This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey says a court ruling that leaves in place a state law banning child mutilation is a "resounding victory" for children.
"We are the first state in the nation to successfully defend such a law at the trial court level. I'm extremely proud of the thousands of hours my office put in to shine a light on the lack of evidence supporting these irreversible procedures. We will never stop fighting to ensure Missouri is the safest state in the nation for children," he explained.
The comment followed a decision by the Cole County Circuit Court in Noe v. Parson, a dispute over transgenderism, that affirmed a state law protecting children from "harmful, unnecessary, and high-risk transition drugs and surgeries."
The ADF worked along with AG's office to defend the law, and ADF lawyer Hal Frampton said, "Missouri rightly enacted a law that protects the health and welfare of all children—supporting their natural biological development and ensuring that children experiencing gender dysphoria have support and medical care rooted in biology and science."
He pointed out, "Driven by ideological agendas, activists and the Biden-Harris administration have pushed these dangerous procedures across the country and are attempting to prevent states from exercising their rightful role to regulate the medical profession and protect kids."
He pointed out that around the world, nations that used to promote the ideology, now are backing away.
A report from a broadcaster, KCUR, explained the ruling was from Craig Carter, a Wright County judge serving in Cole County.
A ruling, 74 pages, agreed with the state arguments against what LGBT promoters called "gender-affirming care."
The report said the state's lawmakers in 2023 agreed to limit the use of cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers and undergo gender transition surgeries, which end up mutilating juvenile bodies and often leaving them sterile for life.
The law also blocks the state from paying for such radical actions for adults through the state Medicaid program.
The report said the ruling noted the U.S. Supreme Court allows lawmakers broad discretion in areas "fraught with medical and scientific uncertainty."
And the judge pointed out there is "an almost total lack of consensus as to the medical ethics of adolescent gender dysphoria treatment."
The judge said the medical profession "stands in the middle of an ethical minefield, with scant evidence to lead it out."
The judge also confirmed there are "concerns with deferring to the organizations relied on by plaintiffs, such as WPATH, which self-describes itself as an organization 'committed to advocacy.'"
That is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health which promotes LGBT ideologies worldwide.
The report noted the judge said, "If we don't let a 16-year-old buy a six pack of beer and a pack of smokes, or let an adult buy those items for them, should we allow the same kid/parent team to decide to change a teenager's sex forever?"
