Does Joe Biden really understand the controversy behind his executive order on trans rights? - Suzanne Moore

[stumbledin]

Not sure she is saying anything new but important it is being said in a main stream paper. But then like the Times it is right wing and behind a paywall. Would be good to have tv news etc. report on #BidenErasesWomen.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/23/does-joe-biden-really-understand-controversy-behind-executive/

The Reuters factcheck only showed that Biden didn’t make one specific comment that had been attributed to him.
It still quotes his campaign site as stating that he would ensure LGBTQ+ people have full access to all appropriate health care treatments and resources, including covering care related to transitioning and gender confirmation surgery.

And the health care religious division in the USA is a massive issue. I suspect they will be allowed to opt out as is the case with so much other care.

It's a totally different ball game to here.

Their challenge is related to religious reasons which already causes massive harm and if they win surely it just concretes it more.

The full details of the case should be read. It is not just about religious-belief based objections:

www.scribd.com/document/521845866/American-College-of-Pediatricians-Complaint?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=470X756Xe0189b6178a1b656e064176e25f8baeb&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate

The very top of that doc it says it's from American college of paediatricians n behalf of Catholic medical association.

It doesn't say that NiceGerbil.

It says the plaintiffs are:
American College of Pediatricians, on behalf of its members; Catholic Medical Association, on behalf of its members; and Jeanie Dassow, M.D.

Yes

To me that reads it's being brought on behalf of one section of their membership not the whole org.
And a random woman.

She looks ok.

Google

Catholic org

catholicreview.org/catholic-medical-association-joins-lawsuit-over-hhs-transgender-mandate/

'Alliance Defending Freedom’s attorneys argue in the filing that HHS has reinterpreted Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits sex discrimination, “to include gender identity and thus require gender-transition interventions, services, surgeries, and drugs on demand, even for children, no matter a doctor’s medical judgment, religious beliefs or conscientious objection.” If doctors and hospitals do not comply, they will be held liable for discrimination.'

Previous judgement

'Franciscan Alliance, based in Mishawaka, Indiana, is a Catholic health care system now known as Franciscan Health that operates hospitals serving Indiana and one hospital in Illinois and employs over 18,000 full- and part-time employees.

“The Christian plaintiffs contend that violation of their statutory rights under RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) is an irreparable harm,” O’Connor said in his ruling.

“The court agrees,” he said, “and concludes that enforcement of the 2021 interpretation (of Section 1557) forces Christian plaintiffs to face civil penalties or to perform gender-transition procedures and abortions contrary to their religious beliefs — a quintessential irreparable injury.”'

This is about a massively harmful issue in USA with religion in particular RC having right to not not provide/ or delay certain things that are very important.
Massive numbers of RC hosps in USA.

These are the groups that make things difficult for abortion, contraception etc.

And these things are all linked. Ability of these docs/ orgs to exercise religious beliefs when treating.

It's a way more involved thing than this.

Overturning that right would mean logically massive ramifications. Is that going to happen?

The doc point 1 includes religion (conscience) and point 3 specifically.

I don't know what you're getting at. This is from the ACPeds website.

ADF attorneys filed suit in federal court Thursday against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for its reinterpretation of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits sex discrimination, to include gender identity and thus require gender transition interventions, services, surgeries, and drugs on demand, even for children, no matter a doctor’s medical judgment, religious beliefs, or conscientious objection.

acpeds.org/press/acpeds-challenges-hhs-gender-transition-mandate

I don't know how they make decisions about legal actions like this. There may be some individual members who disagree, but that's the same with any large organisation. There doesn't seem to be any indication that there is only 'one section of their membership' (which section?) which is in favour of this action.

What makes you think this isn't something most of their members would support? It sounds like something I'd expect responsible medical professionals to support.

And points 4 and 11.