Last week, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) questioned “expert” witnesses regarding the scientific reasoning behind sex-change surgeries for children and the potential positive outcomes of such permanent procedures. It was found that there was not a strong scientific justification for these surgeries, and many of the justifications came from non-scientific activist literature.

The Subcommittee on Health discussed several proposals related to healthcare access and research support for rare diseases. They also talked about renewing a program that provides funding to children’s hospitals. This program, called the Children’s Hospital Graduate Medical Education Payment Program, gives around $356 million to 59 hospitals across the country annually. Its renewal is dependent on legislation that is reviewed every five years.

Crenshaw seeks to ensure that the program does not ultimately direct taxpayer money to children’s hospitals that mutilate kids, stating, “This is taxpayer money, and when 70% of taxpayers opposed these barbaric treatments on minors, then taxpayers should not fund it.”

He is suggesting a change that would require children’s hospitals to be prohibited from receiving funds if they provided gender-affirming services to anyone under 18 years old during the previous fiscal year in order for their reauthorization to be approved.

During the hearing, Crenshaw discussed the matter with Dr. Meredithe McNamara, who is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Yale School of Medicine. McNamara testified against Crenshaw’s amendment and stated, “If this bill is passed, children’s hospitals would have to refuse healthcare to children to continue receiving funding. This would be harmful to children since parents would lose their rights and pediatricians would be unable to provide the appropriate standard of care based on evidence.”

McNamara further indicated, “Gender-affirming care is the only evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria. … The scientific evidence shows that GAC is lifesaving care that improves mental health and physical well-being in those experiencing gender dysphoria. It is very unscientific and flawed to pick a single study or a single statistic and discuss it in isolation. … Medical experts are able to talk about all of the evidence as a whole.”

Agreeing, Crenshaw said, “It’s good to look at systematic reviews, right? That’s the gold standard of evidence when you’re trying to understand whether something works or doesn’t. So the [British Medical Journal] looked at 61 systematic reviews with the conclusion that ‘there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries in young people.’ The Journal of the Endocrine Society came up with the same conclusion. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics all cite the lack of evidence.”

“When you’re talking about permanent physiological changes, do you not agree, just from an ethical standpoint, that you might want extremely strong evidence of the benefits? And there is no systematic review that states that there is strong evidence of benefits,” said Crenshaw.

Crenshaw asked McNamara to provide evidence since he kept mentioning it. In response, McNamara stated that the standards of care were created using an extensive process.

Crenshaw interjected, saying, “You’re not telling me any journal. You’re not telling any study. Don’t say ‘standards of care.’ Tell me one.”

The person who was labeled as an expert seemed confused and kept repeating the phrase “standards of care.”

“‘The standards of care.’ That’s not a journal. That’s not a study. That’s not an organization. It’s not an institution. You’re just saying words. Name one study,” said Crenshaw. “Tell me one. Name one study.”

"Name. One. Study."@RepDanCrenshaw corners Dem witness on her support of gender transition for children – and she can't name a single study that states the benefits of transgender procedures on kids! 🔥 pic.twitter.com/dHsvPTUojm

— Kara Zupkus (@kara_kirsten) June 14, 2023

According the Washington Examiner, Crenshaw asked Miriam Grossman, a psychologist who works with both children and adults, if it was appropriate for the government to intervene in medical decisions. Grossman commented that politics has taken over the medical field, but in an ideal world, the government would not be involved in decisions made between doctors, parents, and children. However, she believes that if something is happening that is clearly not right, then government intervention may be necessary.

Crenshaw said in a June 9 statement, “There is no other human rights atrocity in America that is so quickly gaining momentum and validation within the very institutions that should know better.”

“One of these institutions is children’s hospitals. In a place where ‘do no harm’ is the ultimate guiding principle, there is no excuse to ever perform these treatments that permanently alter a child’s physiology,” said the Texas congressman. “From now on, we will not allow a dime of this taxpayer-funded program to go toward children’s hospitals that cater to the harmful pseudoscience that is ‘gender-affirming care.'”

Sources:
The Blaze