Don’t Mess With Texas: The Lone Star State Takes Action To Fight Rogue Political Prosecutors, Will Remove Them From Office

While Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is by now a well-known politically minded prosecutor in his pursuit of soft-on-crime policies and in his shepherding of a legally dubious case against former President Trump, he is not the only one. Nor are political prosecutors confined to deep Democrat-run states like New York or California but appear even in Republican states like Texas. The Texas state legislature is considering means of restricting selective prosecution of crimes, according to Just the News.

A Texas House committee is conducting a hearing on Senate Bill 20  which prohibits local prosecutors who “adopt or enforce a policy under which the prosecuting attorney prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of any criminal offense or…prohibit[s] or materially limit[s] the enforcement of any criminal offense.” If a prosecutor violates these prohibitions, the penalty is that the act is considered “official misconduct for purposes of removal.” In effect, that prosecutor risks being removed from office.

The bill cleared the Senate after a vote along partisan lines of 21 to 11 and has been moved to the Texan House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence for a hearing. The bill itself was filed after five local district attorneys stated they would not comply with a legal opinion issued by Texan Attorney General Ken Paxton regarding the chemical castration of children.

The statement released by the five prosecutors was that Paxton’s opinion that such procedures were a form of child abuse was a “cruel” directive “treating transgender children’s access to life-saving, gender-affirming care as “child abuse”…We want to assure our residents with transgender children that they are safe to continue seeking the care their children need.”

In response to Governor Abbott and AG Paxton's directives regarding transgender youth care: pic.twitter.com/oPHH7PBfz7

— Dallas County DA (@Dallas_DA) February 24, 2022

Attorney General Paxton’s opinion noted that these same procedures and treatments touted by these local prosecutors as life-saving and gender-affirming “could permanently deprive minor children of their constitutional right to procreate, or impair their ability to procreate, before those children have the legal capacity to consent to those procedures and treatments, constitutes child abuse.”

Elon Musk Suspends User Who Created A Pedophile Flag – ‘This Shall Not Stand’

It further noted that “[t]he medical evidence does not demonstrate that children and adolescents benefit from engaging in these irreversible sterilization procedures. The prevalence of gender dysphoria in children and adolescents has never been estimated, and there is no scientific consensus that these sterilizing procedures and treatments even serve to benefit minor children dealing with gender dysphoria.” In effect then the procedure may lead toward sterilization in minors and has medically dubious benefits.

As Dr. Jay W. Richards, an expert at The Heritage Foundation, put it in an article such ‘treatments’ and ‘surgeries’ are radical, and often the issue of gender dysphoria resolves itself on its own.

Dr. Richards wrote that “This sex-denial is so bizarre that many still treat it as comical. In fact, it’s tragic: If they’re not put on this [school to sterilization] pathway, most kids who suffer gender dysphoria will grow out of it. Some 61% to 98% of these kids will naturally reconcile with their sex after going through puberty. In many cases, puberty itself may be the cure for gender dysphoria. But that healing can be thwarted if a child is socially transitioned at home and school, and put on puberty blockers and then cross-sex drugs. The further kids go down this pathway, the less likely they are to turn back. And the greater is the cost for those who detransition.”

The same article noted that “countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland, who took early leads on the transition protocol, are hitting the brakes.” What is then to be morally gained by political prosecutors protecting ‘treatments’ and ‘procedures’ that often do more harm than good? Why do they defend such practices even when countries that took an early lead on the same practices are now having second thoughts? All of this points to dubious ‘scientific’ fades like the old eugenics movement influencing the preferences of some prosecutors in who they prosecute and who they protect.

Prosecutors are not nor should they be scientists. They are there simply to uphold the law.