Cash for Kids | The Medical Industry and Vulnerable Children

Cash for Kids | The Medical Industry and Vulnerable Children: A Critical Examination of Gender-Affirming Care Practices

The issue of gender-affirming care for minors, particularly those who have experienced trauma such as sexual assault, has sparked intense debate. Critics argue that the medical industry sometimes exploits vulnerable children by promoting irreversible gender-affirming treatments without adequately addressing underlying psychological issues. This perspective is highlighted in discussions like those on The Glenn Beck Program, where detransitioner Claire Abernathy shared her experience of being rushed into hormone therapy and surgery at age 14, following trauma from sexual assault and bullying. Below, we explore this complex issue, focusing on the concerns raised about the medical industry’s approach to gender dysphoria in children, the role of trauma, and the need for balanced, evidence-based care.

The Case of Claire Abernathy: A Detransitioner’s StoryClaire Abernathy’s story, as discussed on The Glenn Beck Program, illustrates the concerns of those who believe the medical industry may exploit vulnerable youth. Abernathy began identifying as transgender at age 12, following a sexual assault and severe bullying. She describes how adopting a trans identity provided a new social network and a way to distance herself from her trauma. However, when she sought help, her therapists and doctors—practicing at a well-funded children’s hospital—allegedly dismissed her trauma as irrelevant to her gender dysphoria. Her parents were told that without hormone therapy and surgery, she was at high risk of suicide, a claim that pressured them into consenting. By November 2018, Abernathy was on testosterone, and by June 2019, she had undergone surgery, all before completing high school.Abernathy later detransitioned, citing a lack of informed consent. She was not told about permanent side effects, such as infertility or the inability to breastfeed, nor was she informed that many children with gender dysphoria eventually desist if given time to process their feelings. Her experience raises questions about whether the medical industry, driven by ideology or profit, may be too quick to affirm a child’s gender identity without exploring underlying issues like trauma.The Medical Industry’s Role: Protocols and PressuresGender-affirming care for minors typically involves a combination of social transition (e.g., using preferred pronouns or names), puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and, in rare cases, surgeries. Organizations like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) set guidelines that emphasize affirming a patient’s self-identified gender, often citing reduced psychological distress and suicide risk. However, critics argue these guidelines are applied inconsistently, especially for vulnerable children.In Abernathy’s case, doctors allegedly ignored her history of sexual assault and bullying, focusing solely on her gender dysphoria. This aligns with concerns raised by psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossman, who argues that some medical professionals treat gender dysphoria as a standalone condition, neglecting co-occurring issues like trauma, depression, or anxiety. Grossman notes that adolescent psychiatric units may even “create transgender children” by affirming identities without thorough evaluation.The pressure to affirm can come from multiple sources: medical institutions, advocacy groups, and even social dynamics. Abernathy mentioned therapists recommended by peers who shared her identity, creating an echo chamber that discouraged skepticism. Parents, like Abernathy’s, are often framed as abusive for questioning rapid medical interventions, adding emotional coercion to the decision-making process. This dynamic raises ethical questions about whether the medical industry prioritizes patient outcomes or adheres to ideological trends.The Role of Trauma in Gender DysphoriaSexual assault and other traumas can profoundly impact a child’s sense of self, sometimes leading to gender dysphoria as a coping mechanism. Abernathy’s story suggests her trans identity was partly a way to “become a new person” untainted by her assault. Yet, her mother’s attempts to address the trauma were dismissed by doctors, who insisted it was unrelated to her gender identity.Research supports the link between trauma and gender dysphoria. A 2018 study in JAMA Surgery found that transgender youth are more likely to have experienced adverse childhood experiences, including sexual abuse, compared to cisgender peers. However, some medical protocols, like those endorsed by WPATH, prioritize affirmation over trauma-focused therapy, potentially overlooking root causes. Critics argue this approach risks misdiagnosis and irreversible harm, especially since studies, like a 2021 review in Frontiers in Psychiatry, show that up to 80% of prepubescent children with gender dysphoria may desist naturally by adulthood if not medically intervened.The Medical Industry’s Incentives: Profit and IdeologySkeptics of gender-affirming care point to financial and ideological incentives within the medical industry. Gender-affirming treatments, including hormones and surgeries, generate significant revenue. For example, a single course of puberty blockers can cost thousands of dollars annually, and surgeries like mastectomies or vaginoplasties can range from $10,000 to $50,000. Pharmaceutical companies benefit from lifelong hormone prescriptions, as highlighted by Dr. Grossman, who warns that some youth become “consumers of pharmaceuticals the rest of their life.”Ideologically, the push for affirmation may stem from advocacy groups and medical bodies like the American Academy of Pediatrics, which endorse early intervention despite limited long-term data. The WPATH Files, leaked in 2024, revealed internal concerns among WPATH members about the lack of evidence for pediatric gender-affirming care, yet public guidelines remain unchanged. This discrepancy suggests a disconnect between scientific caution and clinical practice, potentially driven by social pressures or fear of backlash.Ethical Concerns and the Need for ReformThe experiences of detransitioners like Abernathy highlight ethical lapses in gender-affirming care for minors. Key issues include:

• Informed Consent: Minors, especially those with trauma, may not fully understand the permanent consequences of treatments like hormones or surgery. Abernathy was not informed about infertility or the high rates of desistance among youth.
• Trauma-Informed Care: Failing to address underlying issues like sexual assault risks misdiagnosis. Trauma-focused therapies, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, could resolve dysphoria without medical intervention.
• Parental Rights: Parents are sometimes sidelined or pressured, as seen in Abernathy’s case, undermining family involvement in critical decisions.
• Long-Term Outcomes: Data on the long-term effects of pediatric gender-affirming care is sparse. A 2022 study in The Lancet found mixed mental health outcomes for youth on puberty blockers, with some showing no improvement in suicidality.

Critics, including former LGBT activist K. Yang, argue that the medical industry’s approach resembles “social engineering,” with children being nudged toward trans identities through schools, media, and healthcare settings. Yang, who once worked at an LGBT nonprofit, notes that the concept of a “trans child” was virtually unknown a decade ago, yet now, a 2019 CDC survey reported 1 in 50 high school students identifying as trans—a sharp rise attributed to cultural shifts rather than inherent prevalence.A Path Forward: Balancing Compassion and CautionTo address these concerns, reforms could include:

1. Mandatory Trauma Screening: Require comprehensive psychological evaluations to identify trauma or co-occurring conditions before any medical intervention.
2. Stricter Age Guidelines: Limit irreversible treatments like hormones and surgeries to those over 18, as some European countries like Sweden have done.
3. Enhanced Informed Consent: Ensure minors and parents are fully educated about risks, including infertility and desistance rates.
4. Support for Detransitioners: Provide resources for those who regret their transitions, addressing physical and psychological harm.

The medical industry must balance compassion for gender-dysphoric youth with rigorous, evidence-based care. While some children may benefit from gender-affirming treatments, cases like Claire Abernathy’s suggest that trauma survivors are particularly vulnerable to being rushed into irreversible decisions. By prioritizing holistic care and addressing underlying issues, the industry can better serve these children without exploiting their vulnerabilities.ConclusionThe story of Claire Abernathy, as shared on The Glenn Beck Program, underscores the need for scrutiny of the medical industry’s approach to gender-affirming care for minors, especially those with histories of sexual assault or trauma. While the industry claims to act in patients’ best interests, financial incentives, ideological pressures, and inadequate protocols may lead to harm. By fostering open debate, prioritizing trauma-informed care, and ensuring informed consent, we can protect vulnerable children from being taken advantage of while supporting their mental and physical well-being.Note: This article draws on Claire Abernathy’s interview on The Glenn Beck Program () and related discussions (,). For further details, see www.glennbeck.com/radio/glenn-interviews-detransitioner-deceived-doctors and www.glennbeck.com/detransitioner-theres-no-trans-child. Always approach such topics with critical thinking, as media sources may carry biases.

Musk’s Fury Over the “Big Ugly Bill”: Why America’s Spending Addiction Risks a Greek-Style Collapse

By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com June 7, 2025

Elon Musk is livid, and it’s not because the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit for Tesla was axed in the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill.” He’s calling it the “Big Ugly Bill” for a reason: while Congress pats itself on the back for “bipartisan” deal-making, the bill’s massive spending hikes—loaded with subsidies for corporate giants like Boeing and Intel—wipe out the hard-won savings Musk delivered through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Worse, this spending spree puts America on a path toward a Greek-style economic collapse, like the one I warned about over a decade ago. The media, predictably, is obsessed with the supposed Musk-Trump feud, ignoring the real crisis: runaway government spending, especially on a broken healthcare system, that threatens to bankrupt the nation. What will it take to wake America up?

The “Big Ugly Bill” and Musk’s Rage

Musk’s anger isn’t about Tesla losing a tax break—it’s about the hypocrisy of a government that cuts one subsidy while shoveling billions to other industries. The bill, passed in early 2025, extends corporate welfare to companies like Boeing ($14 billion in subsidies), Intel ($8 billion), and others Visual Capitalist, while ballooning spending on programs that perpetuate inefficiency. Musk, who spent 130 days leading DOGE—often working seven days a week and sleeping at the White House—delivered $180 billion in claimed savings by June 2025, including $244 million from axing 81 “perpetual” contracts that lingered far beyond their intended terms. Independent estimates, like Reuters’, peg verified savings at $5 billion, but even that’s a start. Yet, the “Big Ugly Bill” nullifies these gains with new spending, estimated at $200–$300 billion over 10 years, on top of existing deficits.

Musk sees the writing on the wall: this isn’t just bad policy—it’s a step toward fiscal ruin. As I wrote in 2012, Greece’s collapse was a warning for America. A decade ago, Greece faced a debt-to-GDP ratio of 177%, crippled by overspending on pensions, healthcare, and public sector bloat. Austerity measures tanked the economy, sparking riots and 27% unemployment. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is now 120% and climbing, with $35 trillion in debt. The “Big Ugly Bill” adds fuel to this fire, ignoring the five reasons government shouldn’t spend recklessly: it crowds out private investment, fuels inflation, distorts markets, rewards cronyism, and burdens future generations.

Healthcare: The Spending Black Hole

The biggest driver of America’s fiscal mess is healthcare, a system so decoupled from market principles it’s been broken for decades. Federal healthcare spending (Medicare, Medicaid, subsidies) eats up $1.8 trillion annually—nearly half the budget—and grows faster than inflation. Price controls, bloated bureaucracies, and lack of competition drive costs skyward, with no improvement in outcomes. For example, U.S. per capita healthcare spending is $12,500, double that of comparable nations, yet life expectancy lags. DOGE’s cuts barely touched this beast, and the “Big Ugly Bill” adds new healthcare subsidies, further entrenching a failed system. Reforming healthcare—through market-based pricing, deregulation, and ending subsidies—could save $5 trillion over 10 years, but Congress lacks the spine.

DOGE’s Savings Wiped Out

Musk’s DOGE targeted “perpetual” contracts—defense, IT, and NGO deals that auto-renew due to lobbying or inertia. DOGE claimed $180 billion in 2025 savings, with $100 billion potentially recurring from contract terminations, workforce cuts ($40 billion), and fraud reduction ($10 billion). Dynamic scoring, like that seen with Reagan’s tax cuts, could add $71 billion in revenue from economic growth, totaling $221 billion over 10 years. But the “Big Ugly Bill” obliterates this with $200–$300 billion in new spending, plus $415 billion in costs from DOGE’s cuts (e.g., $250 billion in lost IRS revenue, $100 billion in economic losses from reduced research). Net result? A $194 billion deficit increase over 10 years, even with optimistic growth effects.

Trump may argue he got all the cuts possible given a divided Congress, but that’s cold comfort when the bill subsidizes everyone but Tesla. Is this resignation, or is the Musk-Trump “feud” just political theater to push for more cuts, as I suggested? Either way, Musk’s frustration is justified: why cut one industry’s incentives while handing billions to Boeing, Intel, and healthcare cronies?

The Greek Warning

Greece’s 2012 collapse—driven by runaway spending and debt—should haunt us. I warned then that America was on a similar path. Greece’s debt crisis led to austerity, economic contraction, and social unrest. America’s $35 trillion debt, plus $1 trillion annual deficits, risks a similar fate if spending isn’t slashed. The “Big Ugly Bill” ignores this, piling on subsidies and programs while the media fixates on Musk vs. Trump drama, not the fiscal cliff. As I wrote in 2013, we can’t keep paying for everything—especially how with Biden we had 8,000 daily illegal crossings adding $150 billion annually in costs.

Trump’s Reagan Moment

Trump wants to emulate Reagan, whose 1981 tax cuts sparked 3.5% GDP growth and doubled revenue by 1989, shrinking deficits as a share of GDP. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts boosted revenue to $3.5 trillion by 2019, despite CBO’s dire predictions. New tax cuts and tariffs could add 0.5–1% to GDP growth, generating $500 billion in revenue over 10 years. But to truly “pull a Reagan,” Trump must pair this with deep cuts:

• Eliminate Departments: The Department of Education ($800 billion over 10 years) and USAID ($500 billion) are prime targets. Education outcomes have worsened since 1979, and USAID often funds corrupt regimes.
• End Corporate Welfare: Cut $100 billion in subsidies to Boeing, Intel, and others, leveling the playing field Musk demands.
• Secure the Border: Save $1 trillion by curbing illegal immigration costs, this is maybe the ONE thing he has going right.
• Reform Healthcare: Market-based reforms could save $5 trillion, dwarfing DOGE’s efforts.

Total potential savings: $7.4 trillion over 10 years. Subtract $415 billion in costs, and net savings could hit $7 trillion, slashing the deficit-to-GDP ratio. This is the Milei-style purge America needs.

Waking Up America

The media’s obsession with Musk-Trump drama distracts from the real issue: spending addiction. While Democrats’ corruption, like Hunter Biden’s CEFC deals, gets a pass, Trump and Musk are vilified. The “Big Ugly Bill” proves Congress won’t act without pressure. As I wrote in 2011, government spending fails because it distorts markets and rewards inefficiency. Americans must demand their representatives slash departments, end subsidies, and reform healthcare before we face Greece’s fate.

Call to Action: Contact your senators and representatives. Demand they reject the “Big Ugly Bill” and support Trump’s tax cuts, DOGE’s mission, and Milei-style cuts to Education, USAID, and corporate welfare. Share this article and my 2012 warning about Greece. Wake up, America—our economy depends on it.