Ever since the Obama Administration classified individuals that identify as transgender as a protected class per mandates in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a serious breach on the individual liberty of physicians has been incurred.
Led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a coalition of five states and a group of religiously-affiliated hospitals and physicians organizations have filed a lawsuitagainst Obama's Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over the federal overreach that forces medical professionals to conduct gender reassignment procedures on adults and children despite the provider's proper medical judgement associated with such things.
Paxton has also had recent victories in litigation for compelling a federal judge to temporarily halt the roll out of the transgender bathroom guidance from the Department of Education.
In a 79 page complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Wichita Falls Division, Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky, and Kansas with several religious based medical groups like Franciscan Alliance challenge HHS Secretary of Health Sylvia Burwell and elements of her 11-agency cabinet department.
"HHS attempts to impose these dramatic new requirements by redefining a single word used in the Affordable Care Act: "sex." For decades, across multiple federal statutes, Congress has consistently used the term "sex" to refer to an individual's status as male or female, as determined by a person's biological sex at birth," the lawsuit states, " But in the Regulation, HHS redefines "sex" to include "an individual's internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female, and which may be different from an individual's sex assigned at birth."
Regardless, the suit has been met with a massive decry stating that it is a threat to adequate health care access for transgender individuals. However, what is commonly alluded is that people just wish to retain their individual liberty and right to chart out their own life. This sentiment goes for doctors, other health care professionals, and specific medical organizations that wish to retain their moral and religious belief while holding true to their personal interpretation of the Hippocratic oath.
One thing that is for sure is that this lawsuit opens up a multi-faceted debate on liberty, the free health care market, and whether or not Obamacare is (or ever was) a plausible policy option for the United States.
Considering the situation, the fact that the Federal government is mandating people to provide care to specific groups already betrays an effective health care market place.
Opponents of the lawsuit indicate that their is a systemic and institutional discrimination against Transgender individuals in the health care sector, mainly citing grounds of discrimination from "outdated" government policy and a push for more. One issue that is often brought up in any intuitive debate about transgender health care access is the argument that health insurance companies won't insure transgenders. Such an argument is true due to an insurance company's institutional First Amendment rights, size, and other aspects effect their segment of the market. However, there are several insurance companies that are eager to do business with transgender individuals. This same structure of economic reality also applies to access to primary care providers available in a network. Such a structure is especially the case because when only 3.8% of the population are identified as an LGBTQ associated classes and only 1.4 million of those people identifying as transgender.
What it really comes down to is that the individual who identifies as transgender, who maintains the individual liberty to identify how they wish, still can be given full access to the care they wish. Inadequacies in health care for poor, lower income transgender individuals can be blamed on the government, as well. The Daily Signal reported that the, "Obama administration does not require coverage of gender reassignment procedures under Medicare or Medicaid for children or adults.""Based on a thorough review of the clinical evidence available at this time, there is not enough evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries," a report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on amending access to reassignment surgeries for sufferers of gender dysphoria, specifically. The local Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) determine coverage of gender reassignment surgery on an individual claim basis.
Nonetheless, Doctors shouldn't have to be forced to mutilate one's genitalia if they don't agree with it. Applying the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 to this situation, "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."
In addition to the RFRA, these mandates are in direct violation of the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, several Constitutional clauses, the Administrative Procedure Act, and is outright unconstitutional.
I digress nonetheless. In order to live in a generally free society, a equal application of the law is required. This lawsuit couldn't have come at a better time. It is a win for all.
https://regated.com/2016/08/transgender-healthcare-lawsuit-win-free-society/
↧