Dana Wefer, Esq.

A week ago, I went to see my friends for lunch, and we were discussing House Bill 5468, which was going to be under consideration this week. One of my friends said it’s good that in some families DCF would come and identify abuse—that there would be fewer victims of domestic abuse. And for families who are not abusive, this bill would do nothing, because those families have nothing to worry about. To that, I responded. DCF came to my house as well. In fact, I welcomed them without a lawyer, thinking there was nothing that could possibly be said against me. I believed I was a good mother. I believed the truth would be enough. The notes from DCF stated they found nothing supporting the allegations made against me. Nevertheless, the final paragraph read: “Wherefore, based on the aforementioned allegations, the Department believes the youth has been neglected and is in immediate physical danger from his surroundings, and immediate removal from such surroundings is necessary to ensure his safety”. Ilene was removed from her family. Today, she rests in a cemetery. So when I hear that “this will only affect abusive families,” I cannot help but question that certainty. Recently, homeschooling families in Connecticut have been living in fear that House Bill 5468 would pass. The bill, advanced by the Education Committee in March 2026, requires homeschooling families to provide annual proof of “equivalent instruction,” mandates in-person withdrawal from public schools, and involves checks for abuse or neglect history with the Department of Children and Families. Supporters of the bill point to tragic cases—such as the death of Jacqueline “Mimi” Torres-Garcia and the long-term abuse of a man known as “S.” in Waterbury—as justification for increased oversight. And I agree—there are families where abuse exists, and those situations must be addressed. But I also believe something important is being ignored. The majority of parents love their children. They are not trying to harm them. They are trying to raise them, protect them, and give them the best life they can. So my question to those proposing this bill is simple: Why is the scrutiny directed so heavily at homeschooling families, but not at other environments where children spend most of their time? If homeschoolers must prove the safety and quality of their children’s education, why is there no equivalent investigation into what happens in schools? What about bullying—something many children endure every single day? What about students struggling with mental health, or developing suicidal thoughts? What about those who have taken their lives while in school? What about parents who have concerns about the content their children are required to engage with? What about school safety itself? And what about children removed from their homes—how often do we examine what happens to them afterward? If the goal is truly to protect children, shouldn’t all environments be held to the same standard? In Connecticut, we also know that even ordinary parental discipline can sometimes be interpreted as abuse. So where is the line—and who decides when it has been crossed? What happened to Ilene, many already know. DCF had a significant impact on her life—and not a positive one. Below is a video of Ilene practicing ice skating. She did it for about five years. She loved it. And I was always there, all five years—watching her, supporting her, freezing in the cold while she worked hard and improved. After all, that’s what abusive and neglectful parents do. They show up. They stay. They care.

@adhib @ArtemisConsort Hobbes vs. Rousseau, but in modern times.

@ArtemisConsort I believe this is the fundamental difference between liberals and others. Liberals imagine that everyone is fundamentally as good as they are, just awaiting the right conditions to release their goodness. They see humans in the abstract, as fundamentally interchangeable.

One of the largest barriers to saving our nations is that most Westerners genuinely struggle to believe people like this exist. We fish around for explanations because it’s just incomprehensible. We can’t accept the vastness of human differences.

@pauljones7899 @waterstonebooks The difference is that social media can be used to manipulate everyone on it. That makes it incomparable to a knife.

@waterstonebooks Social media is not a "bad thing" in so much as a knife isn't a bad thing, it's a thing that people use, and just like any other thing, people need to be educated or the education needs to be available for correct and best usage. Social media is blamed for all sorts of lazy crap

I have many, many, many complaints about social media, but the flip side is this: A reader enjoys a book published more than 40 years ago and shares how much he enjoyed it. Expressed a desire to talk about it with others and laments he's the only person he knows who has read it. And now he's received a personal thanks from the author and received an outpouring of kindness as other fans have stepped forward, eager to talk. It's a beautiful thing to witness, and something that would have been as good as impossible even 20 years ago.

🎉Harris County Precinct 440 unanimously passed all 17 of my resolutions this morning! - Ban mRNA - Ban Remdesivir - Allow 2nd opinions from outside doctors while in the hospital - Reform TMB complaint process - Make nonprofit hospitals pay property taxes - Eliminate all vaccine mandates … and more!

@julie4butte5 I know him. Would you like to see if I can put you in contact?

🚨Heartbreaking. This is a public comment made to the Federal Register where comments are recorded for the upcoming CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on March 18 & 19. Vaccine injuries are on the agenda. This was submitted by someone named Thomas Thasites. I wish I knew more about him. IF THE FDA DOESN'T TAKE THESE COMMENTS SERIOUSLY WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH THE OFFICIALS RUNNING THE CDC. @RetsefL @KMilhoanMDPhD @RWMaloneMD @docbiss @SecKennedy @DrMakaryFDA To my electeds. SHAME ON YOU. Shame on you for burying your heads in the sand. For not going above and beyond to warn people and stop administration in your area of responsibility. Devastating. People lives have been destroyed and you do NOTHING. @J_Gallagher4CA @HeatherHadwick @ButteSheriff @RepKiley

@feedfracture @jan_murray I always just say "can you help me understand how gender is different from personality?" and they can't. Usually it just makes them mad, though.

I’d like to break this down a bit further if I may. There’s much ongoing talk about how the ‘trans lobby’ is trying to change reality & I have, to some extent been guilty of framing it this way myself. It never felt exactly right or complete though - and still doesn’t - because, obviously – duh! - biology. After a bit more thought, in part because of reading this, what I’ve come up with is that we’re essentially addressing three basic layers: (i) the biological layer - sex as reproductive function; (ii) the social-symbolic layer – things like gender roles, categories and identity then (iii) the linguistic layer - labels and definitions. These can – and indeed should - be thought of as different and separate strata. So, when someone redefines ‘woman’ to mean something like ‘an adult human whose gender identity is female’, they’re not altering gamete production, chromosomal structures or reproductive biology, nor are they (necessarily) commenting on gender or identities themselves (though this in itself is a hotly contested area – c.f. feminism etc). What they’re *actually* doing is altering classification rules in social-linguistic space. Which is to say they’re not bending physical reality, or necessarily claiming to, but *modifying category boundaries*. And let’s be clear - category boundaries ARE real at the social scale (for e.g. money is ‘just paper’ – or number – physically speaking, but linguistically coordinated belief makes it economically real). Language can't rewrite biology directly, but it absolutely does reshape social affordances – i.e. who gets access to single-sex spaces, sports fairness, medical language, safeguarding rules, etc. By breaking it down this way, (hopefully) the debate can shift from a shouting match over ‘reality’ into a clearer indication of where the actual changes - and therefore the real conflicts - occur so that the downstream material consequences become easier to explain and harder to dismiss.

I didn’t really get the problem with gender ideology at first. I’m liberal-minded about most things. 'Live and let' live has generally been my motto. I believed inclusion mattered. I believed in being kind. In not using language that might upset people unnecessarily. I knew people who identified as transgender. I knew some adults chose medical treatments or surgery to resemble the opposite sex. That seemed to me a matter of personal autonomy. Adults can do what they wish with their own bodies. What I hadn’t realised - and I feel slightly embarrassed admitting this - was that I’d misunderstood what was being claimed. I thought “transgender” meant a form of self-expression. A man who liked wearing women’s clothes. Someone changing their name. Gender non-conformity. What I hadn’t grasped was that some activists weren’t just asking for tolerance. They were asserting that declaring yourself the opposite sex made you the opposite sex. Not metaphorically. Literally. And that this wasn’t just cultural. It had legal consequences. - It meant men who said they were women were demanding access to women’s sports, prisons, domestic violence shelters and hospital wards - It meant the rewriting of healthcare language - “pregnant people”, “bodies with cervixes” - to avoid saying “women” - It meant children struggling with identity being affirmed onto medical pathways with lifelong implications And also redefining same-sex attraction. Lesbians called 'bigoted' for not wanting relationships with men who identify as women. Gay men accused of prejudice for saying they're not attracted to female bodies. None of which made any sense. But I'd also overlooked how far this had travelled - into HR policies, professional bodies, schools, political parties and public institutions. And how easily disagreement was framed as cruelty. Speaking up felt risky - because others were being publicly humiliated for doing so. None of this is abstract. Because sex is the basis on which safeguarding works. On which data is collected. On which cancer screening programmes run. On which fair sport and single-sex spaces depend. It’s written into law - including the Equality Act - because material differences matter. If sex becomes a 'feeling' rather than a biological category, those protections become unstable. And once reality becomes negotiable, everything does. Once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it. But I needed to be sure. So I read. Books, research papers, policy documents. When I finally spoke publicly, there was backlash from all directions. Many women thanked me - both quietly and publicly. But some feminists criticised me for speaking too late. Others were angry about a past interview I’d done with the parent of a transgender person, accusing me of promoting harm. It takes courage to change your mind publicly. It takes courage to speak when you know your reputation, friendships or livelihood may be on the line - when you know raising your voice could strain, or even end, relationships you value. Once I understood what was at stake, staying silent was no longer an option. I lost my livelihood simply for saying I didn’t like the phrase “pregnant people”. That alone tells you something is deeply wrong. It shouldn’t be this way. I will never judge any woman for when she finds her voice. Because every voice adds value - whenever it is raised. And I know how persuasive this ideology can be. I know how easily it bypassed me. And I know how much courage it takes to admit, publicly, that you got something wrong.

@Indiecom2 I commented, but once I hit post, the comment felt rather blithe considering the seriousness of what we are talking about. It's just surreal watching the masses be talked into various flavors of regime change over and over.

@WeferLawOffices Thank you for acknowledging this foreign policy disaster & sticking to your anti-war worldview

Trump's foreign policy was the best part of his first term and is the worst part of his second.

The reason that assisted suicide should never have been made legal anywhere in the world is that doctors should never be permitted to cross the threshold wherein their remit encompasses meting out death rather than preserving life. The instantaneous cascade that we saw in Canada was the necessary consequence of crossing this fatal threshold that the medical establishment was wise never to permit itself to cross until it lost that wisdom at the same moment that essentially all wisdom was dismantled across multiple domains.

@crystalandqueue @libsoftiktok Doctors with this policy are a big red flag. I had one doctor say that I could not stay with my daughter, so we left!

@libsoftiktok This is my hometown. This story is all over my Facebook feed and I’ve seen several comments from parents where he had a policy where they were not allowed back with their children during procedures. Calls were made today to all patients alerting them of the charges.

Meet Bryan Shanley Sack, a pediatric urologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Toledo. He was just arrested & charged with 6 felonies for possession of child p**n. He allegedly had over 100 images on his device. The hospital says he’s been terminated effective immediately. SICK

@Dr_da_Vinci @feelsdesperate I do not take pills because I do not want to become an addict. People were not given informed consent because the pharmaceutical companies and doctors lied about the fact that the pills are addictive. Everyone is susceptible to addiction. Being human is not a personal flaw.

No millions of people take narcotics every year and they do not become addicts. It is a personal flaw in their character and biochemistry that leads them to become a drug addict. Restricting prescription narcotics have lead thousands to commit suicide due to pain and suffering. I suspect you have managed to take a pain pill without becoming an addict - that is the normal response.

Hey this is actually a good one to bring up: I was front row in medical school when they told us long-acting opioids like OxyContin were safe and non-addictive. Pain was the ‘fifth vital sign’ and you were being paternalistic if you didn’t treat your patient’s pain with safe and effective opioids. This didn’t come from pharma propaganda - it came from medical faculty who were eager to evangelize. We then saturated the country with prescription opioids and when we realized our mistake and pulled back heroin and then fentanyl took their place.

@Dr_da_Vinci @feelsdesperate The issue was not just people dying from opioids, it's the fact that becoming an addict is life ruining and they deliberately made people addicts.

The overreaction to opioids crisis was a lazy, low-IQ response. The number of people dying from prescription medication overdoses has not changed in 20 years. Illegal fentanyl was the cause, but it was easier to blame physicians than to close the border. Legitimate pain patients suffer because no one will write a narcotic prescription anymore for fear of the DEA taking their license. Patients who can not get legit pain meds either suffer, commit suicide, or get illegal drugs that kill them -

12 Airspace Medicine Doctors, one the Consultant to the Surgeon General of the Army for Aerospace Medicine, all responsible for the health of Army pilots...I was the only who had to wear a mask because I was a "refuser" who would not take the vaccine. The most most senior Aerospace Medicine doctor declared, "the unvaccinated were worse than mass murders". Funny the rule was only the unvaccinated had to wear a mask...for this photo they told me to take the mask off...why because they did not want our pilots to know one of their flight surgeons was unvaccinated. I refused to take the stupid thing off for the photo-so our pilots would know to HOLD THE LINE! -All trained in epidemiology -All medical doctors -All trained in the Medical Management of Chemical and Biological Casualties -No Excuses!

BREAKING: I am intervening in the case against the Texas Medical Board in support of Dr. Mary Talley Bowden to ensure her lawful medical freedoms are protected.

@Libertyordaeth @PrishaMosley Ok. I cannot understand why you would feel the need to criticize me for commenting and trying to help, but I guess it was important to you. Have a good one.

I’m trying to be informative and suggest that this is not an average X participant. She is literally hugely searchable, has been incredibly open about both her journey and her legal experiences. And it’s odd that one’s suggests someone file a lawsuit without doing a bit of due diligence. I find it even more odd when it’s a professional such as yourself.

This is what happened when I gave birth as a detransitioner… I wanted to share more about the complications in hope that help will come for women who come after me.

I am trying to be nice, what you're trying to be? I have no idea what she has sued for or not, but this specific injury that she detailed in the video may be different from other issues. This specific issue is something that would not been discovered until she had a baby and her milk came in, which made me think that this specific issue could be subject to the discovery rule.

I know you are trying to be nice but Prisha is one of the best known detrans individuals in the world. Details of herself and her legal case have been widely reported. She has testified repeatedly. I find it odd that people don’t take even a moment to look before giving legal advice

I think the fact that you could not possibly have *discovered* the issue with left behind breast tissue and that you were not informed of that risk is a good legal basis to argue for the discovery rule to apply, which tolls the statute of limitations in many places. I don't know about NC law exactly, but this is worth looking into with your attorney if it hasn't already been raised. I wish you good luck and justice!

@WeferLawOffices I am suing. My case was dismissed after the law changed in NC to allow for a longer SOL. I am appealing to the higher courts.

Vaccine tracking in NJ is exploding: kids to 17 mandatory, used to be only to 7, are adults next? No public hearing, no real consent The NJ Coalition for Vaccination Choice is challenging these illegal rules along with @WeferLawOffices, let us know how we can help nj.com/healthfit/2026…