-based organizations as a clinician and supervisor. Since getting fired for not getting the C*VID vaccine, she has dedicated herself to educate parents and embolden other mental health professionals to challenge the ideological capture of her profession.
For more detailed information on how to empower yourself as a parent and navigate the mental health field, see the Parents' Guide to Mental Health.
NEW BOOK!
“A Practical Response to Gender Distress, Tips and tools For Families”
Every Democrat in the Delaware legislature will vote for it.
Hi, Pamela, I have a question: what is your source for the statement that patients who suffer complications or malpractice will have no recourse? I did not read the full text of the bill, but from the summary I see nothing that would preclude any lawsuit against a physician who is grossly incompetent or negligent, in terms of the technical aspects of care.
I recognize that some people think that any gender transition medication or surgery is by definition malpractice; I'm referring here to cases where the doctor botches the mastectomy, prescribes a medication for a patient for whom it is clearly contraindicated due to a medical condition. Essentially, I'm speaking here of cases that would violate WPATH standards, because in my opinion that is what it SHOULD mean if gender affirming care is legal within the state-it should be legal to perform so long as the current standard of care is followed. This bill apparently provides gender doctors with similar levels of protection as abortion doctors, as well as any doctor providing any type of birth control, medical or surgical. There are many such laws relating to those topics around the country, and it doesn't universally shield providers from malpractice action. Instead, it simply seeks to hold providers to the standard intended by state law. Meaning, if it is legal to perform abortions in State A, then a doctor shouldn't be able to be sued or jailed in State B for an abortion that was performed competantly in State A.
Laws like this are actually essential in a country where medical care is regulated state by state. Otherwise, a prohibition in one state would necessarily become a prohibition in all states, even if the legislators (or even a constitutional amendment voted on by the public) in all the other states expressly wished to allow it. Very few doctors will perform a procedure that is legal in one state if doing so leaves them open to a civil judgement based on another state's prohibition.
My reading of the summary indicates that that is the intention of this bill. I see nothing to indicate that a patient who suffers harm-above and beyond the provision of elective procedures that they or their parents consented to but later determined were actually not in their best interest-would not be able to sue for it. In other words, the situation in Delaware under this bill would be no different than it was before any other states began banning such procedures in the last few years. Not a great situation, but nothing new or different. And honestly, no matter what I or anyone thinks of the particular type of care in question, I do think that as long as medical care is regulated state by state, it's vital for Doctors and all providers to be able to count on not being prosecuted or sued for doing something that was entirely legal both federal and in the state in which it was done. I don't think our system can work otherwise, and as I said I think the alternate outcome would consolidate power over the whole country in any one state that decided to go against the vast majority and ban a given med or treatment.
Please let me know though if I'm missing something or misreading the summary.