A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. —A Minneapolis mother whose parental rights over her teenage son were expropriated and was consequently in the dark about the provision of hormonal treatments to assist with the teen’s desire to “transition” into a girl has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of her case.
“[T]he medical providers, without notifying Calgaro, found … that parental consent was not required because the child was ‘living separate and apart from parents or legal guardian … and managing personal financial affairs,'” the writ of certiorari, filed on Wednesday, reads. “The medical service provider never considered Calgaro’s rights as a fit parent to be involved in her child’s decision-making.”
“Consequently, the child received gender-transitioning medical care without Calgaro’s input and over Calgaro’s objection.”
As previously reported, the mother in the case, Anmarie Calgaro, announced during a press conference in 2016 that she was troubled to discover that a legal aid group for low income persons had created a notice of emancipation for her then 15-year-old son.
“Last year, without my knowledge or consent, without any court hearings or legal process, without any involvement on my part whatsoever, a legal aid group that gives free services to low income people created a notice of emancipation for my 15-year-old son,” she explained. “Suddenly, my son, without any notice to me, was no longer under my supervision.”
Calgaro said that the document was comprised of false claims and she had not been contacted to verify any of the teen’s assertions.
She explained that her son had asked to stay with his father (Calgaro and her husband are divorced) so he could attend a better school, and Calgaro agreed. However, the emancipation document claimed that Calgaro failed to report her son “as a runaway” over the next six months and “made no attempt to bring him home.” It also asserted that Calgaro had told her son that she “no longer wishes to have contact with him,” which she denies.
The teen soon also left his father’s home and stayed with various friends and family members. He left those homes as well, and now lives on his own.
Calgaro soon learned in the midst of the situation that her son had also been obtaining female hormone treatments — paid for by the government –A- without her consent.
“It was then brought to my knowledge that my son had begun receiving hormone replacement treatments from Park Nicollet health services to transition from male to female with medical assistance paying for this,” she said. “I was not consulted or informed about this in any way. I had no way to give or receive any information about my son.”
Because of the emancipation document, Calgaro was prohibited from receiving any information about the teen, who was consequently treated as an adult by the Department of Human Services and provided with public services, including assistance with food, housing and medical services.
She attempted to obtain medical and educational records from Park Nicollet and her son’s school, but her requests were denied. She consequently sued, contending that her constitutional parental rights were being unlawfully infringed.
In 2017, while a federal judge agreed that the emancipation was not valid, he stated that the non-governmental defendants cannot be held liable for their actions because they did not act under state law. The government agencies sued also could only be held responsible if acting under a specific “policy or custom,” which was absent in the case.
Therefore, because the entities did not act in accordance with any law or established practice, Judge Paul Magnusen concluded that Calgaro did not have a legal claim.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Magnusen’s ruling in March, finding that her “assertion that the County acted based on a policy or custom was insufficient to state a claim.” It also concluded that because Calgaro’s son has now turned 18 and is no longer a minor, there is no longer a case in regard to her rights to make parental decisions or to have access to his medical and school records.
She therefore has now appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that it rule that what had occurred was unconstitutional.
“There are no U.S. Supreme Court cases on whether parental Due Process Clause rights apply to local governments and medical providers ending parental control over their minor children,” the petition states. “[And] neither Minnesota’s statutes nor common law authorize parents to file court actions to restore their parental rights.”
“It’s a parent’s worst nightmare,” attorney Erick Kaardal with the Thomas More Society said in a statement. “Anmarie Calgaro’s child, while a minor, was steered through a life-changing, permanent body-altering process, becoming a pawn in someone else’s socio-political agenda and being influenced by those who have no legal or moral right to usurp the role of a parent.”
“Unbelievably, Minnesota statutes authorize a county to deem a minor ‘emancipated’ to receive welfare payments to live on their own and allow medical providers to void parental input if it determines the minor is living apart from the parents and is managing his or her own personal financial affairs,” he noted.
“And the St. Louis County School District in Minnesota has a custom and practice of barring a parent for more than two years from involvement in the child’s education after a child is deemed by the school principal, not by a court order, to be emancipated. This is an unacceptable situation for any parent and a serious violation of parental and due process rights.” _____________________________________________________________
Mom Seeks SCOTUS Ruling After State Helps Minor Son Get “Sex Change” Against Her Will
As in many states, the Minnesota House voted earlier this year to ban youths from willingly seeking therapy designed to eliminate homosexual urges. But the same legislators apparently think it’s okay to help a youth get a so-called “sex change,” which causes irreparable physical harm, against his parents’ will
One Gopher State mother learned this the hard way, after officials usurped her parental rights and facilitated her minor son’s “gender transition” (i.e., body mutilation) treatments without her consent. That mother is now asking the Supreme Court to review her case. As the Christian Postreports:
The Thomas More Society filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon on behalf of Anmarie Calgaro, who is suing St. Louis County officials over their involvement in her child’s gender transition.
Society Special Counsel Erick Kaardal said in a statement emailed out to supporters that the case was “a parent’s worst nightmare.”
“Calgaro’s child, while a minor, was steered through a life-changing, permanent body altering process, becoming a pawn in someone else’s sociopolitical agenda and being influenced by those who have no legal or moral right to usurp the role of a parent,” stated Kaardal.
“This is an unacceptable situation for any parent and a serious violation of parental and due process rights.”
In November 2016, Calgaro sued St. Louis County, Fairview Health Services, Park Nicollet Health Services and the St. Louis County School District for providing her son with gender transition treatments without her consent.
School officials argued that the child, called “E.J.K.” in court documents, should be treated as an emancipated minor because he was living on his own and had an emancipation letter, albeit one that was not legally binding.
In May 2017, District Court Judge Paul Magnuson ruled against the mother, arguing that each of the various parties, including the school district, could not be sued for violating parental rights.
“Unbelievably,” Kaardal also said, “Minnesota statutes authorize a county to deem a minor ’emancipated’ to receive welfare payments to live on their own and allow medical providers to void parental input if it determines the minor is living apart from the parents and is managing personal financial affairs,’” WND.com informs, providing further detail. “‘And the St. Louis County School District in Minnesota has a custom and practice of barring a parent for more than two years from involvement in the child’s education after a child is deemed by the school principal, not by a court order, to be emancipated.’”
The real issue here is the principle, not Calgaro’s particular case. Since her son was 17, he would have been legally emancipated in less than a year’s time; moreover, though we don’t have all the details, this is apparently a family in disarray.
Regardless, the state could just as easily, it appears, have usurped parental rights with respect to a 15 or 14-year-old (and, presumably, even a younger child). Is this justifiable? After all, at issue here isn’t a case of an abusive parent mutilating a youth’s body; in fact, at issue is a case of the state ensuring that someone else may do so.
It’s part of a larger phenomenon, too, one in which parental authority isn’t determined by parental fitness, but political correctness. If a child wants a nose job or even to get an aspirin from the school nurse, he’ll likely need parental consent. Yet some states will let a girl have an abortion without such. Likewise, claiming you want to “change your gender” is now as fashionable as killing your baby.
Unfortunately, Made-up-sexual-status alteration treatment isn’t as reversible as a nose job. It’s not unusual to hear about sex-change regret, either, as I reported here. An example is the case of Australian Patrick Mitchell, who wanted to “become a girl” (impossible) at age 12, was given regular estrogen starting at 13, but then changed his mind at 14. He’ll probably never be the same again.
Yet Patrick certainly is normal is one respect: More than 80 percent of girls and 90-plus percent of boys experiencing “gender dysphoria” — feelings of strong “cross-gender identification,” as psychologists put it (misusing the term “gender”) — will outgrow the phase. What they won’t outgrow is quack medical intervention pursued in deference to their feelings.
That’s the point, too. It’s logical to think that before prescribing for a person powerful hormone treatments or body-rending surgery, that medical tests would be performed to verify that at issue is a “body” (biological) problem, as opposed to a psychological one. But think again.
The gender dysphoria diagnosis is made solely based on feelings, strong and persistent feelings of that “cross-gender identification.” It’s much like, instead of performing medical tests to confirm heart disease’s presence, cutting open a man’s chest and performing a bypass simply because he “feels” as if he has a bum ticker.
In reality, though, the apparent contradiction of disallowing reparative therapy (to eliminate homosexual urges) for youth but enabling their “sex changes” does have a perverse consistency to it.
Consider: I’ve long pointed out that when people descend into moral relativism, which has swept the West, and thus can no longer use (Absolute) Truth as their yardstick for decision-making, they resort to the only guide they have left: emotion. Thus do we live in the Age of Pathos, where, a study showed, Americans are most likely to decide what’s “right” based on feelings.
So where’s the aforementioned consistency, the common thread? Well, thou shalt not try to change a person’s homosexuality because feelings tell him he’s so.
But thou mayest try to change a person’s sex if his feelings tell him he’s not. Objective reality (including morality) be darned.
Of course, the only beings that should be ruled by feelings are animals and very young children. So, we could ask mental-health professionals and politicians: In which group are you?
July 24, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The Minnesota mother whose son was maneuvered through a “sex change” by county officials has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case. She is charging the government with usurping her parental rights when its agents provided her son with transgender services and narcotic drugs against her wishes.
The Thomas More Society petitioned the High Court Wednesday on behalf of Anmarie Calgaro, arguing that Calgaro’s due process rights were “trampled on” when St. Louis County and its referred health providers “ended her parental control over her minor son without a court order of emancipation.”
“It’s a parent’s worst nightmare,” Thomas More Society special counsel Erick Kaardal said. “Anmarie Calgaro’s child, while a minor, was steered through a life-changing, permanent body altering process, becoming a pawn in someone else’s sociopolitical agenda and being influenced by those who have no legal or moral right to usurp the role of a parent.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Ludicrous. Why is this desperately corrupt slave of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation occupying American soil? Why are American taxpayers still funding it?
“UN Singles Out Israel as World’s Only Violator of Women’s Rights; Iran, Saudi Arabia & Yemen Among the Voters,” UN Watch, July 24, 2019:
GENEVA, July 24, 2019 — Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan were among members of the UN’s 54-nation economic and social council, a principal organ of the world body, who voted to single out and condemn Israel yesterday as the only country in the world that violates women’s rights.
The Jewish state was harshly and repeatedly condemned in a resolution, adopted 40 to 2 with 9 abstentions and 3 absent (see breakdown below), for allegedly being the “major obstacle” for Palestinian women “with regard to their advancement, self-reliance, and integration in the development of their society.”
Out of 20 items on the UN Economic and Social Council’s 2018-2019 agenda, only one — Item No. 16 against Israel — focuses on condemning a specific country. All the other focus areas concern global topics such as disaster relief assistance and the use of science and technology for development.
The resolution completely ignores how Palestinian women’s rights are impacted by their own governing authorities—the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and Hamas in Gaza—nor does it mention how women are discriminated against within patriarchal Palestinian society.
Moreover, ECOSOC concluded its annual session by ignoring the world’s worst abusers of women’s rights, refusing to pass a single resolution on the situation of women in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, or DR Congo, all of which ranked in the top ten worst countries in last year’s Global Gender Gap Report, produced by the World Economic Forum….
Discussion of the resolutions followed the presentation of a biased report by Tarik Alami, representative of the Beirut-based Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, the UN regional body for the Middle East that includes 18 Arab states, but not Israel. Alami accused Israel of preventing Syria and the Palestinian Authority from achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
Voting Record: Resolution Condemning Israel for Violating Women’s Rights
YES: Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Benin, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Ghana, India, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Mali, Malta, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, South Korea, Russia, St. Vincent, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Yemen.
NO: United States and Canada
ABSTAIN: Brazil, Cameroon, Germany, Jamaica, Mexico, Romania, Togo, Ukraine, and United Kingdom
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Michael Hansen’s documentary, Killing Europe, was “removed by Amazon from its Prime Video service. Amazon cited ‘quality assurance’ concerns — despite the fact that the documentary had been hosted on the platform since 2017 without issue.” Killing Europe is about the effects of mass migration and Islam in Europe.
Amazon has caved to the sharia police and descended into dhimmitude. The company has also banned Tommy Robinson’s book, Mohammed’s Koran, removed doormats featuring Qur’an verses from sale at the demand of Hamas-linked CAIR, and banned Jihad Watch from Amazon Smile and Amazon Associates.
The film Killing Europe may be hard to watch, and after watching, it may be hard to digest. That is precisely why hard Leftist interests and Islamic supremacists don’t want you to see it. This alliance does not want the truth about the threats and abuses committed in the name of Islam to be revealed, particularly in an era of suicidal immigration policies.
The short version of the film killing Europe is featured below.
Trying to feature the film also led to a court challenge against the Ottawa library last year for cancelling the film’s showing because of pressure from some members of the public.
“Amazon Removes Danish Filmmaker’s Islam Documentary,” by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, July 24, 2019:
A documentary by independent filmmaker Michael Hansen about mass migration and Islam in Europe, entitled Killing Europe, has been removed by Amazon from its Prime Video service. Amazon cited “quality assurance” concerns — despite the fact that the documentary had been hosted on the platform since 2017 without issue.
Amazon’s censorship came shortly after Breitbart News covered Hansen’s new documentary, Killing Free Speech, which addresses the rise of Antifa and big tech censorship in the United States.
In its message to Hansen, Amazon said his previous documentary (which is still available on YouTube) does not meet “customer content quality expectations.” Amazon would not respond to repeated requests from Hansen for the company to specify what content failed to meet its criteria. The documentary had previously been hosted on Amazon since 2017.
Amazon did not return Breitbart News’ request for comment, but its full email to Hansen was obtained by Breitbart News and is copied below:
During a quality assurance review, we found that Killing Europe contains content that does not meet our customer content quality expectations. As a result, all offers for your title have been removed and may not be made available as “Included with Prime” or to Buy/Rent on Amazon.
We have carefully reviewed all impacted titles and only remove titles based on customer engagement/customer feedback. Prime Video Direct has always had a policy of reviewing content performance and customer engagement and this can be found here: https://videodirect.amazon.com/home/help?topicId=201986500
PVD remains an open marketplace, and we encourage you to continue making content that will be engaging for customers available on our site. We’re unable to predict whether any future title(s) you make available will be removed.
Thank you for using Prime Video Direct.
In part one of his new documentary, Killing Free Speech, Hansen says he intends to warn Americans about the dangers of a European approach to free speech……