President Joe Biden’s deputies are pressuring doctors to provide high-risk, life-changing sex-change surgeries, drugs, and hormones to people who are trying to live as members of the opposite sex.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Monday announced a regulation to apply discrimination law to block critics of the transgender claim that people have a “gender identity.”
If the plan survives court challenges, all healthcare organizations that receive federal funding would be unable to curb the sale of legally-protected sex change services to adults or children. The regulation would also override state legislators who accept the growing evidence that sex-change procedures are dangerous, fraudulent, expensive, and unnecessary.
— Just A Rainbow In The Dark (@Jacka_NOPE) March 31, 2022
President of Americans Principles Project (APP) Terry Schilling released a statement after the HHS announcement, calling the rule “heinously wrong.”:
Transgender ideology is not medicine. Men cannot change their biology to become women or vice versa, no matter how many supposed ‘experts’ claim otherwise. We do severe harm to people when we encourage them to undergo procedures to mimic the opposite sex, especially young children who are incapable of fully understanding the permanent, damaging consequences.
I want to tell everyone what they took from us, what irreversible really means, and what that reality looks like for us.
No one told me any of what I’m going to tell you now.
— TullipR/Ritchie 🌈♂ (@TullipR) June 13, 2022
It’s bad enough that much of the healthcare industry has gotten fully behind transgenderism, putting ideology and profit over truth and the well-being of patients. But now, the Biden administration is trying to force every doctor and nurse to conform to this insanity, regardless of their professional or personal concerns. This is heinously wrong.
We encourage leaders in the states to fight back against this rule, both legislatively and legally. And we also intend to remind voters of these actions in the weeks leading up to this November. Most Americans reject the Left’s radical gender views, and Democrats should expect to pay a political price for their authoritarian attempt to impose this ideology on the entire country.
The White House has been reviewing the draft rule since March and held meetings with the Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, and other conservative and religious organizations “that argued against reversing the Trump-era changes,” the Washington Post reported. Those groups reportedly contend that the rule would “force health-care providers to perform procedures against their religious beliefs, or allow children to begin gender transitions they may later regret.”
“All we are trying to do is advocate for caution, and compassion informed by evidence and not ideology,” Genspect, a non-partisan group that advocates for an “evidence-based approach to gender distress,” wrote to administration officials in April.
HHS said Monday they had “sought to incorporate some of the groups’ concerns, pointing to provisions that explicitly addressed protections for providers who raised conscience or religious objections to performing certain procedures such as abortion,” the report continues.
Roger Severino, who led the HHS civil rights office (OCR) under Trump and now works as vice president of the Heritage Foundation, said the HHS’s incorporation of religious and conscience objections is “a victory of sorts.” However, he said the parts of the rule that could be used to punish doctors who do not perform sex change services are “downright scary.”
“If you think they are never clinically appropriate, you’re considered a bigot by the government,” Severino told the publication.
Sad to see my former office at HHS proposing a new transgender mandate in medicine. “If you think [transgender surgeries] are never clinically appropriate, you’re considered a bigot by the government," leading to a loss of federal funds. Severino said. https://t.co/Eb3LybR7OM
— Roger Severino (@RogerSeverino_) July 26, 2022
The proposed rule would ultimately redefine discrimination on the basis of sex in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to include “gender identity” and decisions regarding “pregnancy termination.” The Biden administration is seeking to restore the concept of “gender identity” to ACA, which was put in place by President Barack Obama but removed by President Donald Trump in 2020.
The rule would apply to health insurance plans that involve Medicaid and Medicare. The rule would also apply to Medicare Part B, which covers doctor visits, outpatient care for those who are 65 and up or have disabilities, and preventative services.
The language of the proposed rule claims that prohibiting sex discrimination on the basis of gender identity “can lead to improved health outcomes for members of the LGBTQI+ community.”
“For example, without protection from discrimination, transgender individuals may face barriers or be denied clinically appropriate gender-affirming care,” the proposed rule states.
In regards religious or conscience objections, the proposed rule states that HHS will take a “case-by-case approach” to assess “any harm an exemption could have on third parties” and whether “the application of any substantial burden on a person’s exercise of religion is in furtherance of a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means of advancing that compelling interest.” The OCR will also “assess whether there is a sufficiently concrete factual basis” for an exemption.
The marketisation of children and the mutilation of their bodies is big business.
Things have gone way too far!
— gender is harmful (@genderisharmful) June 13, 2022
The proposed rule is another effort on the part of the Biden administration to promote so-called “gender-affirming care” including sex change surgeries. The sex change surgeries industry was valued at $267 million in 2019 and is expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate of 14.4 percent from 2020 to 2027, a 2020 report found.
The Biden administration says it is prepared to face legal challenges and is already engaged in ongoing litigation, which led to a delay in issuing the rule initially. The proposed rule is open for public comment for 60 days after publishing.