Tweet
Bam Bam is worried about his tax dollars going to gender reassignment surgery in his latest hysteria-laden e-blast. He calls it “subsidizing the elective practice of genital ‘sex-change’ mutilation.”
The right wing has been knee-deep in shilling misinformation and twisting facts to frighten people. It's no surprise he wants to fixate on something he believes is fertile ground for generating heat on Obama's health reform. Trans-bashing is easy; I'm sure we'll see more about this, since even he knows trying to ban reproductive freedom at this point is a losing proposition for his crowd.
Gee, a lot of people call circumcision genital mutilation, since it is not medically necessary or medically appropriate, but is commonly covered by health plans. Is Barber against that as well, or is that just a matter of religious freedom subsidized by the taxpayer. Just asking.
DATE: August 4, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ObamaCare Likely to Mandate Free “Sex-Change” Surgeries
Washington, DC – When asked by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) whether President Obama’s proposed socialized healthcare plan will mandate taxpayer funded abortion, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) admitted that it will require “any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.” It now appears that the plan’s “medically appropriate” umbrella is far more expansive than most Americans could have imagined.
In addition to abortion on demand, the weight of the evidence indicates that cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgeries for both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who suffer from APA recognized “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) may also be provided – free of charge – courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. The current price tag for such a procedure can exceed $50,000.
Page 972 of the House version of the bill (H.R. 3200) provides for “standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health and health care” based on “sex, sexual orientation [and] gender identity.” The Senate draft indicates that the government will “detect and monitor trends in health disparities,” requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to “develop standards for the measurement of gender.” (i.e., officially recognize subjectively self-determined “transgender” or “transsexual” gender identities). It further mandates ‘‘participation in the institutions’ programs of individuals and groups from…different genders and sexual orientations.”
Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action commented: “There’s a gulf of difference between what Obama and liberals in Congress, and the American people deem ‘medically appropriate;’ especially when it’s ‘we the people’ footing the bill. To force Americans, against their conscience, to fund abortion on demand and to facilitate gender confusion by subsidizing the elective practice of genital ‘sex-change’ mutilation is unconscionable.
“After hearing Sen. Mikulski’s ‘any service deemed…medically appropriate’ admission, I was prompted to dig a little deeper. I contacted the offices of Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. Barney Frank and the House Subcommittee on Health. I asked, very simply, for ‘an assurance that the proposed healthcare plan will not allow taxpayer funded gender reassignment surgeries or hormone therapies.’ When faced with the bill’s relevant language, every staffer I spoke with either declined to answer or would neither confirm nor deny that such procedures would be covered.
“It’s time for the mainstream media to do its job and demand straight answers on this government healthcare scheme. Instead of acting as ObamaCare cheerleaders, journalists need to ask the same questions I did and refuse to take ‘no answer’ for an answer. I also call on the American people to ask their Congressional representatives the following question: ‘Will you pledge to oppose this legislation unless taxpayer funding for both abortion and sex change surgeries are expressly excluded?’
“It’s no wonder that, as Americans find out what’s hidden within this socialized ObamaCare monstrosity, furious opposition to it continues to skyrocket.”
11 Comments
:eyeroll:Of course, it’s never worth dignifying Barber with a response, but it’s important to point out that (at least as far as I know), there’s no proposal under consideration to mandate coverage for any medical procedures associated with transsexuality and gender transition, neither by the government nor by private insurers. Forget “the surgery”, I’m not aware of a legal requirement to provide prostate exams for trans women and pap smears for trans men (assuming, of course, they’ve got health insurance at all).
This is more of the same old, same old blathering on about “special rights.” The danger is that while most folks don’t agree with (or even know about) Barber, this kind of rhetoric makes it harder for us to get people to understand how underprivileged we are. Most of my cissexual friends have no clue about how bad the health care situation is for transsexual people, just as a great number of allies of gay and lesbian people are opposed to homophobia, but don’t really understand how widespread and damaging its impacts are.
Bam-Bam’s forgetting something here…
Maybe he hasn’t noticed, but some American people are already forced, through Medicare, Tricare, and the VA, to subsidize medical procedures against their consciences. But I haven’t noticed the Jehovah’s Witnesses out in force demanding a stop to government funding of blood transfusions. And while I personally find it ghoulish to keep a person who has no hope of recovery alive by hooking her up to a shipping pallet’s worth of machines, if somebody wants their Medicare-covered grandma to hang on another day or two or ten, well, that’s their call, not mine, so I chalk up my personal tax impact on that one to the cost of living in a civilized society and move on.
Personal libertyI knew this would come up sooner or later. Conservatives are so about personal liberty and freedoms, but only their version of it. What’s next? Does he want to require a religious counseling session at the doc’s office?
GD, Take it on!!!I’ve seen this a couple times, now. And frankly, getting vocal and countering this $#!t with the facts is one of the best ways to make it possible. This is actually an opportune way to open this dialogue, and I can guarantee you that the more extreme the far right goes to lie about it, the more people will see through it.
Instead of worrying about how the transgender bogeyman might hurt healthcare, it has to be turned around. It’s what we’ve been doing in Alberta, and although the government hasn’t changed its position, I can tell you that the media and a significant amount of the public have changed position by learning about our stories, about how cosmetic GRS isn’t, about the medical facts of the matter.
I’m in Canada, but would be happy to help anyone interested in taking on the matter.
Sex-Reassignment-Surgery for $50K?Last time I asked a guy, his phalloplasty including follow-ups and so forth cost quite on the way up to $100K. Plus the cost of the chest surgery, another $12 – $15K or so as was mine. Or are they averaging costs of FtM and MtF surgeries?
If a person has a uterus with a disorder that can be treated quite satisfactorally medically, it should be done. If a person has a prostate that’s misbehaving, what difference should it make if the prostate-bearing person is a standard issue man or a trans-woman?
There certainly should be coverage for prostate exams for transwomen who have them and Pap tests for transmen with cervices.
Gastric Bypass Surgeries for Obese Evangelicalsare cosmetic and ought not be covered, either.
Just how do politicians and religious types get to make demands on medicine based upon their prejudices and in defiance of science.
Bam Bam Should Look on the Bright SideObamaCare would pay for him to have a brain implanted in that empty cavity between his ears.
Taxation without representationSince he thinks the government health insurance plan should not cover any gender therapy, I guess I’ll withhold sending them my taxes.
Dena
Fix his wrist too.
MercedesI love your writing, but I’m a bit skeptical about applying your experiences to the US. I’m not saying it’s not worth a try, but I am saying that demonstrating that GRS is important, life saving, and non cosmetic is largely irrelevant to getting insurance coverage. I think you could argue that covering GRS may save insurers and the government money, but I’m still pretty skeptical about getting government support for gender transition, much less government mandates on private insurers.
I bet…they’d be the first people to advocate “genital mutilation” for children born with ambiguous genitalia.