A girl named Chloe testified she still bleeds every day after her transgender double mastectomy four years ago at 15. Another girl, Zoe, testified she wanted the procedure but was denied by Oklahoma law; she later managed to give birth.
“Thank God for Oklahoma’s law,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey posted on X Thursday, after a court hearing this week in which his office defended Missouri’s new ban on life-changing transgender procedures on minors.
The law, passed earlier this year, goes into effect on Monday. The ACLU and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund are among plaintiffs asking a judge to block the law with an injunction.
On Thursday, Bailey posted his highlights of the hearing that began Friday and ended Wednesday, and discussed them with The Heartlander.
“We put on highly qualified experts, unlike the plaintiffs, who put on experts that have a financial and reputational interest in pushing for irreversible gender transition interventions,” Bailey posted.
“Some of their experts were not even aware of the science coming out of Europe. Europe has recognized that it’s strange to treat a psychiatric diagnosis with irreversible hormones instead of counseling. We got a leftist expert to admit that they didn’t know that Sweden proved the harms (of) gender transition interventions outweigh the benefits.
“When even progressive countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the United Kingdom have all sharply curtailed these procedures, it’s time for the United States to course correct.
“And it’s not just Europe who agrees these procedures are unsuitable for children. There are zero FDA approvals for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to treat gender dysphoria in children.”
The Heartlander asked Bailey why the state called the two young women to the stand.
“We wanted live testimony so we could put on evidence in defense of our law, so that we could test the other side’s experts and demonstrate that their opinions weren’t based on science,” he said, “and to demonstrate to the other side the long-term negative health consequences that these procedures have on real people. And that’s why putting on de-transitioners was so important.”
As for Zoe, Bailey argues the Oklahoma law “prevented a more permanent damage being done to this individual de-transitioner, who now is able to leave somewhat of a normal life, but will carry the scars of this experience with her for the rest of her life.”
Bailey notes that on Monday, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a similar law in Alabama to go into effect, “finding that Alabama had a compelling state interest in protecting kids. We feel that that precedent is directly applicable on our set of facts and our statutes here in Missouri.”
One of Missouri’s experts, Bailey said, “testified under oath on the stand that these types of procedures are the only psychological issue where we use hormone treatments instead of psychotherapy.”
Moreover, he said, the plaintiffs had to acknowledge that in studies they cited to prove that puberty blockers and cross sex hormones are effective, patients were also receiving psychiatric or psychological treatment – “so, it’s impossible to say whether it was the traditional mental health services that remedied gender dysphoria or something else.”
The Missouri law and others like it aren’t anti-trans, as critics like to claim, Bailey says.
“Not at all. It’s about protecting children,” he says simply.
Nor is this a matter of gay pride, he argues.
“This is totally different. The other side of this issue wants to find a constitutional right to sterilize children. We think it is morally abhorrent to sterilize children. It is absolutely, constitutionally valid for our legislature to put a stop to it through enacting a statute.”
A decision on the injunction is imminent, since the law takes effect on Monday.