From: Mathew Millen
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Oscar de La Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Opposition to Item 3B
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 5:31:40 PM
Attachments: Item3B.pdf
EXTERNAL
The plaintiffs are represented by very competent counsel and the United States Government.
The plaintiffs should prevail. However, why would a District Court Judge in the Middle District of Tennessee rule in favor of the Plaintiffs based on a Brief from the People's Republic of Santa Monica?
Seriously, if the City Attorney's office has free time, it would be better spent suing the NIMBY cities of La Canada Flintridge, San Marino, Bradbury etc. to provide homeless shelters so our city can transfer homeless persons who came here from EVERYWHERE to some of the other cities in Los Angeles County.
Sunday's Los Angeles Times had an interesting article. case workers place homeless all over LA County, not just in the City where they happen to be.
We all know the homeless in Santa Monica were not evicted from a SM apt. or lost a SM home to foreclosure. They come here from Everywhere
And if you don't want to file that lawsuit then use in house counsel instead of hiring Gibson, Dunn etc or other firms at $1,000 an hour.
respectfully submitted
Mathew Millen
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
From: Dan Hall
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject: Item 3B - Support
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 11:45:23 AM
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, and Council,
I am writing to you in support of joining an Amicus Brief in L.W. v. Skrmetti, a federal case where legal advocates are suing the State of Tennessee over a law banning affirmative health care for transgender children. I was disappointed when there was no reportable action at your last Council meeting on this item, and am hoping to hear City Attorney Sloan announce the results of a vote tonight coming out of closed session to support transgender children in states that are actively harming them.
Last week, you received written comment from an individual who claimed this was a waste of city resources; I heartily disagree. This is a moment where we can make a statement of what our Santa Monica Values are and that we support transgender individuals. I believe this is particularly timely when just last week, later during your same meeting, the City's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Manager Lisa Parsons, stated "I always remember that when we added 'transgender' as one of the identities and data focus points in the Wellbeing index that they had the highest rates of not feeling like they belonged in their neighborhoods." Tonight you can make a statement that Santa Monica supports transgender individuals... that Santa Monica's City Councilmembers support transgender individuals.
Below is a summary of the case from the American Civil Liberties Union's website, that I encourage you to read (emphasis added):
"In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the State of Tennessee to block the state’s ban on medically necessary gender-affirming care for Tennessee’s transgender youth.
The legal advocates are suing Tennessee on behalf of Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville and their 15-year-old transgender daughter, two other plaintiff families filing anonymously, and Memphis-based medical doctor Dr. Susan Lacy.
In addition to banning best practice medical care for trans youth up to age 18, Public Chapter No. 1 would require trans youth currently receiving gender-affirming care to end that care within nine months of the law’s effective date of July 1, 2023, or by March 31, 2024. The law also establishes a private right of action against medical providers providing medically necessary care to trans youth.
“It was incredibly painful watching my child struggle before we were able to get her the life-saving healthcare she needed. We have a confident, happy daughter now, who is free to be herself and she is thriving,” said plaintiff Samantha Williams. “I am so afraid of what this law will mean for her. We don’t want to leave Tennessee, but this legislation would force us to either routinely leave our state to get our daughter the medical care she desperately needs or to uproot our entire lives and leave Tennessee altogether. No family should have to make this kind of choice.”
“I don’t even want to think about having to go back to the dark place I was in before I was ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
able to come out and access the care that my doctors have prescribed for me,” said Samantha and Brian Williams’ daughter. “I want this law to be struck down so that I can continue to receive the care I need, in conversation with my parents and my doctors, and have the freedom to live my life and do the things I enjoy.”"
Additionally, I provide an excerpt from a 2021 letter from the American Medical Association urging states against legislation interfering with transgender children healthcare (emphasis added):
"Empirical evidence has demonstrated that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression. For gender diverse individuals, standards of care and accepted medically necessary services that affirm gender or treat gender dysphoria may include mental health counseling, non-medical social transition, gender-affirming hormone therapy, and/or gender-affirming surgeries. Clinical guidelines established by professional medical organizations for the care of minors promote these supportive interventions based on the current evidence and that enable young people to explore and live the gender that they choose. Every major medical association in the United States recognizes the medical necessity of transition-related care for improving the physical and mental health of transgender people...
...In addition, evidence has demonstrated that forgoing gender-affirming care can have tragic consequences. Transgender individuals are up to three times more likely than the general population to report or be diagnosed with mental health disorders, with as many as 41.5 percent reporting at least one diagnosis of a mental health or substance use disorder. The increased prevalence of these mental health conditions is widely thought to be a consequence of minority stress, the chronic stress from coping with societal stigma, and discrimination because of one’s gender identity and expression. Because of this stress, transgender minors also face a significantly heightened risk of suicide.
Transgender children, like all children, have the best chance to thrive when they are supported and can obtain the health care they need. Studies suggest that improved body satisfaction and self-esteem following the receipt of gender-affirming care is protective against poorer mental health and supports healthy relationships with parents and peers. Studies also demonstrate dramatic reductions in suicide attempts, as well as decreased rates of depression and anxiety. Other studies show that a majority of patients report improved mental health and function after receipt of gender-affirming care. Medically supervised care can also reduce rates of harmful self-prescribed hormones, use of construction-grade silicone injections, and other interventions that have potential to cause adverse events." Thank you for your consideration,
Dan Hall
(he/him)
Santa Monica resident and LGBTQ+ advocate
Sources:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/l-w-v-skrmetti
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-caretransgender-children ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
From: Tom Larmore
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; [email protected]; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; [email protected]
Subject: July 25, 2023 Agenda - Item 3B
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:40:18 PM
EXTERNAL
I don’t understand why the City should use its resources to prepare and submit an amicus brief in this matter pending the federal courts in Tennessee. While the matter relates to the constitutionality of a statute which may be seen as objectionable, the City of Santa Monica has nothing unique to offer. We’re constantly told the City has significant budget issues so even if the brief would be prepared by the City Attorney’s Office rather than outside counsel, it is a significant diversion from other matters and in which that Office has no expertise. This is simply an expenditure of public funds on a matter completely unrelated to the interests of the City and its residents and constitutes a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Thomas R. Larmore
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
From: Gleam Davis
To: Tom Larmore; councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; [email protected]
Subject: Re: July 25, 2023 Agenda - Item 3B
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 5:16:38 PM
Tom, fyi, we would simply be adding our name. We would not be drafting a separate brief.
From: Tom Larmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:40:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: July 25, 2023 Agenda - Item 3B
EXTERNAL
I don’t understand why the City should use its resources to prepare and submit an amicus brief in this matter pending the federal courts in Tennessee. While the matter relates to the constitutionality of a statute which may be seen as objectionable, the City of Santa Monica has nothing unique to offer. We’re constantly told the City has significant budget issues so even if the brief would be prepared by the City Attorney’s Office rather than outside counsel, it is a significant diversion from other matters and in which that Office has no expertise. This is simply an expenditure of public funds on a matter completely unrelated to the interests of the City and its residents and constitutes a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Thomas R. Larmore
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023
ITEM 3.B.
JULY 25, 2023