'Transgender mandate' struck down by federal court - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15048549
Thank you for posting the absolute proof that everything I posted is true. I was wondering exactly what that I said, you take exception to.

Clearly according to what you posted the physician may refuse to treat a person who believes they are transsexual on religious grounds.

The doctor’s personal convictions, such as a doctor refusing to perform an abortion for religious reasons or refusing to prescribe narcotics for pain


Then you refer to emergency treatment. The treatment of GID is NEVER considered emergency treatment.

Individual doctors can't refuse to treat transgendered people under most situations. BUT. This is not the question. The question is whether they can be required to perform treatments to affect a sex change. They cannot except in one really odd circumstance.

What is the odd circumstance? A physician who treats transgendered people with "conversion therapy" cannot force this on a client. Otherwise.

You are pole vaulting over mouse turds. You are asking us to believe that there is a doctor trained to treat gender reassignment who, suddenly after all of that training, decides it is against his/her religion to do it. Can you cite this ever happening.

Now POD

Go back and read the OP. The problem that led to striking down this absurd rule based solely on someone knee jerk PC opinion is that it mandates that physicians unqualified to do the surgery be required to do it. Of course the judge struck it down. Even the AMA said the rule was preposterous. And, oh by the way, dangerous.

Going further. Suppose I am a skilled psychiatrist specializing in gender identity disorders. Are you not aware that in some, if not most, cases my best medical advice might be to not have the procedures? In children statistics show that this should be my opinion in most cases. The answer is no but not no forever. No for now. The same decision is made regarding antibiotics by doctors every day. They decide not to prescribe them at all.

So nothing you posted refutes anything that I said and all of it supports what I have been saying.
#15048560
@Drlee

It seems odd that you cannot figure out how to quote someone properly, or use the usermention function properly.

Again, I never argued that do tors cannot refuse treatment because they are transphobes. Trump just said they can.

What I argued was that the government can and does force doctors to treat people even if it goes against their religious beliefs, if it would result in discrimination based on race, religion, sex, et cetera.

Now, you are claiming that Obama’s “transgender mandate” would have forced unqualified doctors to perform surgery.

If your only source is the OP, and the Catholic News Agency website, then the evidence is questionable. I found one Newsweek article that discusses this, and it does not corroborate the claim that it would force unqualified doctors to perform surgery.

https://www.newsweek.com/federal-judge- ... ns-1465768


    The same judge who ruled last year that Obamacare was unconstitutional has overturned protections for transgender patients, asserting that the guidelines infringed on the religious freedoms of Christian health care providers.

    U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas struck down Obama-era regulations that prohibited federally funded insurers and health care providers from denying protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. He also vacated a policy that required doctors to provide "medically necessary" services to transgender patients.

    O'Connor ruled on Tuesday that these anti-discrimination provisions, which are outlined in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), violate the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The 1993 law states that the government can't substantially burden a person's right to exercise his or her religion.

A summary of the actual HSS mandate can be found here:

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.137 ... 4868/full/

There is nothing in there that says that unqualified doctors would have to perform surgery.
#15048594
Come on POD. Read the OP. As usual, when losing an argument you just deny the evidence. You may not like the OP but it does include the Judge's actual words. That is pretty reliable, is it not?

Stop whining about quoting. You are just looking petulant.
#15048613
Actually, it does not contain the judge’s actual words.

The judge’s actual verdict can be found here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/ ... -Order.pdf

I have read all 25 pages.

There is no mention that the HSS regulation 1557 would have forced doctors to perform surgeries for which they are unqualified.

If anyone can find it in the link3d PDF, I would encourage them to quote it.
#15048708
You posted only a small part of the whole picture because you did not post the referenced decisions. For the purpose of this discussion however I am prepared to ignore that at not particularly relevant.

Two things: Rule 1557 was objected to in part because of its overbroad language. It read:

Section 1557 is the nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in certain health programs or activities. Section 1557 builds on long-standing and familiar Federal civil rights laws: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Section 1557 extends nondiscrimination protections to individuals participating in:

Any health program or activity any part of which received funding from HHS


Several people sued their providers for not giving treatment even though these individuals were not qualified to do the treatment. They were searching for a remedy within their "networks" that did not exist and some unqualified individuals were threatened with violation of the rule. Clarification has been provided so this is no longer a problem. Here was the part that caused problems:

Section 1557 is the nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in certain health programs or activities. Section 1557 builds on long-standing and familiar Federal civil rights laws: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Section 1557 extends nondiscrimination protections to individuals participating in:

Any health program or activity any part of which received funding from HHS


So using this rule some patients were able to attempt to shift their access problems to practitioners even though the "fault" resided with the agency or company required to provide care.

The bottom line though is that the judge struck down the requirement to force providers (doctors and some organizations) to provide these services because to do so violate their religious beliefs and cited several laws, the RDRA and ADA as examples.

In the new rules it is noteworthy that this is included:

...OCR will not second-guess a covered entity's neutral nondiscriminatory application of evidence-based criteria used to make medical necessity or coverage determinations. Therefore, we refrain from adding any regulatory text that establishes or limits the criteria that covered entities may utilize when determining whether a health service is medically necessary or otherwise meets applicable coverage requirements. Nevertheless, we caution covered entities that, although § 92.207(d) does not dictate the criteria that a covered entity must use, a covered entity must use a nondiscriminatory process to determine whether a particular health service is medically necessary or otherwise meets applicable coverage requirements.


This is extremely significant. It specifically allows the determination by a practitioner that the particular procedure is medically necessary. So there is no inherent right for a particular patient to demand a particular procedure when the practitioner does not believe it is medically necessary. This is particularly important in the cast of children whose parents may be seeking gender reassignment and the practitioner believe they may be jumping the gun, so to speak.
#15048709
Pants-of-dog wrote:A reason based on logic or evidence.

I.e. not one based solely on religion

The whole idea that a man can become a woman is a demented religious fantasy, devoid of logic or evidence.
#15048713
If the problem is that the wording you cited is too vague, then the problem is with the existing law that the Obama era regulation modified, and the problem is not with the transgender mandate itself.

The Obama era regulation simply took that existing non-discrimination law and extended it to also cover trans people.

————————-

The Obama regulation that the judge vacated did not allow for anyone to simply demand transition surgery. It required a referral from a qualified mental health practitioner.

The text you quoted (about the OCR not second-guessing others) from the proposed rule is an excerpt from a part where they (Trump’s people who wrote the proposed rule) explain why they are not changing that part of the Obama regulation.

So it was always the case that it needed to be determined by a practitioner that the particular procedure is medically necessary. And it was always the case that there is no inherent right for a particular patient to demand a particular procedure when the practitioner does not believe it is medically necessary.

Edit:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... activities

That is the link showing the proposed rule by Trump’s administration.
#15048721
OK. So what is your argument?

So far you have proved me wrong on nothing. I thank you for further reinforcing my case that no one has an inherent right to transition surgery or medical intervention beyond, MAYBE, a referral to a psychiatrist and then to a psychiatrist who specializes in the affliction.

So I said it was wrong to compel a doctor to act against his religious convictions except in very narrow emergency cases. The court agreed. (So did the government by the way which chose not to challenge this.)

I said that unqualified practitioners should not be compelled to perform procedures for which they do not feel competent. The government agrees. So does the court. So does anyone with the intelligence of an ice cube.

So again. What is your beef.

My main point was that a doctor should be allowed to refuse gender reassignment treatment to a patient if it offends her/his religious beliefs. The court agrees, federal law agrees (and had for some time) and most reasonable people agree.

What do you believe?
#15050864
So, the OP is misleading when it claims that the “transgender mandate” would require unqualified doctors to do gender reassignment surgery. This is incorrect.

It is also clear that this judge’s verdict was to allow doctors with transphobic religious beliefs to deny treatment even when the surgery is a good idea. And this denial of medical treatment seems to he an imposition of the doctor’s religious beliefs on the patient.
#15050887
It is also clear that this judge’s verdict was to allow doctors with transphobic religious beliefs to deny treatment even when the surgery is a good idea. And this denial of medical treatment seems to he an imposition of the doctor’s religious beliefs on the patient.


Really? Still on that?

There is no need for us to reset the arguments and defeat your position again. I recommend everyone read the actual evidence presented and ignore absurd terms like "transphobic". POD has yet to establish that one individual has or will be unable to get competent medical care. His is outrage in search of a focus.
#15050903
Then what is the point of this verdict?

The mandate said that qualified doctors would have to give medical treatment and could not discriminate according to sex, colour, religion, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

The judge changed it so that it was back to the old mandate that said that qualified doctors would have to give medical treatment and could not discriminate according to sex, colour, age, or religion.

The BS about forcing unqualified doctors to do it is just that: BS.
#15050911
I already read it.

I then discussed the quoted text from it that showed did not change Obama’s requirement that the treatment had to be approved by a medical professional.

That was where we got the information showing that the OP was wrong when it claimed that doctors would have to so it even when it was a bad idea.

————————

Again, if you have any text showing that this is not about allowing doctors to refuse treatment in transphobic grounds, feel free to show it to us.
#15050942
That was where we got the information showing that the OP was wrong when it claimed that doctors would have to so it even when it was a bad idea.


You are completely missing the point. I am too tired tonight to tear into it again. The short answer is that the original rule was ambiguous and so the department changed it. You can't deny that.

I am just not going to debate this anymore nor am I going to respond to your usual "just so we both understand that..." bullshit. I am not going to play in a discussion where you take a person's deeply held religious beliefs and reduce them to an inappropriate and non descriptive term for bigotry. Your religophobia is abhorrent to me. I am, in my heart, a conservative and therefor I believe in individual rights to conscience which includes their right to personal choices that sometimes others find inconvenient or worse, overrides another individuals temporary inconvenience.

We do not need the government telling us that we have to behave a certain way, when it offends not only our conscience but possibly even colors our professional best judgment. And that professional judgment is at risk when, as in this case, the practitioner is open to accusations of bigotry should the patient disagree with the practitioner's judgment.

Seriously POD. This time you are punching above your weight. I get that you fashion yourself a champion for everyone who can somehow call themselves an oppressed minority. But medicine is something completely different from a wheelchair ramp or the right to wear a feather to school. There is often no broad consensus about whether a disease or dysphoria even exists not to mention what treatment (if any) is appropriate. In this case many practitioners are way out over their skis.

I know you will not admit this. I know you will not be inclined to do the reading to understand that there is little consensus among professionals and, especially when it comes to so-called trans children, open hostility to some ideas.

So I am going to get out of this discussion. You can say whatever you want about my leaving. If you want to drop the nonsense of attacking individuals who have deeply held religious beliefs then I am happy to discuss the medical aspects of this as much as I know anything about them. And promise to stop using the anti-intellectual and frankly childish term "transphobia".
#15050989
Drlee wrote:You are completely missing the point. I am too tired tonight to tear into it again. The short answer is that the original rule was ambiguous and so the department changed it. You can't deny that.


I find it amusing that you are being vague and ambiguous about what the original rule was supposedly so vague about.

Since you quoted the part where I discussed how doctors would have to do it even if they think this is medically unsound, the department did not change that bit.

You even quoted the part where they said they would not change it because it was fine.

So, no. It was not so vague that they wanted to change that part. We know this because they did not change it.

I am just not going to debate this anymore nor am I going to respond to your usual "just so we both understand that..." bullshit. I am not going to play in a discussion where you take a person's deeply held religious beliefs and reduce them to an inappropriate and non descriptive term for bigotry. Your religophobia is abhorrent to me. I am, in my heart, a conservative and therefor I believe in individual rights to conscience which includes their right to personal choices that sometimes others find inconvenient or worse, overrides another individuals temporary inconvenience.

We do not need the government telling us that we have to behave a certain way, when it offends not only our conscience but possibly even colors our professional best judgment. And that professional judgment is at risk when, as in this case, the practitioner is open to accusations of bigotry should the patient disagree with the practitioner's judgment.

Seriously POD. This time you are punching above your weight. I get that you fashion yourself a champion for everyone who can somehow call themselves an oppressed minority. But medicine is something completely different from a wheelchair ramp or the right to wear a feather to school. There is often no broad consensus about whether a disease or dysphoria even exists not to mention what treatment (if any) is appropriate. In this case many practitioners are way out over their skis.

I know you will not admit this. I know you will not be inclined to do the reading to understand that there is little consensus among professionals and, especially when it comes to so-called trans children, open hostility to some ideas.

So I am going to get out of this discussion. You can say whatever you want about my leaving. If you want to drop the nonsense of attacking individuals who have deeply held religious beliefs then I am happy to discuss the medical aspects of this as much as I know anything about them. And promise to stop using the anti-intellectual and frankly childish term "transphobia".


I stopped reading after that.

None of this seems to be relevant. Most of the stuff you say about me personally is also insulting and wrong.

But you tend to go for the personal insults in these cases.

There are many ways to approach a construction si[…]

Looks to me as though he's getting paid for every […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I disagree with this, but I also don't think &quo[…]

The actual argument (that the definition is being[…]