Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Virginia’s Law on Sterilization and Child Gender Transition Procedures

—

by

sherlockj
in ,

By James C. Sherlock

A recent article on this site on medical and surgical procedures for gender transition in children drew more than 100 comments.  There is no Virginia law that controls this process for children.

But we have a law governing sterilization that appears to make sterilization of a child under 18, by extension, unlawful.

Here it is.

§ 54.1-2974. Sterilization operations for persons 18 years or older capable of informed consent.

It shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to perform a vasectomy, salpingectomy, or other surgical sexual sterilization procedure on any person 18 years of age or older who has the capacity to give informed consent, when so requested in writing by such person. Prior to or at the time of such request, a full, reasonable, and comprehensible medical explanation as to the meaning and consequences of such an operation and as to alternative methods of contraception shall be given by the physician to the person requesting the operation.

Curious.

One of the outcomes of the partially irreversible forms of hormones used in gender transition is sterilization.

Certainly “bottom” surgery is sterilization.

I ask the lawyers and physicians among my readers to comment on whether the Virginia sterilization law governs medical and surgical gender transition processes visited on children.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

45 responses to “Virginia’s Law on Sterilization and Child Gender Transition Procedures”

  1. Matt Adams Avatar
    Matt Adams

    I would venture to guess this Law is a result of Jacobson v Mass, whose legal progeny include Buck v Bell, Loving v VA and Korematsu v US.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Question is does it apply to gender transformation in children? I am looking for the thoughts of attorneys and physicians.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        You’ll get the personal opinion of the Lawyer, the only authority would be the SCOTUS.

        Edit: In addition, the fact that several states used Jacobson V Mass to enact laws that involved banning interracial marriage and forced sterilization, means that it could go either way on grounds to support.

        They could very well use precedent in Jacobson V Mass to establish the states right to determine your gender for you and you’d have no grounds to argue against it. It all depends on what a Politician is willing to put into the text of a bill and who is prepared to Vote for it.

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/ie3qve/picture83112987/alternates/FREE_1140/eugenics(2)

  3. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    The statute appears to be a sanitized remnant of the 1924 sterilization (eugenic) act. As its closing sentence provides, the legislative purpose addresses reproductive sterilization and, thus, not clearly applicable to sterilization as a result of surgical gender transformation. As a matter of practical medical ethics, a treating physician would be obliged to address the matter.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Do you think it would be a stretch to claim that the purpose of the sterilization matters under this law?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Would you have this law apply to testicular or ovarian cancer?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Or leukemia…

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I love the way that Sherlock loves the govt – really odd for a Conservative but when push comes to shove on LGBT – all bets are off.

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Yup!! As a state measure, purpose would be high on the rationale scale for declining to stretch. A few words of amendment might cure the intent.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Put another way, could eugenic purposes be masked as child gender transition under this law?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        That is not putting your original question another way… it is a totally unrelated contention on your part… the answer is no…

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          I’ve often said that if they develop a prenatal test for homosexuality, the churches and Republicans will throw in four-square behind a woman’s right to choose. Hell, legalize abortions?! Mandatory ones!

    3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      Where did you find that citation and text? The earliest reference I could find is to Chapter 454 of the 1981 Session Laws, which I cannot locate online. Thanks.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        “as to alternative methods of contraception shall be given by the physician to the person requesting the operation.”

        If contraception is not the intent, then the law would not apply.

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        My reference was the text in the article. My opinion of interpretation was based upon general jurisprudence and legislation.

        1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          Thank you.

      3. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Article 7. Sexual Sterilization.

        § 54.1-2974. Sterilization operations for persons 18 years or older capable of informed consent.
        It shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to perform a vasectomy, salpingectomy, or other surgical sexual sterilization procedure on any person 18 years of age or older who has the capacity to give informed consent, when so requested in writing by such person. Prior to or at the time of such request, a full, reasonable, and comprehensible medical explanation as to the meaning and consequences of such an operation and as to alternative methods of contraception shall be given by the physician to the person requesting the operation.

        1981, c. 454, § 54-325.9; 1988, c. 765; 2013, c. 671.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Actually, the law only applies to 18 and older, therefore prior to 18 anything goes.

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      That makes no sense. The 1924 Virginia sterilization statute was apparently overridden by federal law in 1979. This was the state law passed to promote eugenics. It was apparently repealed and replaced by a modern statute addressing the right of a competent adult to have himself/herself sterilized. From what I’ve been able to piece together, this happened in 1981.

      While the 1981 session law is not available, a comparison of the 1924 law and the current law suggests they are very different, such that I struggle to believe the latter is a “sanitized remnant of the 1924 sterilization (eugenic) act.” From the subsequent actions of the General Assembly that attempted to make partial amends to those harmed by Virginia’s eugenics law, it seems unlikely that the legislature merely wanted to “sanitize” the old law.

      The new law only addresses surgical procedures, such that it might be a stretch to argue it covers chemical treatments. By addressing adults and consent, a strong argument can be made that the law excludes minors. If I represented a physician, I would advise not to perform surgery on a minor for any purpose absent parental permission and a court order. I’d also advise proposing that the court appoint counsel for the minor.

      Given the propensity of both people changing their mind and aggressive plaintiff’s lawyers, any doctor using the current law to perform gender-matching surgery is a damn fool.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        “Sanitized” may have been a poor characterization. It was meant to reflect a legislative intent to permit a medical procedure by comparison to history.

        1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          I’d say “to permit a medical procedure for a purpose different from a prior purpose that is no longer acceptable to society, and, thus, prohibited.”

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Or has god syndrome. But, what doctor has that?

        I would assume that the exclusion of 17 and under would actually prevent any sterilization of minors, even with parental consent, for the purpose of contraception. But again, for the purpose of contraception only. Other surgeries would not apply even if the result is also sterilization. Example, a 16-year old with testicular cancer whose parents refuse to consent because of religious reasons. Not like something similar hasn’t happened in this S-hole state before.

        1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          That’s a type of situation where the doctor should go to court and, if appropriate, request that the court appoint counsel for the minor. Only a damn fool would risk career, wealth and possibly freedom on that interpretation of a statute. The minor can change his or her mind after reaching adulthood and argue that his/her interests were not represented by parents or the doctor. The lure of malpractice money likely wins over wokeness anytime.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            No doubt. Petitions for emancipation or a guardian ad litem, but courts have a tendency to be slow however, and the kid has a right to life.

        2. Christie Owens Avatar
          Christie Owens

          What is wrong with you?

        3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Yet you live here.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            The only sunshine.

        4. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Article 7. Sexual Sterilization.…

          § 54.1-2975. Sterilization operations for certain children incapable of informed consent.

          It shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to perform a vasectomy, salpingectomy, or other surgical sexual sterilization procedure on a person fourteen years of age or older and less than eighteen years of age when:

          1. A petition has been filed in the circuit court of the county or city wherein the child resides by the parent or parents having custody of the child or by the child’s guardian, spouse, or next friend requesting that the operation be performed;

          2. The court has made the child a party defendant, served the child, the child’s guardian, if any, the child’s spouse, if any, and the child’s parent who has custody of the child with notice of the proceedings and appointed for the child an attorney-at-law to represent and protect the child’s interests;

          3. The court has determined that a full, reasonable, and comprehensible medical explanation as to the meaning, consequences, and risks of the sterilization operation to be performed and as to alternative methods of contraception has been given by the physician to the child upon whom the operation is to be performed, to the child’s guardian, if any, to the child’s spouse, if any, and, if there is no spouse, to the parent who has custody of the child;

          4. The court has determined by clear and convincing evidence that the child’s mental abilities are so impaired that the child is incapable of making his or her own decision about sterilization and is unlikely to develop mentally to a sufficient degree to make an informed judgment about sterilization in the foreseeable future;

          5. The court, to the greatest extent possible, has elicited and taken into account the views of the child concerning the sterilization, giving the views of the child such weight in its decision as the court deems appropriate;

          6. The court has complied with the requirements of § 54.1-2977; and

          7. The court has entered an order authorizing a qualified physician to perform the operation not earlier than thirty days after the date of the entry of the order, and thirty days have elapsed. The court order shall state the date on and after which the sterilization operation may be performed.

          1981, c. 454, § 54-325.10; 1988, c. 765.

      3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        What would you think of a law requiring a second medical opinion and a court order for medical or surgical gender transformation of minors? Do you see any constitutional issues with that?

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Then, decision making arrives in the “my expert is better than yours” realm. Courts are not helpful in negotiating such personal choices. Too much in loco parentis in this suggestion.

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    That’s because they tried to sterilize the black population back in the 30s and 40s.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Sterilization_Act_of_1924

    It passed at the same time as “The Racial Integrity Act”. I’ll let you guess about that one.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    My favorite mutilation account comes from California. I want to say the guy’s name was Watson, but maybe that’s because you’re Sherlock, nevertheless in the 1940s to the 1960s, he lobotomized children like poppin’ M&Ms.

    It was Freeman assisted by Watt. A traveling horror show that performed up to 5,000 ice pick lobotomies. I guess it was an early form of Ritalin, except the kid couldn’t sell it to his classmates for pin money.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/an-ice-pick-to-the-brain-the-horror-of-the-frontal-lobotomy/C2X63F5EDPOOGYJKKSRYMKGZEE/

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Which are you, lawyer or physician?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Could be both, but that would make me a Captain.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Younkin is apparently working hard to get key people in place to address the LGBT issues:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4c829d97ecdd6d47665b10d46bb711f0e80126f8b5ef05df9de74294b5066429.jpg

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      Better than a sitting United States Senator flagrantly ignoring specific language in the Constitution prohibiting the imposition of a religious test on a person nominated for public office.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Youngkinistan… execution by stoning.

  8. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Younkin is apparently working hard to get key people in place to address the LGBT issues:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4c829d97ecdd6d47665b10d46bb711f0e80126f8b5ef05df9de74294b5066429.jpg

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “What’s that poppin’ noise?”
    “Either the Captain trying to stretch his hat to fit, or a law to fit. One or t’other.”

    BTW, fewer than 90 comments if you eliminate yours.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Do we count how it was spammed over to TBE to try to get more clicks there…??

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Tick-borne encephalitis? Wow, that makes sense!

  10. Bernard Lane Avatar
    Bernard Lane

    This may be of interest —https://drdylanwilson.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-australias-doctors?r=130uly&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

  11. Keydet Avatar
    Keydet

    The very next code section provides a process for children between 14 and 18 to be sterilized, and it requires a court order. The meaning of “other surgical sterilization procedure” would have to be litigated.

  12. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    The nice thing about being an atheist is telling Christians they should follow their religion and start praying for these kids and stop preying on them

Leave a Reply

Read More