81 Democrats Voted To Pull Care From Service Member's Trans kids.
81 Democrats Voted To Pull Care From Service Member's Trans kids.
81 Democrats have voted for the NDAA bill, which has an anti-trans amendment pulling care from trans youth enrolled in TriCare, the first national anti-trans bill of the modern era.
Contact your rep if they're in this list. More context at: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/first-major-congressional-fight-over
When two right wings are voting on a left wing issue, this is the result, I guess.
Service members with trans friends and relatives r gonna b mad, and unlike Luigi they have more firearms training.
To be clear, 81 dems voted to fund the military and defund trans kids.
A quote I really like; "with Democrats like these, who needs Republicans". The party is a total joke right now.
More apt, IMO: Republicans fear their base. Democrats hate their base.
The dems and their staff, pundits, op-ed writers, etc know that the people don't like war and that the hyper-focus on oppressing trans people, especially children, is weird and off-putting, there's tons of polling on this. But try to tell them that and they'll give you some west-wing brained horseshit about how actually it's virtuous and necessary to betray your base and triangulate yourself 1 inch to the left of the republicans.
I don't know if that's better or worse than being called a Russian bot for pointing this out.
FFS of course Perez (my local rep) is in that list
I swear she's going to flip parties soon and it won't surprise me
Time to reach out yet again
I'm so fucking tired of Republicans running as Democrats. Recall votes need to be a thing.
She barely won by less than three percentage points vs her Republican opponent. While I dislike what she's doing, more people in your district must vote (or move in and vote). That district was a real nailbiter in November. Until then, I doubt she will be able to do anything more than moderate left, lest things go to the authoritarian party next election.
WHAT IS GOING ON. Ugh.
You know if the situation was flipped, repubs would've thrown a hissy fit and shutdown the government like they always do when it comes down to 'must-pass' budget bills.
No Oregon Dems voted for it, nice. This state is so rad...Dems won a supermajority last month of both the State House and Senate, too.
To be clear, it defunds any treatment for body dysmorphia that would result in infertility for under 18s, which does not exclude the most common forms of care for under 18s.
Yes, so you're likely right that it's just for show and it's unlikely to affect trans children in any meaningful way. But WHY do we need this? If this was never something that cost money why are we spending the time of our most expensive politicians in this? Furthermore why are politicians meddling in medicine? What do they know about trans care or any other medical care? The last president thought we should inject bleach, let's not dismiss the fact these people have no place in medicine.
They wasted a huge amount of the time they had left and millions of tax payer dollars to pass a budget restriction that will save no money and to pass legislation that converts a medical decision into a rigid law. Best of all the only thing this ACTUALLY accomplished is to make sure that trans kids and trans people feel alienated and attached.
There is no defending this egregious waste of money, idiotic meddling of politics in medicine, and this targeted decision to make trans people feel unsafe and threatened.
To be clear, I am not endorsing the decision or criticising, I merely sought to state the fact of the change.
I believe it is important to be clear and factual when reporting and discussing such changes to avoid causing unnecessary panic, alarm and outrage. While the actual change is provided in an article linked from the one in the OP it isn't directly stated in this article.
The language used in the article makes this sound like a much more impactful change than I suspect it is.
“Section 708.” This clause would prohibit TRICARE from covering any medical treatments for gender dysphoria in transgender youth under 18 that “could result in sterilization.”
To address your points
But WHY do we need this?
It could be argued that those under 18, as minors and not adults, can not consent to sterilization. We know that human brains are still developing until around 26 years old, so allowing someone under 18 to make such an enormous life altering decision may be irresponsible of society. Again, I am not aiming to endorse this decision, merely trying to understand the possible logic behind it.
If this was never something that cost money why are we spending the time of our most expensive politicians in this?
Cost is hardly the only factor that should be considered when politicians are making decisions, ethical and moral factors should also apply, though I doubt many politicians are aware things such as morals exist.
idiotic meddling of politics in medicine
For better or worse healthcare for is political for everyone, even in countries with universal healthcare. Healthcare is an enormous part of the social fabric of nations, of their economy, and impacts everyone. Healthcare professionals can hardly be trusted to always act in the best interest of people (see the Tuskege experiments, lobotomies and more) and so laws must be passed and enforced.
Temporary infertility or permanent infertility?
At first thought it sounds like they want more pregnant teens.
https://lemmy.ml/comment/15511694
The relevant GOP memo on this makes very clear the intent, as it explicitly names puberty blockers as a target. Top on page 4 in the pdf
Republicans passed this SPECIFICALLY to deny even the most basic trans care while letting them argue that they're only protecting kids. The Republicans who WROTE it are better positioned to tell you what it will do than you sitting here trying to piece it together from random quotes.
The actual section says ‘sterilisation’ which would be permanent
Almost as if they're pretty much the same.
T~~hey could be from districts with high military populations. If they already knew it would pass, why give an opponent a talking point saying they don't support the military because that is exactly what would happen. ~~
EDIT: Nevermind, I can't do math
It wouldn't have passed if those 81 Dems had voted against it. Let's not excuse the DNC for their complicity by pretending it was unavoidable.
Dammit I voted for Slotkin in the Senate primaries because her opponent hosted Chappelle for a political event.
As in Dave Chappelle? The guy with multiple transphobic "comedy" specials? Sounds like transphobia should be expected from a candidate who aligned with him.