HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Texas judge halts federal...

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 07:41 PM

Texas judge halts federal transgender health protections

Source: AP

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) A federal judge in Texas on Saturday ordered a halt to another Obama administration effort to strengthen transgender rights, this time over health rules that social conservatives say could force doctors to violate their religious beliefs.

U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor granted a temporary injunction stopping federal health officials from enforcing rules that are intended to ban discrimination by doctors and hospitals against transgender persons.

O'Connor wrote in a 46-page ruling that the rules "likely violate" the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and "places substantial pressure on Plaintiffs to perform and cover transition and abortion procedures."

Transgender rights advocates have called that a far-fetched hypothetical, saying a person would not approach a doctor who lacked suitable experience and expertise.

Read more: https://apnews.com/030eb949b217439e82c8a008b225c8bb/Texas-judge-halts-federal-transgender-health-protections

18 replies, 3121 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Texas judge halts federal transgender health protections (Original post)
n2doc Dec 2016 OP
old guy Dec 2016 #1
iluvtennis Dec 2016 #3
Crash2Parties Jan 2017 #12
yuiyoshida Jan 2017 #16
bucolic_frolic Dec 2016 #2
Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #6
Crash2Parties Jan 2017 #15
Yurovsky Dec 2016 #4
Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #7
Crash2Parties Jan 2017 #17
atreides1 Dec 2016 #5
Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #10
geomon666 Dec 2016 #8
Crash2Parties Jan 2017 #18
Crash2Parties Dec 2016 #9
juxtaposed Dec 2016 #11
joewicker_TX Jan 2017 #13
Grins Jan 2017 #14

Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 08:12 PM

1. One more step toward theocracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to old guy (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 08:44 PM

3. Yep...Shameful nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to old guy (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 1, 2017, 12:36 AM

12. Many don't realize the magnitude of this Judge's action

Back when the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) was passed, rabidly conservative Christian Senator Jesse Helms inserted a last-minute, after-the-fact amendment to the already passed bill. It equated transgender people to rapists, kleptomaniacs and other nasties and categorically excluded them from the ADA. The ADA of course became law. Whole sections of it though were copied boilerplate into other protection / anti-discrimination laws downstream, including the transphobic paragraph. And from those downstream laws, the insurance companies picked up on it and added it to nearly every health insurance policy in the nation. As recently as 8-9 years ago if you checked, it was a sure bet that your health care policy excluded transgender people. Not just for surgery or hormones, either; that exclusion was regularly used to deny them coverage for any health care. Broken arms, high blood pressure, emergency room care; you name it, the insurance companies denied it.

The ACA changed all that. It had a section that prohibited excluding coverage simply because someone was transgender.

This judge has taken that away. Health care for trans people has potentially just been regressed back to the days of Jesse Helms.

This is where we as a nation are headed; trans people are the canary in the coal mine, and have been for some time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to old guy (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 1, 2017, 02:35 PM

16. IF Republicans had their way they would bring

back the Spanish Inquisition and return to Witch Burning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 08:43 PM

2. The Hippocratic Oath is doctors' religion

Doctors are secular

If you want religion, get clergy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 09:27 PM

6. Some medical groups/institutions are religiously based (and funded).

I think it's a bad reg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 1, 2017, 02:24 PM

15. 1 in 6 hospital beds in America are Catholic owned or partnered

And yes, care decisions are very much - and overtly, proudly - made based on Canon and dogma rather than best medical practices or protocols. Women's health care is another excellent example of such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 08:52 PM

4. For chrissakes, nobody is going to their GP for reassignment surgery...

this is mind-bogglingly stupid. I guess I better get used to shit like this for the next 4 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yurovsky (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 09:39 PM

7. But they are demanding hormones, and GPs commonly do prescribe the types of meds used.

In the case of GPs, more of them probably don't want to get into this because they don't feel competent than for any other reason, but the reg would allow a suit against them if they refused.

It's a bad reg and I am glad the judge halted it.

Put yourself in the position of a GP who will prescribe testosterone/alderone blockers within the parameters with which he/she is comfortable and for which there exist widely used guidelines.

There's a massive medical difference between correcting a natural imbalance as opposed to trying to create and maintain an unnatural balance that doesn't do that much harm to the patient. If you don't know what you are doing and don't feel competent to do it, it is idiotic for the federal government to claim that you are discriminating against someone for not providing a treatment that you believe you are not competent to provide.

Their education and the body of data/guidelines built up are aimed at restoring/maintaining natural function. They don't have all that much experience and/or resources for another application.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 1, 2017, 02:46 PM

17. "as opposed to trying to create and maintain an unnatural balance" psst. Your bias is showing.

Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2017, 03:22 PM - Edit history (1)

In addition to 20+ brain sites and certain skeletal sites, most trans people also have endocrine sites (think:receptors) that appear to a) be sex-dimorphic and b) developed opposite expectations based on sex assigned at birth. In other words, their bodies including their brains really do work better on the hormones that match identity not assignment, as shown by a better regulated serotonin system.

A GP would not perform a rhinoplasty; nor should they do the job of an endocrinologist. That's what referrals are for. But it is very possible for a GP to do a good job of managing a trans person's endocrine levels, and many do so out of necessity of there being no knowledgeable endo available. The biggest hurdle to formalizing such care is getting hormones moved from off-label to on-label. But even without that step, the Endocrine Society has already formalized the care of trans people including such fine points as noting conditions that would preclude hormone treatment, which blood chemistry should be monitored, and what the target ranges should be. Those can easily be managed by a GP with little or no risk - and are on a regular basis worldwide.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 09:22 PM

5. Just another advocate for theocracy

Judge Reed O'Connor is just another puppet for the Christian radicals, an advocate for a theocracy...the fact that he ruled in favor of religious rights, over civil and equal rights, without even trying to find a balance, shows that he is already in the pockets of Christian radicals!!!

His own religious beliefs have tainted his ability to make rational judgements, on the rights of all Americans...in my non-binding, non-legal opinion!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 09:59 PM

10. Read the ruling here - it is not about theocracy, but about law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 09:39 PM

8. Then don't fucking be doctors!

Religious Freedom Restoration Act, what a bunch of fucking horseshit. Religious freedoms never went away, so how in the fuck can they be restored? Call it what it is, Religion-Based Discrimination. That's what the ACLU calls it and that's what I'm calling it because that's what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 1, 2017, 03:29 PM

18. It was originally a result of the War on Drugs - Native Americans couldn't use peyote legally.

But it was part of their religion, so back in the early 90's the RFRA was passed to protect them. More recently the GOP apparently realized they could use it to claim that their "religious beliefs" - however spurious - should also then be granted a status above the laws that everyone else must follow. Also, see Hobby Lobby & Citizen's United.

The problem is that since our war against the "godless communists" post WWII, religion has been granted numerous exceptions from the laws everyone else must follow, ranging from anti-discrimination to financial transparency. The latter was gleaned by the GOP as a wonderful way to move money without any trail. From there they learned that there is an entire block of the population that has been raised since birth to blindly follow the perceived-strongest authority without question, and any inconsistencies are to be ignored via cognitive dissonance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 09:52 PM

9. Dangerous ruling: anti-discrimination laws fall before personal religious opinion

Between this and Hobby Lobby, it can be argued that a person's (or Corporate Person's) "sincerely held religious belief" - in other words, their opinion that day, should be granted a higher status than the laws that everyone else must follow.

This is an extremely dangerous road for us to be walking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 10:38 PM

11. b/c states rights are more important than human rights

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2017, 12:46 AM

13. Good lord....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2017, 10:27 AM

14. What do actual doctors say?

"...social conservatives say could force doctors to violate their religious beliefs."

What do actual doctors say? And didn't they take an oath....?

Enough of this "religious belief" crap. It has nothing to do with belief, it is a form of coercion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread