News
Gender Affirming Procedures Now Illegal in Russia, While EU Tightens Laws
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed new legislation on Monday that effectively outlaws gender affirming care procedures, dealing a severe blow to Russia’s LGBTQ+ community.
The bill, which was overwhelmingly approved by both chambers of parliament, prohibits any “medical interventions aimed at changing the sex of a person,” as well as changing one’s gender in official documents and public records. Medical intervention to cure congenital abnormalities will be the lone exception.
It also nullifies marriages when one of the partners has “changed gender” and prohibits transgender people from becoming foster or adoptive parents.
The prohibition is supposed to be the result of the Kremlin’s crusade to safeguard the country’s “traditional values.” Lawmakers claim the act is necessary to protect Russia from “Western anti-family ideology,” with some calling gender transitioning “pure satanism.”
Russia’s persecution on LGBTQ+ individuals began a decade ago, when Putin initially declared an emphasis on “traditional family values,” which the Russian Orthodox Church embraced.
The Kremlin passed regulations in 2013 prohibiting any public encouragement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among adolescents. Putin pushed through constitutional revision that prohibited same-sex marriage in 2020, and last year approved legislation prohibiting “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” among adults as well.
European countries are becoming more cautious when it comes to gender-affirming care for kids. The Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board, for example, declared in March that it will change its present clinical recommendations for “gender-affirming care” for kids.
The new rules would limit the use of puberty blockers, transgender hormones, and transition-related surgeries to clinical research settings. Norway joins other European countries, including Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, in imposing restrictions on the provision of gender-affirming care to minors.
In the United States, a partisan divide is forming between states that allow and guarantee access to gender-affirming care for kids and states that prohibit or severely restrict gender-affirming care for minors. There doesn’t appear to be much room for compromise.
This year, 12 states have either prohibited or severely restricted gender-affirming care for adolescents. More Republican-led states are likely to follow suit soon.
Simultaneously, five Democratic-led states have enacted laws to preserve transgender healthcare coverage and access for youngsters.
According to proponents and advocates, the goal of gender-affirming care is to provide medical therapy that allows a person to “live as the gender they are.”
There appears to be some evidence that gender-affirming care improves health outcomes in the near term, with fewer despair, anxiety, and suicidality.
Access to healthcare for trans children, according to Angela Goepferd, programme director for gender health at Children’s Minnesota, is “lifesaving.” According to Goepferd, children who have access to gender-affirming care “have less anxiety, less depression, they think about suicide less frequently, and they act on those suicidal thoughts less frequently.”
In the United States, proposing guardrails can result in being labelled “transphobic” or a “science denier.”
However, as European experience suggests, prudence with regard to gender affirming care for minors may be necessary. A series of systematic reviews of evidence for the benefits and dangers of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones conducted in Europe found a low certainty of benefits.
Longitudinal data gathered and analysed by public health agencies in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and England, in particular, have revealed that the risk-benefit ratio of youth gender change ranges from unknown to unfavourable.
As a result, there has been a gradual transition in care across Europe from one that prioritises access to pharmaceutical and surgical therapies to one that is less medicalized and more conservative, addressing potential psychiatric comorbidities and exploring the developmental aetiology of trans identity.
As a result, Europe has imposed restrictions on the availability of hormones.
Minors in most European nations can currently obtain puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones if they meet strict qualifying criteria. And this is becoming more common in the context of a closely regulated research setting.
Many European countries prohibit the use of transgender hormones until the age of 16, and then only after a series of psychotherapy sessions. Furthermore, the vast majority of European countries prohibit surgery until the age of 16.
From puberty blockers to cross-sex medications to surgery, European restrictions are either stricter than many states in the United States or tightening. For example, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare recommends that children under the age of 12 should not utilise puberty blockers outside of clinical studies.
In England, one of the grounds for closing Tavistock’s Gender and Identity Development Service in 2022 was physician concerns that some patients were referred to a gender transitioning pathway too soon.
Hilary Cass, who headed an independent evaluation of gender identity services for children and young people, stated that there is “insufficient evidence” to give clear recommendations on the widespread use of puberty blockers. She has instructed the National Health Service to “enrol young people who are being considered for hormone treatment into a formal research protocol.”
Gender experts in Finland have expressed worry that some patients administered pharmacological therapies did not match the stringent eligibility conditions outlined in the so-called Dutch Protocol.
In the 1990s, gender specialists in the Netherlands laid the groundwork for gender-affirming healthcare for minors. From the late 1990s through 2012, clinicians designed and thoroughly documented this “careful and cautious approach.”
The Dutch Protocol, originally envisioned, established a set of criteria for treatment eligibility. A proven early childhood development of gender dysphoria, a rise in gender dysphoria after pubertal changes, the absence of major psychiatric comorbidity, and demonstrable knowledge and understanding of the repercussions of medical transition are all required.
Treatment with puberty blockers can only begin after the age of 12. Cross-sex hormones and surgery, which have apparent permanent consequences, are not available until the ages of 16 and 18, respectively. If patients go through the transitioning process, they will receive psychotherapy throughout.
Finland was one of the first to adopt the Dutch Protocol for paediatric gender medicine. However, by 2015, Finnish gender experts had noticed that the majority of their patients did not fulfil the Dutch Protocol’s relatively tight qualifying conditions for pharmacological treatments.
Clinicians in other European nations also remarked that guidelines were not carefully followed, effectively allowing for what could be considered unauthorised treatment of many more youngsters, particularly females, than the Dutch experts who devised the initial protocol.
Finally, health authorities in Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom conducted comprehensive assessments of evidence regarding the benefits and hazards of hormone therapies.
As a result of these reviews, the findings suggested that research referenced in support of hormonal therapies for teenagers are of “very low” certainty. As a result, access to hormones was severely limited. It also promoted the idea that such treatments are still in the “experimental” stage.
De facto, there is no medical consensus regarding the use of pharmacological and surgical therapies in gender dysphoric minors, according to European health authorities and medical specialists.
In a February essay published in the Netherlands, the author concludes that “more research on sex changes in young people under the age of 18 is urgently needed,” emphasising the significance of studying the long-term implications of medicalized transgender care.
The article is notable for its comprehensive quotations from one of the founding members of the Dutch team of researcher-clinicians that pioneered the use of puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria over two decades ago.
To be sure, the Dutch have been more cautious—even more so than their European counterparts—in the use of therapies such as puberty blockers. Many Dutch doctors use “watchful waiting” before proceeding with therapies.
Furthermore, recent evidence analysed by Dutch physicians has given them pause concerning the Dutch Protocol’s watertightness. They discovered that some individuals who transitioned under a closely adhered to version of the Dutch Protocol appear to have significant reproductive regret, body shame, and sexual dysfunction when monitored.
Dutch academics presented these first findings at the World Professional Association for Transgender HealthWPATH Symposium in December 2022.
Americans who oppose state restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors frequently argue that Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have not eliminated hormonal interventions, and thus lawmakers who seek limits are presumably going against what European health authorities recommend.
Furthermore, proponents of America’s “affirmative-medicine” movement point to Europe, which does not prohibit gender-affirming care for youngsters. Because Europeans do not prohibit such care, legislators in the United States that pursue restrictions are contradicting European advice. However, this is simply a portion of a much larger and more complex story.
At the risk of generalising, the American approach gives kids more agency, with the medical establishment’s function primarily being to confirm a child’s claim that he or she is trans.
This affirmative model immediately removes several of the safeguards established by, instance, the Dutch Protocol, perhaps resulting in an inadequate lack of medical “safeguarding.”
A growing number of European countries are not providing “gender-affirming care” to kids in the same way that America does.
Indeed, Europe has been trending in a different path from the United States for several years, with Europeans exercising greater prudence when treating youngsters with gender dysphoria. Essentially, the message from European gender specialists is that until there is credible long-term proof that the benefits of youth gender transformation outweigh the hazards, it is best to limit most medical procedures to rigorous clinical research settings.
LGBTQ+ Mental Health: Challenges and Gender Affirming
A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.
Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
-
News3 years agoLet’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment1 year ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years agoHow Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years agoTop Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles2 years agoAries Soulmate Signs
-
Health2 years agoCan I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Movies2 years agoWhat Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Learning2 years agoVirtual Numbers: What Are They For?