Transgendered' Student In Brockton Needs Help

When an eighth grade boy in Brockton started wearing dresses and padded bras to school and sexually harassing boys and disrupting the school, the school administrators had a problem on their hands. The boy stopped coming to school when told he had to stop wearing women's clothing. Then his grandmother used the homosexual lawyers at GLAD to sue the schools. The schools are providing a home tutor.

This is another example of the courts creating havoc by interfering in the management of the schools, this time by Judge Linda Giles, a lesbian who refused to recuse herself when requested to do so by the attorneys for the school.

By Elizabeth Gilbert

The boy in Brockton is not a "she" no matter how many judges or therapists pretend that he is. He is a boy with a severe gender identity disorder who needs real help. Unfortunately, many medical and mental health professionals, rather than working to find a cure for this type of psychological problem, have decided that supporting the delusion constitutes treatment, or worse - that surgical interventions can "change" a person's sex.

Patients who suffer from the delusion that they are men trapped in the bodies of women (or women trapped in the bodies of men) need real help. Letting them continue in their delusions is not real help. Cutting off a man's private parts, giving him breast implants, shooting him full of female hormones and taking off his beard will not make him a woman; it will make him something less than a eunuch. Surgery will not change the fact that every cell of the man's body is clearly marked male (XY).

The promotion of "sex changes," and the normalizing of severe gender identity disorders by the radical feminists, pro-SSAD activists, and sexual revolutionaries is part of their larger agenda which is the destabilization of the "categories" of sex and gender.

Judge Giles justifies her decision by claiming that "exposing children to diversity at an early age serves the important social goals of increasing their abilities to tolerate differences and teaching them respect for everyone's experience in that 'Brave New World' out there." I find the statement particularly revealing. Years ago I read Brave New World and remember being horrified at the ugly, anti-human future it portrayed.

This is not, as the lesbian judge would have it, about tolerance. Of course, we should be kind to people with severe psychological problems. But there is nothing kind about denying them real help and using them as pawns in the culture wars.

The idea that gender identity can be changed was promoted by Dr. John Money, formerly of Johns Hopkins. His strident promotion of the sexual revolution, his tolerance toward pedophilia and unethical and outrageous abuse of psychiatry have been documented by John Colapinto in the book, As Nature Made.

The following quotations from that book reveal that contrary to the public impression, "sex changes" don't solve psychological problems.

"[Dr. Paul] McHugh [chairman of the Psychiatry Department at Johns Hopkins] has always reserved special scorn for the practice of sex-change surgery on adult transsexuals. Classifying transsexualism as merely one symptom in a larger complex of personality disorders, McHugh had long believed that psychiatrists should treat such patients with the talking cure, not radical, irreversible surgeries. In a 1992 article in the American Scholar, McHugh lambasted transsexual surgery as 'the most radical therapy ever encouraged by twentieth century psychiatrists' and likened its popularity to the once widespread practice of frontal lobotomy." 

Dr. Jon Meyer, a Hopkins psychiatrist and former director of the Gender Identity Clinic, produced a long-term follow-up of fifty postoperative and preoperative adult transsexuals treated at Johns Hopkins since the clinic was founded in 1966. Meyer reported that none showed any measurable improvement in their lives and concluded that "sex reassignment surgery confers no objective advantage in terms of  social rehabilitation." (John Colapinto As Nature Made Him: The Boy who was raised as a Girl. Harper Collins, 2000, p. 239)

BHI Concerned About Health Care Referendum

By J. E. Haskins

The passage of  Referendum #5 would create a Health Care Council that could lead to a universal health care system which would cause many of the problems now faced by the quasi-socialist economies of Europe, according to research from the respected Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research. 

If the voters approve such a Council, there would be four likely scenarios for creating universal health care in Massachusetts. The most economically devastating would be the "single-payer" system, according to the economists. "The result would be the loss of 917,000 jobs," which is one-fifth of Massachusetts' entire work force, "and $45 billion in payrolls," says the think tank's Executive Director, David Tuerck.

Such a system would force politicians to raise the personal income tax by 173%, according to the economic analysis. The plan would also make Massachusetts' state bureaucracy, already one of the most intrusive in the nation, even larger and more powerful.

Modeled after the massive socialist health care schemes which have bogged down the economies of Canada and much of Europe with inflation and permanent high unemployment, the "single-payer" system would create a vast new bureaucracy to manage taxpayer-funded health insurance for all residents. The result might be a decline in quality of medical services seen in European countries like Great Britain.

Tuerck, a Professor of Economics at Suffolk University, also examined the likely economic impact of three other proposals. 

Shift Problem to Business?
One option that may draw support from voters who have not thought through its implications is "mandated health care." This would be an attempt to shift the problem to businesses, forcing them to buy private health insurance for their employees. Taxpayers would bear the additional cost of insuring the unemployed, an additional $223 million in taxes each year, says Tuerck. "The result: a loss of 45,000 jobs and a $4.3-billion reduction in payrolls."

This scheme would add nearly a billion dollars to Massachusetts employers' operating costs, the Beacon Hill Institute calculates. Thus, many employers might cut full-time, permanent positions in favor of free-lance, temporary, and subcontracted work, thus dramatically reducing the security of many Massachusetts workers. 

The alternative for employers might be losing market share and having to lay people off anyway as they face competitors from states which do not saddle businesses with the cost of their employees' health services.

Moreover, forcing private businesses to take responsibility for all the health needs of those who work for them is legally arbitrary and possibly an unconstitutional infringement of economic liberty in a democratic system intended to limit the power of government over individuals and private institutions, Tuerck says.

No 'Free Lunch'
But the long-term trend in Massachusetts has been for the government to give itself more and more power, regardless of the constitutional implications. This summer, the legislature passed something called the "Patients Bill of Rights," which Governor Cellucci signed into law. 

Under the appealing guise of "guaranteeing that HMOs must provide the same protections to all members," this law gave government bureaucrats the power to intervene into private health services which will simply force some patients to bear the economic burden of others. 

Under another scheme, "pooled health insurance," the state would provide health insurance for all uninsured residents at a cost to taxpayers of around $1.6 billion, according to the think tank. "Because of the rise in the income tax necessitated by this change, there would be 172,000 fewer jobs and $11 billion in reduced payrolls," Tuerck says.

Least economically destructive of the universal health care schemes being pushed would be "high-risk pooled" health insurance. The taxpayers would bear the cost of providing health insurance for those who are uninsured and uninsurable. This, the Institute calculates, would force politicians to raise $285 million in new taxes, "with a consequent loss of 25,500 jobs and $1.62 billion in payrolls."

What the Globe Didn't Tell You About Abortion Pill
In a front-page story in the Globe on September 28 with the headline, "US Approval Expected for Abortion Pill," the paper made no mention of the after-effects that women will face following ingestion of RU 486. They did say that this pill would contain a "'black box' warning," which is "reserved for powerful drugs like thalidomide, which is known to cause birth defects." But they did not tell why it carries that warning. 

In an Editorial, they didn't discuss any of the problems with the drug. They wrote, "It has been found a safe, effective, and noninvasive alternative to surgical abortion."

In a front page story about the election with the large headline, "Bush, Gore split on abortion pill," they wrote, "[B]ush is in a position of opposing what many view as a safe and early form of abortion."

In the September 28 story they overlooked statistics which were reported the next day in their parent paper, the New York Times, which revealed some unhappy details, such as that the mifepristone pill may be "more dangerous than surgical abortions" and causes "severe bleeding in about two percent of women." 

Only near the article's conclusion did the Globe mention other dangers to women: bleeding, cramping, nausea and diarrhea. 

But there's more they left out of the article. Although the purpose of RU 486 is to kill the developing fetus, the drug used to force expulsion of the dead fetus, Cyotec (misoprostol), was designed to prevent ulcers. Its use in abortions is protested by Searle, the manufacturer, who warns that it may cause rupturing of the uterus, hysterectomy, severe vaginal bleeding, shock, pelvic pain and maternal death.

More Warnings
The Free Congress Foundation tells us the Globe would have written the following if it truly wanted to inform its readers:

Unfortunately, the public is woefully misinformed about this drug. RU 486 is not, as most people assume, a form of birth control. Nor is it an Aspirin-sized pill that women take one morning after they determine that they have gotten pregnant, and then - abracadabra - no more baby. The fact of the matter is, for women to take this pill, they must commit themselves to a very complicated and dangerous four-step process:

Step 1. They determine whether or not they are pregnant. They must also make sure that they are within the first 49 days of pregnancy, otherwise the RU 486 is useless.

Step 2. The woman then must go to an abortionist to receive the RU 486 pill. This initial treatment causes the baby to detach from the uterus, which of course kills the baby. It should be noted that only 63% of women who take part in this receive a 'complete abortion'; which means, that the remaining 47% of women must go back to 'finish the baby off.' 

Step 3. A few days after her initial treatment, a woman must return to receive another drug: Cytotec. This causes the woman to go into labor, expelling the baby parts (and, in many cases, finishes killing the unborn baby). That is if all goes well. If all does not go well, the woman may have her uterus rupture and she can likely die. 

Step 4. The woman must come for a final exam to see if all the baby parts have left her body. If they have not, she must then undergo a medical abortion. 5% of women who decide to take RU 486, and follow each step, must undergo this process."

The abortion pill also threatens American women in still another way, according to Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life. Johnson says, "[The production of RU 486 in China] is a public health issue because China is a major source of impure drugs, and the Food and Drug Administration cannot possibly monitor a Chinese factory effectively. It's a human rights issue because this very factory is a major component of the Chinese government's population control program, which relies heavily on compulsory abortion."

Letters It Didn't Publish
The Globe also forgot to publish some letters written by readers such as this note originally intended for publication in the Globe. 

"The Globe's lead story ('US Approval Expected for Abortion Pill'), which states that abortion is expected to become a procedure 'as simple as swallowing a few pills,' has a glaring omission. RU 486 is hardly a 'wonder drug' that miraculously makes a baby disappear.

"What is omitted completely from the story is that the mother who ingests the poisonous 'cocktail' is now able to see, in her own bathroom, her offspring - after he or she has been expelled from the womb. The psychological effects of this can never be erased.

- R.T. Neary
President, Massachusetts 
Citizens for Life