 So what Maine is saying is, okay, if if you're thinking about changing your gender and you don't want to tell your parents and you want to get it done, come to Maine, we'll take care of you. Am I missing anything? No, Maine is going to open the doors to this and open the door to kids who meet someone on TikTok. They get the idea that they need the surgery or hormone replacement therapy and they're going to grab a bus or someone's going to come and pick them up and they're going to bring them to Maine and a parent is not going to do a thing about it. Maine just proposed a bill that would make it the 15th state in the country to become a trans-refugee state, which is a direct response, mind you, to laws criminalizing trans existence in states controlled by Republicans. Now, the clip that you just watched was Fox News' reaction to what they think the bill will do if it becomes law. But as you've probably already suspected, they are lying or, at a minimum, purposefully misrepresenting the law in order to push an anti-trans agenda, but they're not the only ones because conservative influencers on the internet have already sounded the alarm about this bill before Fox News. For example, stochastic terrorist Chaya Rychik of Libs of TikTok claims, New proposed bill in Maine says the state can take custody of a kid if the parents oppose sex change surgery and the chemical castration of their kids. Now, in response, transphobic conservatives boosted that post and encouraged their followers to take action, including Megyn Kelly, Trump Jr., and Riley Gaines to name a few. So Chaya Rychik has constructed this narrative to not only get conservatives to incorrectly believe that minors are having sex change surgeries in the first place, but that parents are losing the right to say no to said surgeries when neither of these things are happening. But let's take a look at the bill. As Libs of TikTok pointed out, the bill does authorize a court to take temporary jurisdiction of a child, quote, because a child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care. But you need to read the rest of the bill in order to get the specifics as to why a court might be able to do this, quote, a court of the state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child or sibling or parent of the child is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or because the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care. Now it's a bit confusing, but the keyword here is jurisdiction. They are not saying that a court can remove a child from a non-affirming household simply because parents don't consent to gender-affirming health care. That's not what they're saying here. The child would still need parental consent for gender-affirming care. However, in instances where there is physical or mental abuse or abandonment, Maine can then remove the child or they can intervene on behalf of another state rather than simply to saying, look, this child who's being abused, it's not our problem. They're the problem of the state they came from. So they're the ones who should handle it. They're saying, we'll take responsibility here. Furthermore, if a child has not been able to receive gender-affirming care because it is banned in the state that they're from, this bill allows Maine's courts to give them jurisdiction over that particular case and basically ignore the laws in their home state where they came from. So, for example, if parents from Texas take their kids to Maine for gender-affirming health care, Texas cannot then intervene and block them from receiving said care because it's banned in Texas. This doesn't mean that Maine is overriding the will of non-affirming parents. That's not what this says. It is a line intended to address cross-state disputes so Republican controlled states can't prosecute the residents of their state who travel across state lines for services that they've banned. And it's not just an issue when it comes to trans rights. Republicans are increasingly trying to prosecute residents who defy abortion bans by traveling out of state. So this is Maine basically proactively addressing that and they're pretty explicit about it in this bill. For example, section 2 reads, quote, it is the public policy of this state that an out-of-state arrest warrant for an individual based on violating another state's law against providing receiving or allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care is the lowest law enforcement priority. Now, Erin Reid explains why this matters, quote, importantly, this provision does not imply as some conservative accounts have proclaimed that the state will, quote, take away trans kids from non-affirming parents, as I've already said. Rather, this provision merely gives judges temporary jurisdiction over a kid present in the state. The state would still have to prove to a judge that a transgender teen is at risk of abuse or neglect if returned to their family in the exact same way the state would have to prove similar things about a cisgender kid. This provision is particularly relevant given the effort of some Republican-led states to extend their jurisdiction over minors no longer residing within their borders. For instance, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a subpoena for medical records from Seattle Children's Hospital. In the subpoena, the state demands data on all trans youth that have either temporarily left Texas to get care or permanently moved from the state. Such attempts to employ long-arm statutes could potentially usurp the jurisdiction of other states over those who have established residency or sought asylum within these states. Additionally, the bill would grant main jurisdiction in custody disputes where one parent resides in a state that prohibits gender-affirming care and the other lives in Maine where such care is not banned. Considering that many custody cases involve cross-state provision of care and the transfer of transgender youth between states with and without bans, this clause enables parents in Maine to present their case to a judge and argue that gender-affirming care is in the child's best interest. The bill does not require the judge to rule in favor of the parent. It merely allows the court to consider the argument. So I get it. It's complex. There's a lot of legal jargon in this bill. But if you're not qualified to interpret this correctly, then you certainly shouldn't fear monger about the specifics here within this bill. Chai Rychik is not qualified to interpret this, nor would she interpret this in a good faith way if she was qualified. But she made it seem as if this bill is going to allow kids to take weekend trips to Maine with their friends to get sex change operations in defiance of their parents. That's not what it does. But this is how Republicans are now unironically portraying this bill because of people like Chai Rychik who lie about these laws. Now, if you don't believe me that everyone else is interpreting it this way too, well, see for yourself because even Fox News is going with what she said about this bill. Okay, so let's say that then they have the gender change. Are they going to go home to mom and dad? Because that would be quite a surprise. Yeah, I went to Maine and this is how I spent my vacation and then what happens? They may go home to mom and dad because they realize the mistake they've made and they need the person who loves them to take care of them. But I think otherwise they're going to stay in the fantasy world that they get involved in when they go through this gender transition, when they go through counseling that only looks at one option for their dysphoria or their fears or whatever they're searching for. The state of Maine has said, come to us, we'll take care of you. I don't know how long that's going to last or how they'll go to school or anything. Well, sorry, mom and dad. I know that you said no to the sex change, but it's done now. So what are you going to do? Thanks, Maine. I mean, this is such a cartoonishly idiotic portrayal of this bill that it's hard to imagine that even these conservatives believe their own bullshit. I have to imagine that they know that they're dishonest. They know that they're lying because you can't be that stupid. I'm sorry. You just, you can't, right? And did you notice the chyrons there? New Maine bill would allow out of state kids to get sex change surgeries. No, it wouldn't. Gender for men care for minors does not include sex change operations. You liars. Here's another one. Quote, Maine's tripping parental rights. No, Maine is actually expanding parental rights to parents and states where Republicans took away their right to pursue gender-affirming care for their trans children. Here's another one. Maine Trans Bill slammed as quote, state sanctioned kidnapping. It's just so dishonest. See, when states like Texas label trans-affirming parents as child abusers and then try to remove trans children from these affirming homes, that right there is not state sanctioned kidnapping. State sanctioned kidnapping is when Maine says, hey, we'll accept trans refugees who've been targeted by their state. Listen, at this point, they are so far detached from reality, they might as well just say that Maine is trying to turn kids trans so they can force them to work in HRT factories to produce hormones for big trans. I mean, that's the level of absurdity that we're reaching here. And honestly, their rhetoric is close to that, even though I'm trying to be hyperbolic. But I mean, if you ever wonder why Republicans lie so much about trans people and trans youth, it is because the truth would hurt their cause. If they actually made their argument based on facts and science and statistics and data, they would never win over anyone. The viability of their hateful agenda hinges on people being misinformed about this topic. But so long as Republicans continue to criminalize trans existence, these types of laws are going to be much more needed and hopefully more common. But as these types of trans refugee laws become more common, you can expect more fear mongering and lies about them because, you know, it is a threat to their anti-trans agenda. But side note, since we're talking about Chayaraychik, one of the people leading the charge against the law, she's been appointed to Oklahoma's library review committee, even though she lacks expertise on this issue and she doesn't live in Oklahoma, nor does she have children. And look, maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like a bad idea to let hate mongering transphobes like Chayaraychik, who literally inspired bomb threats against children's hospitals, dictate what should be school policy. Her kids don't even go to that school. Her kids don't go in that district. She doesn't have kids, as far as I know. But I mean, keep in mind, as they impose their will on everyone else with book bands and bands on gender, firm and care, they are doing this under the guise of parental choice, which is just truly Orwellian. And Joy Reid of MSNBC confronted the Moms for Liberty co-founder about this contradiction on her show and asked why conservatives want to ban books for everyone when parents don't actually have to do that to still prevent their kids from reading material that they deem as inappropriate. Watch how this mom responds. This mom for liberty responds. Let me show you a form. This is a form that can be obtained in Broward County, Florida. I'm going to show it to the audience and then I'm going to show it to you. This is called the opt out form. And opt out form would allow any parent, because you said you are in favor of parental rights. It would allow any parent to opt out of their child being able to take books out of the library without their parent's permission. So that Moms for Liberty, why not advocate that every school in America have an opt out form so that a parent who doesn't want their child to access a book like All Boys Aren't Blue, that they can make that choice? Because then each parent, including a liberal parent, a black parent, a parent who wants their child to read a book about African American history, then they get their own children to read books. Why not just opt out for yourself rather than tell other parents what they cannot. First of all, I think what you're talking about here is a wonderful step in the right direction. We should be having conversations about this. This is about local control. A lot of these decisions are made at the local school board level. And that's where these decisions should be made. And there should be vibrant conversations about what's happening in our public schools and what kids have access to. Joy, however, maybe we could just put all the books with all the graphic sexual content, the dildos, the rapes. Let's do a back room. Let's put a curtain up in the library like they used to do in the video stories. Remember, we were little and you'll go to the video store. The books that Moms for Liberty. The books that Moms for Liberty. The books that behind the curtain. I have seen tapes of what Moms for Liberty does. And you all go into school board meetings and you read graphic stuff. No, it's not. There's eight. There's America used to understand that there's something called age appropriate content. Right. And here's my question again. Again, again, again, Ruby Bridges Goes to School is on the list of books that Moms for Liberty has attempted to have removed. Absolutely not. It absolutely is. Let me ask about the people who are making the decision for their parents because you have not answered yet why a liberal parent or an African-American parent. We have parents who are Democrats who are members of their organization, but you're still trying to make decisions for all the kids. Wow. I've never seen this before. It's called an opt out form, you say. Wow. I think this is a step in the right direction. I've never seen this. It's never existed before. These were available when I was in elementary school. Anyways, despite seeing this and saying it's a good idea, she still says, actually, I still want to make decisions for other parents. I want to impose my will on them regardless if I don't have to do that to shield my kid from seeing things that I think are inappropriate. It's amazing, isn't it? They don't actually believe in parental rights. This is all about the imposition of their will on all of us, regardless if we like it or not. And their will is to criminalize trans people out of existence as evidenced by the fact that laws pertaining to trans existence are getting increasingly draconian. For example, a bill out of Utah could penalize trans people with six months in jail for simply using the wrong bathroom. And this bill, by the way, is advancing quickly and could pass soon, according to journalist Aaron Reid. I mean, this is where we're at. They might claim that their crusade against trans people is guided by some philosophy like parental rights or protecting women. But at the end of the day, those are nothing more than thinly veiled pretenses to eliminate people that they've deemed unworthy of existing. That's what this is all about. But if these bigots got what they wanted, unfortunately for them, they would be prosecuted with all the LGBTQ plus people they're judging as well. Right, if they got the Christian theocracy that they are longing for, they wouldn't hold a scrutiny as well. And this was another thing that the Moms for Liberty co-founder was confronted about by Joy Reid. Here are some of the parents that are filing or some of your advocates. Bridget Ziegler, the Moms for Liberty co-founder, the wife of the recently ousted Florida Republican Party chairman, Christian Ziegler, who allegedly was involved in threesome, same-sex threesome. Mrs. Ziegler was removed from the school board at which she was a leader. You have Lauren DePaola. She was making book ban requests in Alachua County. But then records show that she and her husband didn't live there. They'd sold their home in that county. Carrie Blair in Tennessee, who was arrested for property theft charges after allegedly stealing from Target, skip scanning and Target. Why should those three people get to make decisions about what other children should be able to read? Other parents' children should be able to read. Do you know that I served as a school board member from 2016 to 2016? Are you going to answer my question? Yeah, I'm going to. Because we don't have an endless time. Joy, I'm going to answer your question, but I need you to understand that when I was an elected representative, I would sit on that dais. And how dare I, sitting there as an elected representative, judge a parent when they would come to the podium to speak and advocate for their child? Well, Joy, we're not going to judge these folks. Do we seem like the judgmental type to you? Yeah, you kind of do. I mean, it's astonishing to me that they can be so blatantly dishonest and deceitful. But I mean, in conclusion, we can defeat these people. And our greatest weapon against these demons is information and education. Because once the general population realizes that they're concerned trolling about parental rights and protecting women from trans people, it's all just a facade, they lose support for their genocidal transphobic agendas. So keep educating people and informing people. And that's how we beat these ghouls.