Rep. Leigh Finke took action against a bill set before the Minnesota legislature this week because the bill barred pedophilia from being protected under the legal classification of a "sexual orientation."

A trans-identified male politician who drafted a bill declaring Minnesota a "refuge state" for the medical transitioning of minors has proposed an amendment to state legislation removing a stipulation that prohibits "sexual attachment to children" from being classified as a protected sexual orientation.

Why would someone want to remove a very appropriate and critical protection against the sexual exploitation of children?

Here's the full modified text of Rep. Leigh Finke's proposal:

Finke, meanwhile, told Fox News that he had proposed the removal of the language because it "never should have been included in the statutory definition in the first place":

"Nothing in the bill changes or weakens any crimes against children, or the state's ability to prosecute those who break the law. Of course, pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. ... Crimes against children are located in Minnesota's criminal statutes, and again, they remain unchanged."

That provision in the original state statute was a harmless but important bulwark against child sexual exploitation. Again, why get rid of it?

Whether or not the measure will pass remains unclear. The Minnesota House and Senate are both controlled by Democrats (the state-specific "Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party").