Mother Whose ‘Transgender’ Son Was Given Drugs and Surgery Without Her Consent Takes Lawsuit to Supreme Court
A Minnesota mother whose ‘transgender’ son was plied with drugs and given a surgical procedure with help from government officials without her approval wants to take her lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Thomas More Society is representing Anmarie Calgaro, who alleges that government officials in St. Louis County referred her son to health care providers for treatment for his gender transition. Calgaro believes this infringed upon her due process rights and effectively “ended her parental control over her minor son without a court order of emancipation.”
“It’s a parent’s worst nightmare,” Thomas More Society special counsel Erick Kaardal said.
“Anmarie Calgaro’s child, while a minor, was steered through a life-changing, permanent body altering process, becoming a pawn in someone else’s sociopolitical agenda and being influenced by those who have no legal or moral right to usurp the role of a parent,” he added.
The Thomas More Society is petitioning the Supreme Court on Calgaro’s behalf, hoping that the nation’s high court takes up this matter as the LGBT agenda becomes more pervasive and targets unsuspecting children to recruit into their depraved and unhealthy lifestyle.
Calgaro initially sued health providers and state agencies in 2016 after her 17-year-old son was given an elective “sex change” operation without her consent. The state agencies decided that the child was emancipated and acted accordingly, her lawsuit claims.
Her lawsuit was dismissed by a district judge in May 2017 who ruled that Calgaro’s parental rights “remained intact.” The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district judge’s ruling in March 2019. Calgaro hopes that justice will finally be served and parental rights will finally be affirmed by the Supreme Court.
“Unbelievably, Minnesota statutes authorize a county to deem a minor ‘emancipated’ to receive welfare payments to live on their own and allow medical providers to void parental input if it determines the minor is living apart from the parents and is managing personal financial affairs,” Kaardal said.
“And the St. Louis County School District in Minnesota has a custom and practice of barring a parent from involvement in the child’s education for more than two years after a child is deemed by the school principal, not by a court order, to be emancipated,” he added. “This is an unacceptable situation for any parent and a serious violation of parental and due process rights.”
The Supreme Court has a chance to correct a grave injustice and ought to do so, as legal ambiguity in the Minnesota state code punishes fit parents by giving them fewer rights than unfit parents in the court of law.
“The U.S. Court of Appeals ignored the major disconnect in the District Court decision where the mother’s parental rights are admitted but not honored, and the ridiculous claims that the agencies which have violated Calgaro’s rights did nothing wrong,” Kaardal said. “The United States Supreme Court now has the opportunity to untangle this incompatible and untenable scenario; so, nationwide fit parents can keep parenting without governmental interference.”
“Under federal law, the right to parent is considered an unenumerated right, protected from governmental interference by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,” he added. “The “liberty” of the Due Process Clauses safeguards those substantive rights “so rooted in the traditions and conscience as to be ranked as fundamental.”
The Supreme Court will reconvene in October, and have an opportunity to take up Calgaro’s case and issue a well-deserved rebuke of the perverted LGBT agenda that has sex offenders grooming children at public libraries and glorified strip shows featuring children as the centerpiece.