By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Tennessee gubernatorial candidate Monty Fritts has proposed legislation that would impose the death penalty on individuals involved in providing gender-affirming care to minors, a stance aligned with right-wing misinformation. This proposed law would specifically target parents and medical professionals for offering what is considered best-practice medical care. This controversial position echoes previous actions by Fritts, including a recent law allowing religious officials to deny solemnizing marriages based on their beliefs, which critics argue is a thinly veiled attempt to discriminate. The marriage law has been criticized for potentially opening the door to legal challenges to marriage equality.
Read the original article here
GOP candidate calls for executing parents & doctors who help trans kids, and the sheer audacity of it all is almost unbelievable. It’s hard to wrap your head around a public figure, especially one seeking office, advocating for the state-sanctioned murder of people providing care to vulnerable children. The rhetoric, the call for capital punishment – it’s chilling, especially when you consider the already precarious position trans and gender-nonconforming individuals find themselves in today.
The core argument seems to be rooted in the idea that gender-affirming care somehow violates the “sanctity of life,” a phrase often used to justify restrictive laws and policies. The irony, of course, is that the proposed solution – execution – is a direct and violent assault on that very principle. It’s a twisted logic, a perversion of morality that’s difficult to reconcile with any semblance of compassion or human decency.
Furthermore, it’s worth noting the potential impact this kind of inflammatory language has on the trans community. It stokes fear, anxiety, and a sense of being under attack. When a political figure openly calls for the death of those providing essential medical care, it sends a clear message: You are not safe. You are not valued. This kind of rhetoric isn’t just words; it has real-world consequences, including increased rates of discrimination, violence, and even suicide attempts.
The religious angle is another troubling aspect. The invocation of “sin” and a supposed moral imperative often accompanies these pronouncements. This is a common tactic, using religious beliefs to justify discrimination and violence against marginalized groups. The candidate’s selective interpretation of religious texts, seemingly ignoring the messages of love, compassion, and acceptance, is both hypocritical and dangerous. It’s a reminder of the historical use of religion to justify atrocities.
The focus on children and the alleged “assault on the sanctity of life” raises even more troubling questions. The vast majority of gender-affirming care provided to minors is reversible, and often involves social transition and puberty blockers, with surgery being rare. Meanwhile, breast reductions for cisgender boys are common and generally accepted, showing a clear disparity in priorities. This isn’t about protecting children; it’s about control, power, and the suppression of individual autonomy. The call for executing those involved is extreme and disproportionate to the care being provided.
This isn’t just about one candidate. This rhetoric reflects a broader trend within certain segments of the Republican Party and the Christian Nationalist movement. It’s a trend that weaponizes fear, promotes division, and demonizes minority groups for political gain. It’s a cynical tactic that plays on existing prejudices and fears to mobilize voters and advance a particular ideological agenda.
The potential for this language to be interpreted as a call for violence is undeniable. It’s an open invitation for extremists to act on their hateful beliefs. When a public figure, someone seeking to lead, openly advocates for the execution of doctors and parents, they are essentially giving a green light to those who would take the law into their own hands. This is incitement, plain and simple, and it has no place in a democratic society.
It also highlights the hypocrisy that surrounds certain political movements. The same people who claim to be “pro-life” are now advocating for the execution of individuals who provide life-saving care to trans youth. This inconsistency underscores the fact that the issue is not really about the sanctity of life; it’s about control over women’s bodies and LGBTQ+ people.
The irony of this candidate’s statements are staggering. The candidate seems to prioritize the alleged moral failings of gender-affirming care over the actual, demonstrable assaults on human life that occur daily. One is the denial of healthcare. It is absolutely astounding.
There is a disturbing level of dehumanization at play here. When you reduce a group of people to a perceived threat and then call for their death, you are denying their basic humanity. This kind of dehumanization is a necessary precursor to genocide, and it should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
The fact that this person is even considered a viable candidate underscores the worrying state of American politics. It shows how far the political discourse has sunk, and how normalized hateful rhetoric and calls for violence have become. It’s a sign that we’ve reached a critical point, where the very foundations of democracy are under threat.
This isn’t just about partisan politics; it’s about fundamental human rights. It’s about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their gender identity, can live safely and with dignity. It’s about protecting vulnerable children and ensuring they have access to the care they need. We must stand together and reject this hateful rhetoric, and make it clear that calls for violence and the targeting of vulnerable groups will not be tolerated.