The Court of Appeal says OHIP must cover surgery for a resident seeking to have a vagina constructed while leaving penis intact
Ontario's top court has ruled the province must cover the cost of an out- of-country, penis-sparing vaginoplasty for a 'transgender and non-binary resident'ť who wishes to have both female and male genitalia.
In a unanimous decision released this week, a three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed a lower court's ruling ordering the
Ontario Health Insurance Plan to pay for the patient, identified as K.S.
in court records, to undergo the novel phallus-sparing surgery at a Texas clinic.
The latest ruling is the third unanimous decision in K.S.'s favour.
'K.S. is pleased with the Court of Appeal's decision, which is now the
third unanimous ruling confirming that her gender affirming surgery is covered under Ontario's Health Insurance Act and its regulation,' K.S.'s lawyer, John McIntyre, said in an email to National Post.
The legal battle between K.S., whose sex at birth was male, dates to 2022, when the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) refused a funding request
for surgery to construct a vagina while sparing the penis, a procedure
this is not available in Ontario, or anywhere else in Canada.
OHIP argued that, because the vaginoplasty would not be accompanied by a penectomy, the procedure isn't one specifically listed in OHIP's Schedule
of Benefits and therefore shouldn't be publicly funded. OHIP also argued
that the requested surgery is considered experimental in Ontario and,
thus, also ineligible for coverage.
K.S. appealed to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which overturned OHIP's refusal, arguing that 'vaginoplasty' should be covered, whether a penectomy, a separate procedure included on the list of publicly funded sex-reassignment surgeries, is performed or not.
OHIP appealed that decision to the Divisional Court but lost again after
the panel dismissed the province's appeal and declared the surgery, which leaves intact a functioning penis, an insured service.
The province's latest appeal was heard on Nov. 26. The three-judge appeal court panel rejected OHIP's arguments that the proposed surgery isn't an insured service because it won't be accompanied by removal of the penis '
a penectomy 'neither recommended by K.S.'s health professionals nor
desired by K.S.,' according to the court's written decision.
K.S., who is in her early 30s, 'has experienced significant gender
dysphoria since her teenage years, as well as physical, mental and
economic hardships to transition her gender expression to align with her gender identity,' the court said.
K.S.'s doctor submitted a request to OHIP for prior funding approval for
the surgical creation of a vaginal cavity and external vulva. The request made it clear that K.S. wasn't seeking a penectomy.
In a letter accompanying the request, her doctor said that because K.S. is 'not completely on the 'feminine' end of the spectrum' it was important
for her to have a vagina while maintaining her penis, adding that the
Crane Center for Transgender Surgery in Austin, Tx.,'has an excellent reputation' for gender-affirming surgery, 'and especially with these more complicated procedures.'
The appeal court ruled that the divisional court did not err in holding
that the requested vaginoplasty is listed in the Schedule of Benefits,
with or without an accompanying penectomy.
'The existence of different techniques to perform a vaginoplasty does not affect this conclusion,' the appeal court's written decision reads. 'It
was open to the drafters of the Schedule of Benefits to describe each specifically listed service in broad or narrow terms.
'Here the description chosen, vaginoplasty,' is broad enough to encompass different techniques,' the court said.
'As the (Health Services Appeal and Review) Board put it, a vaginoplasty without a penectomy is an insured service because it is still a
vaginoplasty, a specifically listed service.'
The World Professional Association for Transgender Health's standards of care, the appeal court added, also 'expressly refers to 'penile preserving vaginoplasty' as a surgical option for some non-binary people and also
note that vaginoplasty 'may include retention of penis and/or testicle.''
Ontario has until June 23, 2025, to seek leave to the Supreme Court of Canada.
'As this matter is within the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to comment further,h said a spokesperson for Ontario's Ministry of the
Attorney General.
In dismissing OHIP's appeal, the court ordered Ontario to pay K.S. $23,250
in costs.
Gender-affirming surgeries at the Texas clinic range from US$10,000 to $70,000, depending on the procedures performed.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ohip-coverage-penis-sparing- vaginoplasty
On 4/25/25 02:26, 51st State wrote:
The Court of Appeal says OHIP must cover surgery for a residentSimply amazing!
seeking to have a vagina constructed while leaving penis intact
Ontario's top court has ruled the province must cover the cost of an
out- of-country, penis-sparing vaginoplasty for a 'transgender and
non-binary resident'ť who wishes to have both female and male
genitalia.
In a unanimous decision released this week, a three-judge panel of
the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed a lower court's ruling ordering
the Ontario Health Insurance Plan to pay for the patient, identified
as K.S. in court records, to undergo the novel phallus-sparing
surgery at a Texas clinic.
The latest ruling is the third unanimous decision in K.S.'s favour.
'K.S. is pleased with the Court of Appeal's decision, which is now
the third unanimous ruling confirming that her gender affirming
surgery is covered under Ontario's Health Insurance Act and its
regulation,' K.S.'s lawyer, John McIntyre, said in an email to
National Post.
The legal battle between K.S., whose sex at birth was male, dates to
2022, when the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) refused a funding
request for surgery to construct a vagina while sparing the penis, a
procedure this is not available in Ontario, or anywhere else in
Canada.
OHIP argued that, because the vaginoplasty would not be accompanied
by a penectomy, the procedure isn't one specifically listed in OHIP's
Schedule of Benefits and therefore shouldn't be publicly funded. OHIP
also argued that the requested surgery is considered experimental in
Ontario and, thus, also ineligible for coverage.
K.S. appealed to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which
overturned OHIP's refusal, arguing that 'vaginoplasty' should be
covered, whether a penectomy, a separate procedure included on the
list of publicly funded sex-reassignment surgeries, is performed or
not.
OHIP appealed that decision to the Divisional Court but lost again
after the panel dismissed the province's appeal and declared the
surgery, which leaves intact a functioning penis, an insured service.
The province's latest appeal was heard on Nov. 26. The three-judge
appeal court panel rejected OHIP's arguments that the proposed
surgery isn't an insured service because it won't be accompanied by
removal of the penis ' a penectomy 'neither recommended by K.S.'s
health professionals nor desired by K.S.,' according to the court's
written decision.
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
K.S., who is in her early 30s, 'has experienced significant gender
dysphoria since her teenage years, as well as physical, mental and
economic hardships to transition her gender expression to align with
her gender identity,' the court said.
K.S.'s doctor submitted a request to OHIP for prior funding approval
for the surgical creation of a vaginal cavity and external vulva. The
request made it clear that K.S. wasn't seeking a penectomy.
In a letter accompanying the request, her doctor said that because
K.S. is 'not completely on the 'feminine' end of the spectrum' it was
important for her to have a vagina while maintaining her penis,
adding that the Crane Center for Transgender Surgery in Austin,
Tx.,'has an excellent reputation' for gender-affirming surgery, 'and
especially with these more complicated procedures.'
The appeal court ruled that the divisional court did not err in
holding that the requested vaginoplasty is listed in the Schedule of
Benefits, with or without an accompanying penectomy.
'The existence of different techniques to perform a vaginoplasty does
not affect this conclusion,' the appeal court's written decision
reads. 'It was open to the drafters of the Schedule of Benefits to
describe each specifically listed service in broad or narrow terms.
'Here the description chosen, vaginoplasty,' is broad enough to
encompass different techniques,' the court said.
'As the (Health Services Appeal and Review) Board put it, a
vaginoplasty without a penectomy is an insured service because it is
still a vaginoplasty, a specifically listed service.'
The World Professional Association for Transgender Health's standards
of care, the appeal court added, also 'expressly refers to 'penile
preserving vaginoplasty' as a surgical option for some non-binary
people and also note that vaginoplasty 'may include retention of
penis and/or testicle.''
Ontario has until June 23, 2025, to seek leave to the Supreme Court
of Canada.
'As this matter is within the appeal period, it would be
inappropriate to comment further,h said a spokesperson for Ontario's
Ministry of the Attorney General.
In dismissing OHIP's appeal, the court ordered Ontario to pay K.S.
$23,250 in costs.
Gender-affirming surgeries at the Texas clinic range from US$10,000
to $70,000, depending on the procedures performed.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ohip-coverage-penis-sparing-
vaginoplasty
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This particular
surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to pretend
that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
On 2025-04-25, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>>news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This particular
surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new
meaning.
ROTFLMAO!
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This particular
surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to pretend
that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new meaning.
ROTFLMAO!
They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
penetrate their own makeshift vagina. I say if a person is delusional
enough to think they're bigender and should literally have surgery to
have both parts, let them.
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This particular
surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to pretend >>>>> that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new meaning. >>>>
ROTFLMAO!
They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
penetrate their own makeshift vagina. I say if a person is delusional >>>enough to think they're bigender and should literally have surgery to >>>have both parts, let them.
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This particular
surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new >>>meaning.
ROTFLMAO!
They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
penetrate their own makeshift vagina. I say if a person is delusional >>enough to think they're bigender and should literally have surgery to
have both parts, let them.
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>>>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This particular
surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new >>>>>meaning.
ROTFLMAO!
They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
penetrate their own makeshift vagina. I say if a person is
delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally
have surgery to have both parts, let them.
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
And US laws have no implication in Canada.
On 26 Apr 2025, [email protected] (The Doctor) posted some >news:vujes1$1d9n$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new >>>>>>meaning.
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>>>>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This particular >>>>>>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the >>>>>>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their >>>>>>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls. >>>>>>
ROTFLMAO!
They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to >>>>>penetrate their own makeshift vagina. I say if a person is >>>>>delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally
have surgery to have both parts, let them.
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
And US laws have no implication in Canada.
It would be a better 51st candidate state if they did!
You moose-kissers get a free pass for Marie-Pierre Bouchard
because she's funny and looks good in a swimsuit.
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
And US laws have no implication in Canada.
You're referring to my sig as if it's part of my argument about trans
rights in Canada? What gives?
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
On 26 Apr 2025, [email protected] (The Doctor) posted some >news:vujdk3$1afr$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This particular
surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new >>>>meaning.
ROTFLMAO!
They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
penetrate their own makeshift vagina. I say if a person is delusional >>>enough to think they're bigender and should literally have surgery to >>>have both parts, let them.
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
Ontario isn't part of Canada? Let's nuke that LGBTIQA+ dump!
In article <[email protected]>,
Tyler Coop <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025, [email protected] (The Doctor) posted some
news:vujes1$1d9n$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new >>>>>>> meaning.
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>>>>>>>> news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This particular >>>>>>>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the >>>>>>>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their >>>>>>>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to >>>>>>>> pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls. >>>>>>>
ROTFLMAO!
They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
penetrate their own makeshift vagina. I say if a person is
delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally
have surgery to have both parts, let them.
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
And US laws have no implication in Canada.
It would be a better 51st candidate state if they did!
You moose-kissers get a free pass for Marie-Pierre Bouchard
because she's funny and looks good in a swimsuit.
burn in Hell Yank!
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:
US laws have no implication in Canada.
You're referring to my sig as if it's part of my argument about trans >>>rights in Canada? What gives?
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
That law has nothing to do with Canadian Politics.
I was talking about something other than my sig, you are ignoring
that. So your response has nothing to do with any post in any group
in this thread.
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
The Binky Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-Peadophile talker Rudy Canoza noted
^^^^^<-Peadophile talker Rudy Canoza notedIn article <[email protected]>,
Tyler Coop <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025, [email protected] (The Doctor) posted some
news:vujes1$1d9n$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new >>>>>>>> meaning.
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>>>>>>>>> news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This particular >>>>>>>>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the >>>>>>>>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their >>>>>>>>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to >>>>>>>>> pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls. >>>>>>>>
ROTFLMAO!
They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
penetrate their own makeshift vagina. I say if a person is
delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally >>>>>>> have surgery to have both parts, let them.
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
And US laws have no implication in Canada.
It would be a better 51st candidate state if they did!
You moose-kissers get a free pass for Marie-Pierre Bouchard
because she's funny and looks good in a swimsuit.
burn in Hell Yank!
How's life in your mammy's basement, binky?
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:
US laws have no implication in Canada.
You're referring to my sig as if it's part of my argument about trans
rights in Canada? What gives?
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
That law has nothing to do with Canadian Politics.
I was talking about something other than my sig, you are ignoring
that. So your response has nothing to do with any post in any group
in this thread.
Then why bring up US Law in can.politics?
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
That law has nothing to do with Canadian Politics.
I was talking about something other than my sig, you are ignoring
that. So your response has nothing to do with any post in any group
in this thread.
Then why bring up US Law in can.politics?
You're the one doing that, bozo, it's a sig that I've had for a long
time, because I am going to overturn the Dobbs Supreme Court decision
with my vast political authority. It had nothing to do with my reply
in *this thread*, which is crossposted to your Canada group. If you
want to address what I posted, fine. If you want to talk about my
sig, fine. If you want to whine about me having a sig, fuck off.
Paedophile Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> wrote:^^^^^<-Peadophile talker Rudy Canoza noted
Tell binky how much you enjoy being butt banged, he
enjoys those stories.
I can't take you seriously when you post from Win8.
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
Joel wrote:^^^^^<-Peadophile talker Rudy Canoza noted
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
That law has nothing to do with Canadian Politics.
I was talking about something other than my sig, you are ignoring
that. So your response has nothing to do with any post in any group
in this thread.
Then why bring up US Law in can.politics?
You're the one doing that, bozo, it's a sig that I've had for a long
time, because I am going to overturn the Dobbs Supreme Court decision
with my vast political authority. It had nothing to do with my reply
in *this thread*, which is crossposted to your Canada group. If you
want to address what I posted, fine. If you want to talk about my
sig, fine. If you want to whine about me having a sig, fuck off.
Tell binky how much you enjoy being butt banged, he
enjoys those stories.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tyler Coop <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025, [email protected] (The Doctor) posted some >>news:vujdk3$1afr$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>>>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This particular
surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new >>>>>meaning.
ROTFLMAO!
They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
penetrate their own makeshift vagina. I say if a person is
delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally
have surgery to have both parts, let them.
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
Ontario isn't part of Canada? Let's nuke that LGBTIQA+ dump!
Yes, but the about Amendment is US Law.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tyler Coop <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025, [email protected] (The Doctor) posted some >>news:vujes1$1d9n$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>>>>>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This
particular surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be
the wish of the person acquiring it - I could never advise
anyone to modify their genitals but if they choose that they
choose with free will to pretend that God screwed up and it
requires a knife to the balls.
Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new >>>>>>>meaning.
ROTFLMAO!
They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to >>>>>>penetrate their own makeshift vagina. I say if a person is >>>>>>delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally >>>>>>have surgery to have both parts, let them.
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
And US laws have no implication in Canada.
It would be a better 51st candidate state if they did!
You moose-kissers get a free pass for Marie-Pierre Bouchard
because she's funny and looks good in a swimsuit.
burn in Hell Yank!
Tyler Coop <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025, [email protected] (The Doctor) posted some >>news:vuk101$e9u$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
Tyler Coop <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025, [email protected] (The Doctor) posted some >>>>news:vujdk3$1afr$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
Ontario isn't part of Canada? Let's nuke that LGBTIQA+ dump!
Yes, but the about Amendment is US Law.
Yes it is and it was finally corrected so the responsibility rests with
the states where it should have been all along.
Incorrect, moron, look at my quote of the 14th amendment, it's right
there in the quoting. This is a federal constitutional right for
women and people assigned female at birth, pro-life is anti-female.
Alito has a view of law that cannot be defended but yet it is by
Thomas and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. And so many sadistic
misogynists out there.
On 26 Apr 2025, [email protected] (The Doctor) posted some >news:vuk101$e9u$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
Tyler Coop <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025, [email protected] (The Doctor) posted some >>>news:vujdk3$1afr$[email protected]:
In article <[email protected]>,
Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
slothe <[email protected]> wrote:Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new >>>>>>meaning.
On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <[email protected]> posted some >>>>>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$[email protected]:
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
That's ridiculous.
They may have accidentally done the right thing. This particular >>>>>>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the >>>>>>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their >>>>>>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls. >>>>>>
ROTFLMAO!
They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to >>>>>penetrate their own makeshift vagina. I say if a person is >>>>>delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally
have surgery to have both parts, let them.
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
Ontario isn't part of Canada? Let's nuke that LGBTIQA+ dump!
Yes, but the about Amendment is US Law.
Yes it is and it was finally corrected so the responsibility rests with
the states where it should have been all along.
Now, why doesn't Canada provide the roto-rooter but leave the penis >procedure? Why do they have to go to the US state of steers and queers?
Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> wrote:
Tell binky how much you enjoy being butt banged, he
enjoys those stories.
I can't take you seriously when you post from Win8.
In article <183a45911fcc6f24$101772$5831$[email protected]>, Paedophile Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> wrote:
Joel wrote:^^^^^<-Peadophile talker Rudy Canoza noted
[email protected] (The Doctor) wrote:Tell binky how much you enjoy being butt banged, he
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
That law has nothing to do with Canadian Politics.
I was talking about something other than my sig, you are ignoring
that. So your response has nothing to do with any post in any group >>>>> in this thread.
Then why bring up US Law in can.politics?
You're the one doing that, bozo, it's a sig that I've had for a long
time, because I am going to overturn the Dobbs Supreme Court decision
with my vast political authority. It had nothing to do with my reply
in *this thread*, which is crossposted to your Canada group. If you
want to address what I posted, fine. If you want to talk about my
sig, fine. If you want to whine about me having a sig, fuck off.
enjoys those stories.
Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> wrote:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.20
You proudly take cock up your shitter, and you must be cum drunk, I'mTell binky how much you enjoy being butt banged, he
enjoys those stories.
I can't take you seriously when you post from Win8.
on Windows 10.
Windows NT 6.2 == Windows 8 prior to the 8.1 update. I don't believe
your claim to post from your Win10 machine, thus.
Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> wrote:
I couldn't care less what a limp wristed sissy like you believes,User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.20
You proudly take cock up your shitter, and you must be cum drunk, I'mTell binky how much you enjoy being butt banged, he
enjoys those stories.
I can't take you seriously when you post from Win8.
on Windows 10.
Windows NT 6.2 == Windows 8 prior to the 8.1 update. I don't believe
your claim to post from your Win10 machine, thus.
clueless pillow biter.
https://postimg.cc/w3rRk4rz
I could kick your ass.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:23:26 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,271 |