gender-affirming care: Last News

NOTUS about how Democrats should approach people with reservations or genuine questions about transgender inclusion. “If, for instance, we want to have a majoritarian coalition — not just electorally, but specifically on issues around trans rights — that, by necessity, is going to have to include people who have a range of thoughts.“A binary choice between being all-on or all-off is not constructive for anyone,” McBride added.

2016 RAND Corporation study, commissioned by the Pentagon, that found allowing transgender members to serve openly had no negative impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness.In the February 26 memo, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense states that individuals who have been diagnosed with, or exhibit symptoms of, gender dysphoria “are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”Service members who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria or have attempted or requested to transition through hormone therapy or surgery are disqualified from military service and will be discharged within the two months.All discharges will be honorable, except in rare cases where an individual’s service record merits a lower designation.Some transgender individuals may be considered for retention, on a case-by-case basis, if they can demonstrate that there is a “compelling government interest” in retaining them that directly supports “warfighting capabilities.”To qualify for such a waiver, a trans service member must have remained consistent in their assigned sex at birth for 36 consecutive months and that their gender dysphoria has not impeded them from completing their mission. They must also prove that they never attempted to transition and have continued to adhere to standards of dress and grooming consistent with their assigned sex at birth.

Bangkok Post.Anukool said there is growing acceptance of diverse gender identities, and acknowledged that transgender individuals may often require hormone therapy to assist them in transitioning until their physical appearance aligns with their gender identity.As part of its budget planning for 2025, the National Health Security Board approved 145.63 million baht to provide health services, including hormone therapy, to approximately 200,000 transgender citizens of the country.According to the Asia Pacific Transgender Network, there are believed to be approximately 314,808 transgender individuals living in Thailand.Thailand has long been considered one of the more LGBTQ-friendly countries in Asia. Its public opinion polls show overwhelming support for same-sex marriage rights, and it has a reputation as a destination where transgender individuals can seek out gender-affirming health care.Because the country’s economy depends heavily on tourism, it has begun courting LGBTQ tourists.

The Washington Post.Prior to late December, Amazon’s website said that the company stood “in solidarity” with Black employees and customers, and supported “legislation to combat misconduct and racial bias in policing, efforts to protect and expand voting rights, and initiatives that provide better health and educational outcomes for Black people.”The paragraph containing those statements has been removed.Also gone from the website are statements expressing support for federal and state-level laws guaranteeing legal protections for transgender people and bragging about the company’s health benefits for transgender employees.One since-deleted statement noted that Amazon provided “gender transition benefits based on the Standards of Care published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).”Amazon’s removal of the section on gender-affirming health care benefits has led some employees to fret about possibly losing insurance coverage for any form of gender-affirming care in the future as the company appears to be distancing itself from pro-LGBTQ workplace policies.

The Montana Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction blocking the state from enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth.The unanimous ruling is historic, marking the first time that a state Supreme Court has found that a ban on gender-affirming care is likely unconstitutional.On December 11, the court ruled that SB 99, a 2023 law categorically banning all transition-related medical interventions on minors, violates the Montana State Constitution’s privacy clause, which prohibits the government from interfering with private medical decisions.With the law blocked, transgender youth will still be able to access medical treatments for gender dysphoria — provided that their personal care physician does not refuse transgender patients due to intimidation or fear of being prosecuted.Several transgender teens, their families, and two medical providers filed suit last year to block the law, arguing that it violated the Montana constitution’s guarantee of medical privacy.

said Democrats didn’t “whip” the NDAA vote or advise their caucus members to adopt a specific position, instead allowing individual members to vote their conscience.Jeffries claimed there were “a lot of positive things” within the NDAA that had bipartisan support but also acknowledged the bill contained some “troubling” positions.House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) hailed the bill’s various provisions, including a pay raise for junior service members and improved housing for military families. He also fully endorsed more controversial provisions, including the ban on gender-affirming care for minor dependents and a prohibition on the teaching of “critical race theory” at military academies.The bill now heads to the U.S.

gender-affirming care for incarcerated individuals, a stance she adopted in 2019 when she was running for the Democratic nomination for president.“Kamala’s for they/them,” a narrator says in one of the ads. “President Trump is for you.”In a newer ad, the Trump campaign zeroes in on one transgender prisoner in custody in California, Shiloh Heavenly Quine, the first inmate in the United States to receive state-financed gender-affirming surgery.The ad, which misgenders Quine as a man, implies she received the surgery as a reward after having “murdered a father of three.”As Harris has previously noted, in a televised interview during which she was attacked by Fox mouthpiece Brett Baier, the Trump administration itself had adopted a similar policy of allowing transgender inmates to access gender-affirming care when such care was deemed “medically necessary.”Harris added that, as president, she would “follow the law” and allow such a policy to continue.The Lincoln Project has now come to Harris’s defense, cutting a new ad that lambastes Trump for his hypocrisy.“Have you seen this ad?” a narrator intones as a brief snapshot of Trump’s attack against Harris is shown.

New York Times exposé that showed his own Justice Department held a very similar position.Trump is not being widely called out for his hypocrisy, however. Most Democrats, save Harris, sidestep any mention of transgender issues — appearing concerned that their support of transgender rights will hurt them among moderate and swing voters.

Nonsense,” features clips of Harris speaking about her record as California’s attorney general with Mara Keisling, former executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. Harris discusses whether transgender inmates would be allowed to receive treatments for gender dysphoria that their doctors had classified as “medically necessary.”“Kamala supports taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners,” a narrator intones.

Nonsense,” features clips of Harris speaking about her record as California’s attorney general with Mara Keisling, former executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. Harris discusses whether transgender inmates would be allowed to receive treatments for gender dysphoria that their doctors had classified as “medically necessary.”“Kamala supports taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners,” a narrator intones.

an earlier order he had issued in April blocking state authorities from enforcing the law.He ruled that the ban doesn’t violate the Ohio Constitution’s health care freedom amendment, or an Ohio law requiring legislation be limited to a single subject, reports The Columbus Dispatch. “The court finds the health care ban reasonably limits parents’ rights to make decisions about their children’s medical care consistent with the state’s deeply rooted legitimate interest in the regulation of medical profession and medical treatments,” Holbrook wrote in his decision.Under the law — which Republican lawmakers passed over objections from Republican Gov.

writing on behalf of the 8-1 majority, found that while “fit parents” have a right to raise their children without government interference, that right is not absolute.The ban on gender-affirming care was approved by Texas lawmakers on a largely party-line vote, with Republicans pushing for the restrictions.Under the law, doctors are prohibited from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy to youth suffering from gender dysphoria. Doctors who violate the law are subject to disciplinary action and will have their medical license revoked by the Texas Medical Board.

ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender youth.Florida is currently one of 25 states with such restrictions in place.Hinkle’s ruling also blocks Florida officials from enforcing rules approved by the Florida Board of Medicine and Board of Osteopathic Medicine in order to comply with the law.Those rules not only bar youth from accessing gender-affirming treatments, but imposed the first-of-their-kind restrictions to make it more difficult for transgender adults in the state to access gender-affirming care.Among those restrictions were that adult patients could only see a doctor in person before receiving any kind of gender-affirming treatment, including regular prescription renewals. That limited the number of medical professionals available to transgender adults.

2022 ruling that Houston County, in rural Southern Georgia, discriminated against Anna Lange, an 18-year veteran of the county’s sheriff’s office, when it refused to amend a decades-old exclusion on gender-affirming care in its employee health insurance plan.Under the exclusion, county dollars are prohibited from being used, either directly or indirectly through insurance, to pay for treatments meant to assist someone in transitioning from one gender to another.Following a two-day trial after that ruling, a jury found that Lange had been unfairly discriminated against due to the insurance exclusion, and awarded her $60,000 in damages.Houston County appealed the lower court’s decision to the 11th Circuit, seeking to overturn it. The appeals court subsequently found that the that a health insurance provider can be held liable under Title VII for denying coverage for surgical interventions — which might otherwise be offered to cisgender individuals — due a person’s transgender identity.Additionally, the 11th Circuit found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion when it granted a permanent injunction blocking the county from enforcing the health plan exclusions for gender-affirming care.Referencing Supreme Court precedent finding that anti-LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace is inherently a form of sex-based discrimination, the appeals court found that the insurance exclusion in Houston County’s plan was a form of unlawful discrimination.“The Exclusion is a blanket denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery,” Circuit Judge Charles Wilson wrote for the 11th Circuit.

veto by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly.Had the bill passed, it would have banned all gender-affirming surgical and hormonal interventions for minors suffering from gender dysphoria, with penalties, including the loss of their license to practice.The proposed law also would have allowed former patients, or the parents of former patients, to sue any doctor who prescribed gender-affirming treatments.Critics of the bill say it also would have effectively barred social transitioning — which involves no medical interventions — by prohibiting any person or entity who receives state funds from advocating for social or medical transitions for minors with gender dysphoria.

filed a lawsuit against West Virginia officials on behalf of a Medicaid participant, Christopher Fain, who was denied coverage for gender confirmation surgery. That same lawsuit also previously challenged a similar exclusion contained in West Virginia’s state employee health insurance plan on behalf of two state employees who could not obtain coverage for gender-affirming treatments, either for themselves or their dependents.Lambda Legal subsequently added additional transgender plaintiffs to the case, including Shauntae Anderson.The state employee plaintiffs’ claims were eventually resolved by a 2022 settlement with The Health Plan of West Virginia, Inc., which removed its exclusion on gender-affirming care.The lawsuit subsequently resumed, challenging only the Medicaid exclusion.In August 2022, a federal judge ruled that West Virginia’s Medicaid program could no longer discriminate against transgender recipients by failing to cover the cost of surgical care deemed medically necessary for treating a person’s gender dysphoria.

challenge the law in court last month, were likely to suffer “immediate” harm, in the form of reduced access to health care providers willing to treat their gender dysphoria, if the law — which imposes penalties on doctors who prescribe gender-affirming treatments — were to take effect.Holbrook found that, because the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their lawsuit, it was best to issue a temporary restraining order “maintaining the status quo while the Court can more thoroughly review the evidence and argument following a full hearing.”Holbrook also noted that the whole law had to be blocked because lawmakers combined the bill banning gender-affirming care with a separate bill banning transgender athletes from women’s sports to gain the necessary votes to pass the Republican-controlled state legislature.In December, Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed the bill from taking effect, expressing qualms about infringing on parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their own children.

A transgender-led national nonprofit, The Gender Research Advisory Council & Education (GRACE), has launched its first commercial seeking to change the minds of politically right-of-center Americans to support transgender rights.The sixty-second ad, “Dads,” features an interview with Eric Childs, an Operation Iraqi Freedom combat veteran from rural South Carolina, who is the father of four children — including a transgender teenager. In the ad, Childs expresses how much he loves and supports his 15-year-old son –- whose name is not being published to avoid harassment and threats.

press release from the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Ohio Department of Health rolled back several rules and regulations that would have restricted access to gender-affirming medical care for transgender adults.In January, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine directed the department and the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services to file rules for public comment to ensure that individuals do not pursue a gender transition hastily.

tracker developed by the American Civil Liberties Union.According to the ACLU, Oklahoma currently has the most proposed anti-LGBTQ bills with 36 — though many of them are redundant, with lawmakers introducing their own versions of nearly identical bills.The state with the next highest number of bills is Missouri, which has introduced 28, and South Carolina, which has introduced 26.Most of the bills target the transgender community, taking the form of efforts to either redefine transgender existence out of law or place restrictions on transgender people’s ability to self-identify, access spaces, or receive services that affirm their gender identity.More than 200 bills focus on educational matters, including proposed athlete bans, curriculum censorship bills, and at least 38 requiring LGBTQ-identifying students to be outed to their parents in the name of “parental rights.”Another 120 seek to restrict access to gender-affirming health care for trans-identifying minors, with some even seeking to require transgender adults to overcome a number of bureaucratic or regulatory obstacles to receive transition-related treatments, which critics say is an attempt to frighten medical providers into refusing to see transgender patients altogether.Already, 24 states have passed some form of restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors, resulting in a flood of legal challenges from families with transgender children and from doctors who are penalized for prescribing gender-affirming care under the laws.While most lower-level federal courts temporarily blocked such bans last year, only one statewide ban, in Arkansas, has been declared unconstitutional.Other bans in Indiana, Montana, and Florida remain blocked, although bans in states