It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On the same day President Barack Obama announced his controversial transgender school bathroom policy last month, a somewhat more sinister mandate was finalized by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with consequences for health care providers, insurance companies, and American taxpayers.
The rule contains an explicit definition of gender identity that states a person can claim to be male, female, neither, both, or some combination of the two, said Roger Severino, director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation.
...
If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.
The regulations provide an example of how a doctor could discriminate against a transgender patient, Severino said. If two people are both candidates for a hysterectomy, one a woman with uterine cancer and the other a woman who wants fewer woman parts to look more like a man but is otherwise perfectly healthy, the doctor could be found to be discriminating against the second woman by choosing to treat the woman with cancer instead. The rule states all the second woman would need to attempt to force the surgeon to perform an elective hysterectomy is a note from a psychologist affirming her desire to become a man, Severino said.
...
Among other things, it notes the regulations could open health-care professionals and insurers to extensive legal liability if they decline to provide or pay for sex transition treatments, even if they are deemed medically unnecessary or unwise.
...
Unlike some mandates associated with Obamacare, this rule provides no provision or safeguard for religious persons or providers. A Catholic hospital system that tries to adhere to Roman Catholic teaching about humans being either male or female by refusing to perform a hysterectomy on a healthy woman who wants to become a man may be held in violation, Kacsmaryk said, because there are no exceptions for religious institutions in this rule. The only option is to sue, as Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor did over Obamacare’s requirement that employers pay for employees’ abortifacients.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: daryllyn
If you are treating someone "like a woman," how do you tell them they have prostate cancer? Technically, you can't because women, real ones, do not have prostates.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: daryllyn
If you are treating someone "like a woman," how do you tell them they have prostate cancer? Technically, you can't because women, real ones, do not have prostates.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: daryllyn
If you are treating someone "like a woman," how do you tell them they have prostate cancer? Technically, you can't because women, real ones, do not have prostates.
Insanity. There is no other word.