News
Court Rules Against Biden’s Transgender Mandate
In a historic decision, the federal appeals court determined that healthcare providers and insurers cannot be pressured to carry out or pay for gender-transition treatments if they are medically unwarranted or conflict with their religious convictions. With this ruling, anti-discrimination statutes are given less weight than constitutional rights for religious liberty.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit’s historic decision to unanimously reject HHS’ fiercely contested transgender rights requirement on December 9 is noteworthy not just for its significant legal ramifications but also for being in line with broader national tendencies to defend religious liberty.
TRENDING: NEW Trump Diamond Bills Will Drive Liberals Crazy!
The contentious Affordable Care Act requirement, which forced physicians to perform gender-transition surgeries on patients of all ages even when they recognized potential damage, was approved in 2016. The policy sparked a contentious discussion about how to strike a balance between doctor conscience and patient autonomy.
Private insurance providers and businesses are now required by law to pay the cost of gender-transition treatment, or risk serious repercussions. Such a mandate aims to guarantee that everyone has access to the necessary resources for their quest for self-discovery.
Medical specialists from HHS have expressed worry about the possible drawbacks of gender-transition treatments. In light of this, HHS has decided that Medicare or Medicaid plans shouldn’t pay these therapies.
According to a new research, changing one’s gender as a youngster might have serious effects, including weaker bones, cardiovascular problems, or even cancer.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the North Dakota Attorney General’s office stood up to defend their views in court in the face of vehement resistance from religious groups and states.
Luke Goodrich of Becket said in a statement that the federal government shouldn’t be charged with directing physicians toward actions that go against their moral code and can possibly harm patients. Instead, he advocated for a personalized approach to healthcare.
This decision protects patients, promotes the highest standards in medicine, and respects physicians’ solemn commitment to put patients’ health and wellbeing first.
In 2016, Becket filed a lawsuit on behalf of a humanitarian alliance made up of nuns, Catholic colleges, and hospitals committed to provide healthcare to the underserved.
In a Dec. 8 judgment, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with a lower court’s finding that the government requirement should be stopped because it violates the religious rights of Catholic Plaintiff, as stated. In order to prevent the injunction from going into force, the Biden administration appealed this case.
The 90-day appeals window and the 45-day opportunity for a rehearing for the Biden administration are quickly coming to an end, signaling the end of their legal options.
The White House did not comment on the decision, seeming to be mute on their position.
The Biden administration’s willingness to pursue any of the two choices was questioned by Goodrich during a media conversation.
The Supreme Court will rule in Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra whether the HHS Secretary’s policy on healthcare requirements for nonprofits is excessive. Religious freedom is at issue in Case No. 21-1890’s contentious legal conflict between the powers of the church and the state.
In addition to the Religious Sisters of Mercy, Becket is also defending a different organization that is contesting legal decisions made by Texas’ Northern District.
In Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra, a Texas judge first found that the requirement was likely to violate the right to freedom of religion in December 2016 but decided not to issue any restraining orders that may have prevented its implementation.
A court in 2021 gave medical staff and facilities permanent protection after those who were fighting the mandate appealed. This historic decision protects both their rights and patients’ access to treatment.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration’s legal efforts were unsuccessful.
On August 26, 2022, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision that upholds doctors’ right to decide whether to perform gender-transition procedures based on their moral and professional judgment. This decision safeguards religious freedom and medical conscience in healthcare settings.
Goodrich emphasized the negative impacts of government legislation that would force physicians to go against their strongly held views and reject their internal moral compass, noting how this action might have a negative influence on patients seeking treatment as well as be offensive to religious freedom.
Transgender rights have gained more attention during the Biden administration. The government has fought to resist conversion therapy and other change-allowing treatments developed by advocates in addition to supporting persons who choose to pursue gender transition surgeries and therapies, displaying their dedication to safeguarding these neglected communities.
Those who are looking for change in these areas may benefit from therapy designed for those exploring their gender identity and expression. This innovative treatment gives a chance for discovery and progress via individualized direction, from counseling for reevaluating sexual orientation to help with a past transition reversal.
A compelling perspective is offered by André Van Mol, a board-certified family physician and co-chair of the American College of Pediatricians’ Committee on Adolescent Sexuality: “Conversion Therapy” is an emotionally charged word that conveys negative connotations without a clear explanation.
This tactic of intimidation and covert anti-religious commentary aims to obstruct therapists’ efforts to provide patients access to resources for independent research on prospective life changes.
On June 15, President Joe Biden signed a historic executive order rejecting “conversion therapy” and attempting to safeguard every member of the LGBT community from prejudice. Unquestionably, this is a major step forward for a society that values and includes everyone.
The directive describes conversion therapy as an unwise and harmful endeavor to try to change someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. It is followed by a lengthy explanation that is seven pages long.
President Biden has called for action in response to the dangerous and debunked practice of conversion therapy. He is committed to eradicating this practice in order to protect the physical, mental, and emotional health of all Americans. He is aware that it may cause suicide rates to rise.
States and municipal governments are stepping up their efforts to safeguard children from the harmful, debunked practice of “conversion therapy.” Conversion therapy for kids is outlawed in over 20 states, and more municipalities are joining them in this crucial fight.
According to a 2009 American Psychological Association research, efforts to change one’s sexual orientation using therapy methods may be harmful and ineffective in most cases.
Medical experts have expressed doubt about the report from the American Psychological Association’s use as a reference point when talking about changing therapy.
The Task Force of the American Psychological Association confirmed in 2009 that since 1978, nonaversive therapy has served as a secure, therapeutic technique free from harm or shame. Van Mol told The Epoch Times in an email that this update has been misunderstood for years and needs to be clarified.
Van Mol responded to the report’s results by pointing out that there was no evidence to back up allegations that change-allowing treatment may have either beneficial or harmful consequences.
If therapy is not an option, gender dysphoria may have permanent effects for sexual minorities. Dr. X has raised worry about the GAT’s untested and experimental techniques, which medicalize youngsters despite the fact that many instances resolve on their own before maturity. This predicament may be prevented if there were available counseling choices.
Van Mol has questioned the safety and effectiveness of GAT since it hasn’t been shown to be effective in lowering suicide rates. Furthermore, under international standards, it is not accepted as the standard of treatment for young people who are experiencing gender dysphoria.
The Changed Movement, a worldwide group that promotes people to accept their self-identity beyond sexuality categories, was founded by Elizabeth Woning. She has played a crucial role in developing a platform that is encouraging for individuals looking for acceptance and knowledge of who they really are.
Conversion therapy is still a contentious subject and often portrayed in a bad manner. However, as Woning noted in an interview with The Epoch Times, LGBTQ-identifying people have the freedom to their own conscience, even if that includes looking for assistance that lessens uncomfortable sexual emotions.
A generalized approach to LGBTQ rights ignores the nuanced and distinctive manifestations of belief, morality, and lived experience.
Robert Vazzo, a therapist from Nevada, has spoken out against the attack against “conversion therapy” being launched by President Biden’s administration. He thinks that since the idea is not precisely defined, it is possible for the government to overstep its bounds and misuse its authority.
He warned that outlawing techniques with a broad definition would lead to a search for therapists who have different opinions on homosexuality and voiced his worry about it.
Vazzo said that several court decisions have upheld a therapist’s freedom to use their sessions as a forum for unrestricted expression, and that the courts uphold this right.
All of this Stems from the Obama administration, which pushed Americans into transgederism, hence the LGBT movement took of Yet no one including Let’s Go Brandon haven’t look at the Bible? The very book our country was build on & in Immoral Relations, Leviticus 18 chapter 22 & in the actual word of God, LGBT = IS AN ABOMINATION. Wake up America!
Can I use the same logic to get a body transformation surgery? After having 4 children, 2 transplants, repair of abdominal incisional hernia, etc and I need to have my body contoured and fat removed in order to survive. I have a higher probability of dying sooner and having this surgery will allow me to return to my previous self. About the same as have trans surgery. Turning them into a different gender, and me I just want my body returned before an illness did this to me. BTW that disease was caused by the Pharma industry.
Sanity, it still exists…