I read the section two definition of “chemical and surgical mutilation” and it mentions altering sex organs to remove their biological functions. One of the biological functions of a penis is to produce sperm. So could this mean no more federal coverage for vasectomies as well as stuff like tubal litigation or hysterectomies? And yes, I know that people under 19 don’t usually get permanent sterilization procedures anyways, but I still wonder about this interpretation.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation/

The phrase “chemical and surgical mutilation” means the use of puberty blockers, including GnRH agonists and other interventions, to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex; the use of sex hormones, such as androgen blockers, estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone, to align an individual’s physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex; and surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual’s physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex or that attempt to alter or remove an individual’s sexual organs to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions. This phrase sometimes is referred to as “gender affirming care.”

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Giant asterisk here. Executive Orders are not laws and cannot be enforced like a law. They are generally directives to the civil service as to how an already existing law should be interpreted or enforced.

    This thing has as much power as the toilet paper I’m about to wipe my ass with.

  • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    12 hours ago

    They should make illegal infant genital mutilation too, I know it used to be a big common practice in the Middle East and the USA

  • qyron@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Shit. That’s a declaration of war, if I’ve ever seen one. That has to be stopped. It goes against, blatantly, the most basic rights of self affirmation.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 day ago

    (a) The term “child” or “children” means an individual or individuals under 19 years of age.

    Uh, fucking what?

  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Other issues: no more circumcision, even if medically needed, and no more other medical procedures that make the tradeoff of saving a life over surgery.

        • warbond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          23 hours ago

          I don’t think so. It’s a pretty barbaric practice, so it deserves strong language. I suspect the only reason it’s still prevalent in America is the momentum of long-standing tradition. There’s no reasonable justification for performing unnecessary surgery on a newborn’s genitals.

            • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              21 hours ago

              In some cultures, men don’t like women who haven’t had their labia and clitoris removed. Does that preference justify the practice?

              Removing the foreskin removes thousands of nerve endings and desensitizes the glans.

              • SolidShake@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                19 hours ago

                I don’t recall advocating for it. I’m just saying it’s a thing, it won’t go away either and in the US it’s more of a traditional thing than religion thing. A it was only a few decades ago where it was considered “more hygenic”.

  • watson387@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 day ago

    It tracks with their “Christian” beliefs. They don’t want abortions and they don’t want vasectomies. They want people to pump out kids like baby factories. Also, the birthrate in the US is dropping and they want to make sure there are enough workers to exploit in the future.

    • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      I wish they had anything with a long-term vision, even one as bad as that.

      Parents with young children are very easy to exploit due to a lack of options. They can’t just quit/move/start a riot, because they have to worry about their child. They also tend to be very afraid (of many things), which is the Republican bread and butter.

  • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    It wouldn’t apply to anyone 19 or older, as that definition is an aspect of the order and the age range is defined.

    If they passed a law that expanded the definition to all ages, then vasectomies, hysterectomies, mastectomies, circumcisions, etc. would all be banned due to the sloppy and imprecise language.

  • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Fuck Donald Trump and MAGA. I want a vasectomy and will get one when I choose to. My body, my choice. ✊

  • HenchmanNumber3@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I read it as creating a mandate for the government to reduce microplastics that get into the human body because those reduce fertility and sperm count. Except in these kinds of bills, there’s always an unwritten addendum that says that the bill doesn’t apply if a perceived obligation affects a company’s bottom line