By Evelyn Pyburn
In gathering up the latest on some of the actions of the state legislature, some observations just couldn’t be avoided….
One positive that will hopefully emerge from the COVID crisis is the understanding that state and federal laws in general are barriers to efficient, prompt and affordable health care. That President Trump and now the Montana state legislature has interceded to eliminate many of the bureaucratic barriers to healthcare is nothing but good. But, let’s be honest, it’s been the health industry establishment in collaboration with government, that has long stood in the way of faster and more affordable health care processes in the quest to sustain the bottom line for the industry. Now that the establishment has gained some control over the technology, the industry is less guarded about its use, but one has to admit there’s been a lot of unnecessary foot-dragging that surely had the consequences of greater suffering, maybe even death, and certainly greater costs to consumers. Long before now, they should have let the market prevail and many should be ashamed that they did not.
Kind of along those same lines – who knew? How many people really realized that a law was needed to to allow a doctor and patient to do business? Surely that must come as a surprise to many – this is a free country after all – or is it? When government has a law that allows the consumer to use a service only if it is through an insurance company… or a law that won’t let the provider of a service transact directly with their patient, then whatever is going on is something far removed from freedom – and most certainly isn’t a free market at work. Someone said that the passage of SB 101 was nothing more than common sense. It is shocking that that even has to be said. Whatever group of protectionists is responsible for this restraint should be ashamed.
Another group who should be ashamed is anyone who takes action to allow or believes it is in any way justifiable to make a life-altering decision for a child by changing their gender. It really isn’t about the nature of the action as much as it is about the grave responsibility of raising a child. Mutalating a child should be considered reprehensible, even if it is just to pierce a baby’s ears or give them a tattoo. It is not only a violation of their body but of what should be that child’s right to decide what they want to do with their body. To impose such a decision is cruel and totally indifferent about the future of that little human being. Such a decision should be that of a mature, self-responsible, fully- compehending adult. One would think that the role of any state legislator would be first and foremost to protect the child’s rights even when others fail to do so. But apparently some of them will also fail such a child.
Those opposed to the legislature striping local health officers and boards of much of their power claimed that doing so would risk placing politics over science. One can hardly disagree that politcs is indeed a very real possibility given this past year – and in fact most people— no matter where they stand on issues— would have to agree that the status quo was no deterrent to politics impacting decisions. In fact, it was hard to determine where science ended and politics began – and therein is the problem with government interceding in decisions that should be left up to the individual citizen. In a day and age where almost every scientist in the country is dependent upon government largess to fund research and their livelihoods, there can be no rational way not to believe at the very outset all science is a compromised field. And, when it becomes standard practice to censor communications, news, books and public discourse in order to silence one side or another, one can safely conclude that there is nothing but politics at play and every citizen should be afraid – very afraid. Unless you want to concede that you are property of the government, then there is only one solution to this dilemma – every citizen has to have access to ALL information and must be free to make decisions for themselves. No government intervention! –
Such a novel idea! – we should found a country based on that concept.
So how does a guy feel really good about being able to beat a girl? Try as hard as they might, a transgender guy posing as a woman, still has all of nature’s accouterments that generally make him stronger than a woman. This is not a matter of political whim, it’s a fact of nature. (To expect people to believe otherwise is actually rather insulting.) The real solution, if we are to accept without thought, that there should be no separation between a transgender man and women in competing athletics is to neutralize the whole purpose for having separate competitions at all. If they are to compete as if they are the same then what is the point? What is really most perplexing about the whole debate is that we are all expected to hang our brains on a hook behind the door in analyzing the issue, and to cheer like idiots as though there is some great achievement when a man beats out a bunch of girls.