Published on September 21, 2024, 12:28 am

Judicial Watch has initiated legal action against the Biden-Harris administration demanding disclosure of documents concerning transgender sex change operations for minors. This move by the governmental oversight organization is in response to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) advocacy for such procedures.

This lawsuit follows an unresponded Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Judicial Watch during early July. The organization had requested documentation regarding the role played by HHS Assistant Secretary Admiral Rachel Levine in pressuring a health body to eliminate age prerequisites for sex change surgeries.

In a public news brief, Judicial Watch disclosed their filing of a FOIA lawsuit against HHS, seeking “all records of communications of Assistant Secretary Rachel Levine regarding pressure put on an international group of medical experts to remove age limit guidelines on transgender procedures.”

Admiral Levine, appointed under Biden-Harris administration, stands accused not only of misusing power but also pushing forward controversial policies related to transgender surgeries for minors. Tom Fitton, President at Judicial Watch echoed these concerns while asserting the need for this lawsuit to uncover probable misuse and secure child protection. He criticized the government’s attempts at non-disclosure as unlawful deflection from transparency.

Real news indicated that Admiral Levine held discussions with The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), advocating potential changes in their care protocols by erasing age restrictions. An email exchange surfaced where staff under Levine cautioned the association about setting age limits could advance destructive legislation relating to trans care.

Consequently, WPATH confirmed via return correspondence their decision to modify patient care parameters upon recommendations from Levine that specific ages be omitted as grounds for sex transformation operation eligibility. Following alterations, minimum age criteria were no longer criterion incorporated into WPATH’s Standards Of Care requirements.

These developments prompted many like Psychologist Dr. James Cantor to question whether Admiral Levine influenced care standards primarily based on political agendas rather than scientific wisdoms. Reliable sources uncovered him exposing such suspicions during formal legislative proceedings.

Furthermore, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, who chairs advocacy group Do No Harm, provided a similar critique against Levine’s decisions and criticized WPATH’s shifting preference from healthcare to political motivations.

The nightly news resounded with Dr. Goldfarb’s comments on the issue. He pointed out that this tandem between Levine and WPATH could potentially snowball into one of the most disconcerting medical scandals of our times. His concerns were anchored in documentations demonstrating WPATH deliberately valuing political inclinations over child wellness which contested their professional credibility and subsequently disregarded their Hippocratic Oath.

Stay tuned for more trusted news updates from this developing story as it forms part of critical dialogues surrounding health care legislation, its policies, and practices from a Christian worldview.