Katie Ross and Sarah Fraser, a brace of medical academics from Canada's Dalhousie University, recently opined that taxpayers should pay for "minimally invasive" "gender-affirming" surgeries such as "voice feminization" and hair removal.  The demented duo penned an editorial that found its way into the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The CMA bemoans the fact that such publicly funded procedures are currently available in only two Canadian jurisdictions, and also that "gender-affirming care" suffers from "substantial wait times and care gaps."  Every form of health care in Canada suffers from substantial wait times and care gaps.  It is fervently to be hoped that those in dire need of, say, critical cardiovascular care or organ transplants would be served before those requesting "voice feminization" procedures and/or hair removal to suit their current professed gender identity.

Taxpayers, whether Canadian or American, are having more and more of their hard-earned dollars surgically removed from their wallets.  Moreover, an increasing amount of the money these governments take from their citizenry goes to pay for programs that are the opposite of necessary.  Illegal aliens benefit from some of their largesse.  In the U.S., we pay to put those who pour across our undefended border in nice hotels; in many cases, we pay for their health care and education, too.  Should we now be made to pay for the most preposterous of elective surgeries and treatments as well?  The United States is nearing $50 trillion in debt.  If nothing changes, in the not too distant future, debt service payments will be the single biggest expenditure we have going forward.  That is crazy.  Societies do not long exist with debt of that magnitude.

Should we taxpayers also pay for anybody and everybody else's tummy-tucks, regardless of their citizenship status and gender identity?  Their jowl tightenings?  Breast enhancements?  Penis enlargements?  Perhaps penis enlargement for their pets?  Hell, no!  What won't government pay for?  "Government" meaning taxpayers, of course.

Governments should be tasked with providing for the national defense and securing the rights and liberties of their citizens — and providing a safety net for those few who legitimately can't provide for themselves.  That's it.  Period.

America's founders became enraged at a relatively mild tax on tea because of what it signified: those who held power over them didn't respect or represent them.

What do you think they would have thought had they been forced to pay for "voice feminization" — or hair removal — for the British troops and loyalists among them? 

Hint: It would have made the "Boston Tea Party" seem like a loving affirmation.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.