Texas judge halts federal transgender health protections

No go on a new set of rules allowing transgender people new rights. The new Federal directive would require public schools to let trans use what ever bathroom they want. The argument was that this could force Dr.'s to violate their religious beliefs and treat the trans individual with their new ID. The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund says that the new directives are great for Trans and they plan on winning in appeal.

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.

The latest injunction signed by U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor comes four months after he blocked a higher-profile new set of transgender protections — a federal directive that required public schools to let transgender students use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Several of the Republican-controlled states that brought that lawsuit, including Texas, also sued over the health regulations that were finalized in May.

Civil rights groups hailed this as groundbreaking anti discrimination protections. The TLDEF says that the new regulations violate the ACA. This is a mess, and I find it difficult to follow all the different complaints. Just use the bathroom your plumbing tells you to.

Civil rights groups had hailed the new health rules as groundbreaking anti-discrimination protections. The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund said the new U.S. Health and Human Services regulations advised that certain forms of transgender discrimination by doctors, hospitals and insurers violated the Affordable Care Act.

Plaintiffs will be forced to go against their religion or keep current policies that violate the new directives of enforcement risk consequences. The TLDEF thinks that the injunction is contrary to existing law thinks they will get their way on appeal.

"Plaintiffs will be forced to either violate their religious beliefs or maintain their current policies which seem to be in direct conflict with the Rule and risk the severe consequences of enforcement," O'Connor wrote.
Transgender rights advocates have called that a far-fetched hypothetical, saying a person would not approach a doctor who lacked suitable experience and expertise.

The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund criticized the injunction as contrary to existing law and said it expects the ruling to be overturned on appeal.

"Judge O'Connor's conclusion that transgender people and persons who have had abortions are somehow excepted from protection is deeply troubling, legally specious, and morally repugnant," said Ezra Young, the organization's director of impact litigation.

www.yahoo.com...

a reply to: seasonal

When will humanity call a square a square and a circle a circle?

A birth defect is a birth defect.

Otherwise, its a socially influenced trait.

How is transgenderism against Religion exactly???

What Religion?

a reply to: chadderson


I think this bathroom argument is silly. You got an inny, womens room, you got an outty, mens room. Simple.

Dr.s, they are supposed to treat people, now I am not familiar with the trans "struggle" so I think the Dr. should treat them if they want and can. This is the sticky part, at least I think it is.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Its not, and what is more, even if it was against a religion, a doctor or medical institution ought never place its religious affiliation before scientific and medical care quality, no matter the convoluted nature of the argument put forward. Any doctor putting his religious beliefs before his devotion to science and particularly the science of caring for patients physical and psychological well being, should not be practicing any kind of medicine, in any format. Period.

a reply to: TrueBrit

But that's precisely what's happening with the wave of "religious freedom" laws that have been passed in many States recently. They give different businesses and groups the "right" to discriminate their services based on their religious convictions. (To be more accurate, they typically protect businesses and groups from punishment if they discriminate based on religious beliefs.)

ETA: Each State that has passed them has different criteria for "legally protected discrimination", though. So it makes it hard to pinpoint a single argument against them.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
How is transgenderism against Religion exactly???

What Religion?

the whole 'debate' is Flawed, on purpose.

- the real religion behind transgenderism, is the very realm who fabricated these transgender animal bodies we live in. But ofcourse that is not mentioned. : it is presénted, as if this is a war between modernism and outdated conservatism/christianity.
All the thousands who suddenly 'discover that they are transgender', and the theme pushed by the [canaanite] clique who are in charge, simply follow the dark realm which máde these bodies, in the first place : saturn's Dualism.

that is why there exists an "Isis with a phallus" etc , in the texts.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
How is transgenderism against Religion exactly???

What Religion?

No. Forcing a doctor to go against his or her beliefs in provision of care is what is being argued. Health care providers have long had freedom of conscience where things like abortion (another topic that fell under this set of rules) are concerned.

The left apparently thinks they have learned from that mistake and are moving to make sure no one is free to refuse the dictates of government and conscientiously object. Think about this long and hard ... it could set a precedent for conscientious objector rules in the military too.

Oh and speaking of military, the military doesn't force its own doctors to do what the government wants to force civilian doctors to do.

As a doctor, you don't get to pick and choose who you help. If you are gonna have issues treating ANYONE... a doctor is not who you should be.....a reply to: seasonal

a reply to: ketsuko
And do you want a pi$$ed Dr. treating you?

Use the plumbing that fits your plumbing.
You can't be offended by your own parts.

originally posted by: ketsuko
No. Forcing a doctor to go against his or her beliefs in provision of care is what is being argued. Health care providers have long had freedom of conscience where things like abortion (another topic that fell under this set of rules) are concerned.

What type of care would go against a doctor's religious beliefs?

originally posted by: AlomaRa
As a doctor, you don't get to pick and choose who you help. If you are gonna have issues treating ANYONE... a doctor is not who you should be.....a reply to: seasonal

There are valid studies that show that transgender surgery may not be a treatment though. The subject is controversial for a reason and it doesn't necessarily have to do with just not wanting to serve those icky transfolk, but also about not wanting to slice off healthy, functional body parts and drastically alter metabolisms with hormone therapy where it may not actually be indicated or therapeutic in any physical sense.

Doctors are not psychologists. They treat the physical body, and they are supposed to "do no harm" which is sort of what a transgender surgery may be doing.

a reply to: AlomaRa

This is more that just treating Trans, it is about abortion. I don't know the ins and outs of this huge mess, but Dr.'s can refuse to do that. Again I am NO expert in this messed up issue.

added
[cause some people read poor] ,
..i dont pitch 'christian straightness' against 'transgenderism'

it is this awful type ape body we got into, which has many abberations
and it's expression of 'straight love' i find but little less animalistic as 'transgenderism'

So can Pagans stop paying taxes because some of it goes to the Forest Service who sells trees to loggers???

Isn't that against their religion?

I am so tired of these bogus religious scams.

a reply to: loNeNLI

Do you think that you ought to be able to go into any doctor and demand he cut off your arm because you feel like you should have only one?

Remember, doctors are not your slaves. They didn't go into the job to just do whatever you demand they do.

If you have a cold and your doctor tells you as much, do you demand he give you antibiotics anyhow and pitch a fit when he refuses?

a reply to: ketsuko

Wait, are you claiming that people are asking their general MD to perform sexual reassignment surgery?

That is not the case. Surgeons who perform sex reassignment surgery specialize in this and that's what they do. No one is asking someone who does not perform such surgery to all of a sudden do so.

a reply to: seasonal

Once transgenderism is recognized as the mental disorder it truly is then those with this disease will find protection under the Americans with Disabilities Acts. Until then they are just some weirdos wanting special rights.

a reply to: CB328

If Christians can too, Planned Phood.