We could have predicted this based on the slavish devotion to the pro-pedo line that Soros-funded publication has consistently taken to date, but Piper Hutchinson’s hit piece at the Louisiana Illuminator – which we’re going to call the Illumigroomer from now on – has now made it undeniable. This is a left-wing rag which is bent on gender-bending your kids.

At issue in the current controversy is a letter that most of the red-state attorneys general sent to the Biden administration protesting a proposed DHHS rule pushing abortions nationwide and also promoting pediatric sex changes and “puberty-blocker” sterilization drugs on kids. Per the letter…

Federal agencies have heeded the President’s call and pursued a nationwide regime of elective abortion in defiance of contrary decisions by the peoples’ representatives in many States. For example, in September 2022, the Department of Veterans Affairs reversed longstanding practice and adopted a rule allowing taxpayer-funded abortions for veterans and beneficiaries. See Reproductive Health Services, 87 Fed. Reg. 55287 (Sept. 9, 2022). The VA’s rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, intrudes upon traditional state authority, and obstructs
States’ ability to enforce their laws on abortion. In January 2023, the Food and Drug Administration purported to authorize a nationwide mail-order elective abortion-drug regime. See FDA, Information about Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy Through Ten Weeks Gestation, http://bit.ly/3kHmh8Q. The FDA’s actions exceed the agency’s authority, defy federal criminal law, and undermine States’ ability to protect their citizens.

C. The Proposed Rule

The proposed rule here continues the Administration’s efforts to override state abortion laws. Published on April 17, 2023, the proposed rule—HIPAA Privacy Rule To Support Reproductive Health Care Privacy—would drastically reshape the existing HIPAA Privacy Rule. HHS has declared that the proposed rule is motivated by “concerns” about Dobbs. 88 Fed. Reg. at 23507; see HHS, HIPAA Privacy Rule Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Support Reproductive Health Care Privacy Fact Sheet (Apr. 2023), https://bit.ly/3WD1IcD (“The proposed rulemaking is one of many actions taken by HHS in support of President Biden’s [executive orders] … issued [after] Dobbs.”); HHS, HHS Proposes Measures to Bolster Patient-Provider Confidentiality Around Reproductive Health Care (Apr. 12, 2023), https://bit.ly/3WDmOHL (President Biden “call[ed] on HHS to take action to meet this moment and we have wasted no time in doing so.”) (statement of Secretary Becerra).

And further, the letter details some pretty ugly consequences to what the Biden administration is doing…

First, the proposed rule would prohibit a regulated entity’s disclosure of PHI “for a criminal, civil, or administrative investigation into or proceeding against any person in connection with seeking, obtaining, providing, or facilitating reproductive health care” in three general circumstances. 88 Fed. Reg. at 23552. Specifically, it would bar disclosure where the relevant “investigation” or “proceeding” concerns “reproductive health care” that is: provided “outside of the state where the investigation or proceeding is authorized and … is lawful in the
state in which it is provided”; “protected, required, or authorized by Federal law, regardless of the state in which [it] is provided”; or “provided in the state in which the investigation or proceeding is authorized and … is permitted by the law of that state.” Ibid. The bar on disclosure would not be limited to investigations or proceedings involving the person who sought “reproductive health care.” Rather, it would apply to investigations or proceedings involving “any person” in connection with such “care.” Id. at 23532 (emphasis added).

Second, the proposed rule would require the recipient of a request for PHI “potentially related to reproductive health care” to obtain an attestation from the requesting entity before making a disclosure. Id. at 23553. The attestation must “verif[y]” that the request is not barred under the new prohibition on disclosing PHI related to “reproductive health care.” Ibid. The attestation requirement would apply to any request for PHI related to “reproductive health care” for health oversight, legal proceedings, law-enforcement purposes, or disclosures to coroners and medical examiners. Ibid. (citing 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(d), (e), (f), & (g)(1)).

Third, the proposed rule would modify or add three defined terms to the Privacy Rule. It would redefine person to mean “a natural person (meaning a human being who is born alive), trust or estate, partnership, corporation, professional association … , or other entity, public or private”; define public health (as in “public health surveillance,” “public health investigation,” and “public health intervention”) to mean “population-level activities to prevent disease and promote health of populations”; and define reproductive health care to mean “care, services, or supplies related to the reproductive health of the individual.” Ibid. (emphasis reflects new text). Public health would exclude “uses and disclosures [of PHI] for 6 [a] criminal, civil, or administrative investigation … or proceeding” about “reproductive health care.” Ibid. HHS says that reproductive health care should be “interpreted broadly and inclusive of all types of health care related to an individual’s reproductive system” or “reproductive organs,” “regardless of whether the health care is related to an individual’s pregnancy or whether the individual is of reproductive age.” Id. at 23527.

What jumps out at you is that were this rule to go into effect, human traffickers could ferry teenaged prostitutes to places like California to get abortions when their pedophile clients get them pregnant in Louisiana or Missouri, and because abortions would be involved there would be little or nothing state agencies could do about the practice, as the feds would have completely taken over the issue.

Oh – and sex change operations are covered in “reproductive health care” according to the rule, so if an insane Munchausen Mom from Louisiana were to trans her little boy, with the boy’s father in full opposition, all she’d have to do is take the kid to Minnesota for a while and come back with a full kit of puberty blockers and hormones on the way to mutilating the kid with no real possibility of prosecution by state authorities – assuming that Louisiana’s legislature overrides Gov. John Bel Edwards’ veto of HB 648 this week and makes pediatric sex changes illegal.

It isn’t bizarre that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry signed on to this letter. It would be bizarre if he didn’t.

But here is Hutchinson’s bizarre writeup of his doing so…

Louisiana’s Jeff Landry joined 17 other state attorneys general in signing a letter Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Finch sent last month to the Biden administration saying those states need access to information about residents who obtain abortions or gender-affirming care in other states.

The letter calls on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to drop a proposed rule change prohibiting states from obtaining data about its residents accessing abortion or gender-affirming healthcare in states where it is legal. The information could be used for criminal, civil or administrative investigations, according to the AGs’ letter

Most of the attorneys general that signed the letter are from states with strict abortion restrictions.

More states, including Louisiana, are seeking to restrict access to gender-affirming healthcare, particularly for transgender youth.

​​Gender-affirming care is a catch-all term for medical treatments given to people to align their physical bodies with their identified gender. Gender-affirming care is used by transgender people, who identify as a gender different from their assigned sex at birth, as well as cisgender people who identify as their assigned sex.

Treatments are individualized to the patient. Some young patients will be prescribed fully reversible puberty blockers, giving the patient time to consider their options. Later, a patient may be given hormone treatments that can help young people go through puberty in a way that allows their body to change in ways that align with their gender identity. These treatments are partially reversible.

“Patrially reversible” chemical castration.

And this is entertaining…

“The Louisiana Department of Justice is opposed to this radical proposal which would block information necessary to investigate the sexual abuse of children,” Landry spokesperson Millard Mule said in a statement to the Illuminator.

Mule has yet to respond to a follow-up request for an explanation on why the information is necessary for child sexual abuse investigations.

We just provided that explanation above. Apparently Hutchinson doesn’t have much of an imagination; it would seem pretty obvious that abortions and sex changes could easily be part and parcel of child sexual abuse that states would want to investigate, particularly when child sex trafficking is a multibillion-dollar illegal industry in this country and the federal government has little apparent interest in stopping it.

Either Hutchinson didn’t read the letter, which spells out these concerns over its 17 pages, or she wanted to obfuscate it.

Instead, the article is all about how state governments like Louisiana and Mississippi are trying to criminalize women who seek abortions and want to follow them to the ends of the earth to destroy and imprison them. Which is not only a lie, it’s a lie that obscures what’s really happening.

And it seems like we see an awful lot of that on the Left these days, particularly from outlets like the Illumigroomer.

It’s shameful, but it really isn’t very surprising.