Guest by post by Peter LaBarbera
This article originally appeared on WND.com
‘Frankenstein tech’: AMA joins crusade for biological men to have babies
Many years ago, radical feminists and other pro-abortion women started a new chant against pro-life Catholics standing up for the defenseless unborn: “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!”
Well, now an update of that defiant slogan might be in order, this time screamed by male-to-female transgender “women”: “We demand your your ovaries because we’re ‘trans women’ (even though we were born with penises) and we want to have babies like other women!”
OK, that’s not a very snappy slogan, and it might not serve the political Left very well, but if trans activists have their way, perhaps, more realistically, we could soon be hearing a version of this chant, achieved through what conservatives are calling “Frankenstein”-like “transgender medicine”:
“Trans women can have babies, too!”
And ultimately, they want you, the taxpayer, to pay for it.
That’s the goal and essence of the latest transgender campaign, and trans activists have a big ally in their disordered quest: the radically pro-LGBT American Medical Association, or AMA.
The Washington Examiner reported Wednesday: “The American Medical Association floated a trial balloon for uterus transplants for biological men who identify as transgender, pushing the next phase of ‘Frankenstein tech’ for cross-sex procedures. … An ethical analysis of uterus transplants for males published in the AMA’s Journal of Ethics in June detailed the ethical arguments behind such a procedure, including whether or not it should be taxpayer funded.”
The AMA Journal of Ethics article about expanding “uterus transplantation, or UTx, is titled, “Should Uterus Transplantation for Transwomen and Transmen Be Subsidized?” It discusses potential ways to fund the operations, which “in the United States, the costs of UTx have been estimated to run between $100,000 and $300,000,” according to the AMA.
The Examiner article, headlined “AMA plots move on taxpayer-funded uterus transplants for biological men,” reports: “The article notes that some reasons transgender-identifying biological men might want the transplant, UTx, is to gestate their own children or to “consolidate their identities but not gestate children.”
In other words, as the Examiner notes, the push for men (acting as and desiring to be “women”) having children is all about “justice and equality,” but as defined by “progressives,” who tend to put the desires and interests of LGBT activists as their top priority – to the dismay of the overwhelming majority of Americans.
“Trans women,” gender-confused men who want to live as “women,” insist that they are women. But real women, whom the Left has now labeled “cisgender” women, including many radical feminists and self-identified lesbians, say men can never be women and it violates genuine women’s and girls’ rights to treat them as such.
Conservatives reacted to the Examiner report with predictable outrage.
Dr. Martin Makary, professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, told the Examiner: “Rather than funding objective medical studies on transgender medicine, the AMA has chosen activist positions on this delicate topic … Why don’t they fund a study on the 10-year regret rate of children who undergo transitioning surgery? What is the suicide rate among those who undergo aggressive hormone or surgical treatment versus long-term talk therapy?”
Makary also appeared on Fox News Wednesday to blast pro-trans-activist medical priorities. Asked by Fox’s Ainsley Earhardt if those politically incorrect studies questioning “transgender medicine” are being done, he said, “Those studies are not being done. Instead of funding those studies, they’ve chosen to take an activist position. … And it’s very hard to do research in this field … because the activists have run a lot of people out of town, that reasonable doctors and objective scientists have been run out of town. Even recently, Mayo [Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science] and Jefferson [Hospital in Philadelphia] have fired people over simply suggesting that we need better research.”
Terry Schilling, president of American Principles Project, told the Examiner: “Our sex is a gift, and the activists in science and medicine aren’t thinking enough about the societal problems and effects that will result from introducing this Frankenstein tech to humanity … We shouldn’t waste anything, including our bodies. But this for-profit industry built on narcissism seeks to upend all of humanity to pursue their worthless goals.”
AMA opens door to funding giving men women’s uteruses
Even though the AMA Journal of Ethics article present counter-arguments, it opens the door to government funding of UTx procedures for men (claiming to be “women”) as it purports to weigh the “comparative moral strength of transwomen’s and transmen’s claims for financial support.”
“No reliable estimates exist on how many transwomen, transmen, or cismen [normal men who identify with their actual birth sex] might be candidates for or want UTx, and even a rough estimate of what the individual cost might be for such people can only be speculative, especially since no UTx has been reported in such parties. However, the overall total financial cost of UTx for these parties would likely be smaller than the overall total cost for cisgender women because of the comparatively smaller number of transpeople and the even smaller subset likely to be interested in this intervention,” the article states.
LGBT men invade real women’s spaces again
And as is typical with LGBT activism, the pro-trans-“women” crusade for UTx procedures piggybacks off a real – and rare – female condition that gives rise to the quest by women (not men) seeking uterus transplants in the first place.
The condition is called vaginal agenesis, and 90 percent of the cases are caused by Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) Syndrome, according to Boston Children’s Hospital website.
MRKH “is a rare congenital disorder that affects the female reproductive system. This condition is characterized by an underdeveloped vagina and uterus. The uterus may be small or absent and the vagina is typically shortened. People with MRKH have normally-functioning ovaries and a female chromosome pattern. MRKH occurs when a fetus is developing and is present in about 1 in every 4,500 females at birth,” according to the PennMedicine website. “External genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics, like pubic hair and breasts, develop normally. However, people with MRKH typically do not experience menstrual cycles.”
“Due to an underdeveloped or absent uterus, people with the condition cannot carry a pregnancy and therefore have Uterine Factor Infertility (UFI). Individuals who had the uterus surgically removed or have a uterus that does not function properly also have UFI. UFI is a previously irreversible form of female infertility that affects as many as 5 percent of reproductive-aged women worldwide,” it states.
The Examiner quotes activist Jacques Bayala, “an obstetrician-gynecologist and clinician scientist at McGill University, arguing that a woman who is born without a uterus and a man who starts identifying as a woman ‘have a similar claim to maternity if we consider them to have equivalent rights to fulfill the reproductive potential of their gender. And I think that we should.’”
“Medicine has many crisis issues today – overtreatment, the medical-industrial complex, stagnant cancer research, and skyrocketing healthcare costs,” Makary countered. “It’s odd that the AMA is skipping over these giant issues to focus on uterus transplants for transgender people.”
Copyright 2023 WND News Center
Credit: Source link
