9th Circuit Rules to Legalize Sterilization and Medical Experimentation on Children
- Alex Baker
- 4 days ago
- 5 min read
Hudacko Will Challenge the Oct. 21 Unpublished Opinion With Petition for En Banc, Motion to Publish
On October 21, 2025 the 9th Circuit 3-judge panel of Sydney R. Thomas, Jacqueline Nguyen and Daniel A. Bress ruled to affirm District Court judge Susan B. Illston's dismissal of Ted Hudacko's federal case. Ted's case was disposed of on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. On such a Motion to Dismiss, the rule is that the Court must assume as true all of Ted's factual allegations, and dismiss the matter only if it fails as a matter of law. None of these judges did that.
Ted retained veteran appellate attorney Myron Moscovitz to do his Oral Argument. In my opinion, Moscovotiz sucked. He could not have been worse. In fact, I will go further to say that Moscovitz lost Ted's case on purpose. My health permitting, I intend make a series of videos explaining, discussing Hudacko, and the "gender affirming care" problem in general. One of my points will surely be: If you are not talking about judges and corrupt attorneys, you have nothing to say about "gender affirming care." Period.
As we argued in the Complaint and Appellate briefing, "gender affirming care" is happening for 3 reasons:
• Money (WPATH and author Amy Tishelman crafted their "standards of care" so as to obtain insurance money and not be sued);
• Medical experimentation (like so many examples from the past, they must present the experiment as "safe & effective" and "medical care," otherwise nobody would consent); and
• Pleasing pedophiles (they are creating a population of humans who reach the chronological age of 18 or 21 and so may consent to alcohol and sex, but who look, think and act like children).
Moscovitz and these judges know that children are being sterilized and experimented upon for big money. Hudacko's insurance was billed over $209,000. While we of course wish for Congress to finally act, sterilization and experimentation is already illegal in all 50 states. But the Opinion and Moscovitz completely ignore all this, some of the strongest points made by Hudacko in the written briefing. Here is a list of questions the 9th Circuit should have considered:
A. Does this Opinion upset the Nuremberg Code’s requirement of informed consent for medical experimentation?
B. Does this Opinion upset Conservatorship of Valerie N. thus legalizing the sterilization of minors?
C. Does this this Opinion upset well-established parental rights under the Liberty Clause, that being the only possible source of Hudacko’s undisputed court-ordered right to prohibit “any gender identity related surgery”?
D. Does this Opinion upset the meaning of “adjudicative facts” under Fed. Rule 201 and under Korematsu v. United States?
E. Does this opinion upset U.S. Supreme Court precedent and also the 9th Circuit’s Own Precedent in Drummond v. City of Anaheim, holding that “well-established” rights need not be with a precedent directly on point?
F. Does this Opinion upset the meaning of the “Special Relationship” rule established under Tarasoff?
G. Does this opinion upset the rule that Defendants waived the “No Duty” defense by voluntarily speaking falsely?
H. Does this opinion upset the assumption that factual are allegations assumed in Plaintiff’s favor in a Motion to Dismiss?
I. Does this Opinion upset the previously well-settled law of federal abstention?
J. Does this Opinion rely on precedent established in a Summary Judgment with no applicability here in reviewing a Motion to Dismiss?
As it stands, it is now legal in the United States to sterilize a healthy child, and to conduct medical experiments without informed consent. This is in addition to the blatant violation of Ted's constitutional right to parent, as codified by a Court Order spelling out that Ted may prohibit "any gender identity related surgery." This one point was made by Moscovitz, and the 9th Circuit just got it wrong.
Ted has promised to challenge this crooked unpublished (i.e. swept under the rug) Opinion with (1) a Petition for En Banc Hearing (where the case is presented to a larger group of 9th Circuit judges) and (2) a Motion to Publish the Opinion (so that it may be cited and relied upon as the law).
Links to Some Key Documents
The Simple 5 Min Opening I Drafted that Moscovitz Ignored
Good morning honorable judges of the Ninth Circuit. I am attorney Myron Moscovitz, representing Plaintiff and Appellant Ted Hudacko. We may hear a lot of complicated arguments today, but really, it's quite simple.
This appeal follows a Motion to Dismiss. This case was dismissed on a finding that these State defendant doctors are shielded by qualified immunity. As we all know, qualified immunity applies when a state actor violates a right that was not "well-established" at the time. Conversely, if State Actors violate a right that is well-established, qualified immunity will not protect them. The law of qualified immunity not disputed.
A Family Court Order established that Ted had the unilateral right to prohibit "any gender identity related surgery" on his minor son. This too is not disputed. A long line of U.S. Supreme Court cases have established under the Liberty Clause that a father has the right to direct the medical care of his son, and this certainly includes the right to prohibit experimental surgery in the name of "gender affirming care."
These landmark cases are, again, undisputed. The question then becomes: if Ted's right to prohibit surgery did not arise under the Liberty Clause, where else could it possibly have come from? No Defendant has attempted or succeeded in answering that question. Neither has the court below. Ted's right to prohibit surgery arises under the Liberty Clause, and it was well-established.
No reasonable government official believed that it was legal to perform experimental surgery on the minor child. No reasonable government official believed that it was legal to sterilize the minor child, which is exactly what is alleged to have happened. No reasonable government official believed that it was legal to fabricate a false "standard of care" so as to obtain the pretense of consent from the child's mother only by lying to her, pretending that "gender affirming care" is safe and effective, when - no it is not.
These are factual disputes that - here at the pleading stage – must be assumed in our favor. These facts need to be tried with expert witnesses. Qualified immunity should not shield these government actors. The Attorneys involved, while ostensibly private actors, all knew what they were doing. They easily satisfy the Joint Action Test. The entire case should be overturned and remanded to finally – once and for all – try the facts of this case, including discovery, and let the chips fall where they may.
I am Alex Baker.
contact me: alex@pmjmp.org
Comments