Several people identifying as intersex also stepped to the microphone to offer their support for SB 201. However, a large number of people born with conditions which SB 201 labels as intersex also voiced their opposition to the bill, as did several doctors.One woman born with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, also known as CAH, joined Swords in testifying against SB 201. Adrienne Marks had two surgeries as a small child — one to open her vaginal canal and one to reposition her clitoris — and challenged SB 201 supporter statements that infant genital surgery is akin to female genital mutilation. “To be clear, in no way was my clitoris chopped off or cut,” Marks said. “Surgery was not intended to make me heterosexual or change my gender.” Marks said that if SB 201 had been law when she was born, she would have been condemned to a life of pain, constant medication and humiliating conditions like wetting herself, which she said would not meet the threshold of medical necessity to correct set by the bill. The bill defines medical necessity as “when it is reasonable and necessary to protect life, to prevent significant illness or significant disability, or to alleviate severe pain.” Wiener disagreed with Marks’ interpretation. “There are definitions of medical necessity. This isn’t some vague ambiguous thing,” he said. The bill pits civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, Equality California, the Trevor Project and interACT against many in the medical community, including organizations such as the American Medical Association, California Medical Association, a collection of urology organizations and the CARES Foundation, “which represents nearly 10,000 individuals and families affected by CAH.” Zieselman said that the decision on whether to alter an infant’s genitals has “historical roots in sexism and homophobia,” as well as anti-transgender sentiment.
Several doctors, including Swords and Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, who is a pediatrician, warned that SB 201 could make doctors overly cautious in treating patients because they fear risking their licenses.“Trust your medical providers, trust your state board licensing people and these multidisciplinary clinics. We’re going to work together, and we’re going to find the best answer,” Swords said. “The challenge here is we’re trying to legislate practice of medicine,” said Pan. Calling it “a very difficult topic,” Senate Committee Chairman Steven Glazer, D-Orinda, deferred the bill to a future hearing. Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article228694199.html#storylink=cpy