81 Democrats Voted To Pull Care From Service Member's Trans kids. Here Are The Names.
www.erininthemorning.com
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.
  • Cypher@aussie.zone
    51·
    6 hours ago

    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.

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      5·
      5 hours ago

      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.

      • Cypher@aussie.zone
        2·
        5 hours ago

        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.