Retiring in the Pacific Northwest

[SAJ-99]

This is part of the question presented in their briefing by the appellants in this Supreme Court case. Please take a closer look at the law. It's pretty outrageous.

"Viewing parents as the problem, Washington passed laws that deliberately target certain parents by supplanting them with the state in the context of gender-confused runaway minors: Whenever a child runs away, so long as he or she asks for “genderaffirming treatment,” a cascade of events is triggered. First, the child is referred for “gender-affirming treatment” without parental notice or consent. Second, parents can be kept in the dark as to the child’s location and condition. And third, reunification can be significantly delayed, with conditions for that reunification uncertain and entirely up to the state."

I read the appellate court decision and dissent. It isn’t a question of if I think it is outrageous or not. Or even if agree or disagree with a side. The core dispute is about a longstanding law letting a kid 13 determine their medical care independently. If it gets to that point, I have failed as a parent.

The law was also in response to Idaho banning the care. So the pattern seems to be Idaho goes crazy right and Washington goes crazy left.

 

[Matthew57]

I read the appellate court decision and dissent. It isn’t a question of if I think it is outrageous or not. Or even if agree or disagree with a side. The core dispute is about a longstanding law letting a kid 13 determine their medical care independently. If it gets to that point, I have failed as a parent.

The law was also in response to Idaho banning the care. So the pattern seems to be Idaho goes crazy right and Washington goes crazy left.

It’s a longstanding law but also a reaction to Idaho?