Hey, there! Log in / Register

Local groups join in legal fight against Trump bid to let doctors, hospitals refuse to treat transgender patients

Fenway Health, the Transgender Emergency Fund of Massachusetts and the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth this week sued the federal government to stop a proposed rule that would let healthcare providers discriminate against transgender people.

The suit, filed in US District Court by plaintiffs who also include a transgender Ohio man and LGBTQ healthcare providers in New York and California, says the proposed federal "rollback" violates the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act and is just "arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and in violation of the Constitution."

The measure is due to go into effect on Aug. 18. In asking a judge to block that, the complaint charges:

The Rollback Rule was promulgated as part of a campaign of consistent, repeated anti-transgender sentiments, advocacy, and comments by the Administration as a whole. .... The Rollback Rule aims to denigrate LGBTQ+ people, particularly transgender people: falsely characterizing them as a threat, spreading misinformation and lies about them, and turning the federal government’s efforts to combat discrimination into efforts to promote discrimination.

The Trump administration published the proposed rule, set to go into effect next month, just days after the Supreme Court ruled employers could not discriminate against gay, lesbian, and transgender workers.

In the suit, the plaintiffs charge the measure would also allow discrimination against people seeking an abortion or even care for a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy and would make it harder for people who don't speak English by lifting a requirement to provide information in other languages.

Neighborhoods: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete complaint448.38 KB

Ad:

Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Trump continues to demonstrate what a sad excuse for a human being he is.

up
Voting closed 52

he doesn't think up this stuff-he can't think. He can identify ducks, apparently--and is proud of it!

But the Republican Party is evil. 140,000 people dead and they could care less--not their base.

I bet most Republicans would have no problem if--after Biden's victory--Trump suspends the government.

up
Voting closed 30

From personal experience, I have met only 1 person in my life that I would describe as Evil.
You on the other hand describe the whole Republican Party as evil. That is interesting, usually evil people are put to death or given life sentences. What are planning on doing to Republicans?

up
Voting closed 28

... but just show little sign of human decency are subject to no criminal penalties. Your question is ridiculous.

up
Voting closed 26

Show us the heroes in the Republican Party who have stood against this sort of bigotry and have always done so.

I'll wait.

What are YOU planning on doing to Republicans?

up
Voting closed 18

who seems to have any integrity at all is Mitt Romney.

Yeah, I can't believe it either.

up
Voting closed 19

So was Clinton.

This whole thing about 1 party being good and the other bad is dumb...

Even the lesser of two evils, is evil.

The choice between Burger King or McDonalds is no choice at all.

Show me a career politician—I will show you a criminal.

up
Voting closed 19

Who is worse, the millionaire who becomes a politician or the politician who becomes a millionaire?

up
Voting closed 16

Herring.

On an oblique: Can folks in the senate engage in insider trading?

up
Voting closed 12

Epstein the sex offender was a good guy? Huh. I guess Dalton was right. Opinions vary.

up
Voting closed 17

Actually agree.

But on another note: How does one survive in 2020 without the ability to discern sarcasm? That goes for the 4 of you that gave a thumbs up.

PT Barnum is still relevant I guess.

up
Voting closed 14

How does one make it to 2020 without learning that sarcasm just about never works on the internet?

up
Voting closed 20

it’s largely correct that the 2 party system is bad for everyone. but to say that republicans in this country are the same as democrats is just patently ridiculous.

up
Voting closed 20

Baker is not Donnie T.

Discuss the fly in your ointment. Please don’t disregard the roots of the KKK. Please tell us about how Pelosi sold tons of visa stock when the credit card companies were under the microscope. Is she alone? Please, again....let’s talk Epstein, Bill Clinton and of course the uber complicit Hillary...

Trumps tax returns will come out.

Biden may possibly win but civil war IS coming.

up
Voting closed 14

Please don’t disregard the roots of the KKK.

up
Voting closed 17

Discuss the fly in your ointment.

The ointment is 99.9% flies. The presence of Charlie Baker, who is reviled by those in power in the GOP, does not make the Republican Party anything other than the party of narrow privilege which it defends with increasingly vile and depraved methods.

Please don’t disregard the roots of the KKK

Please don't disregard the fact that this is at best an extremely misleading and dishonest statement, and in this case almost certainly an intentional lie made by someone who probably does know at least some aspect of the true history of the Southern Strategy, but is hoping that some of his audience doesn't.

Please tell us about how Pelosi sold tons of visa stock when the credit card companies were under the microscope.

Happy to! This is another attempt by you to tell a lie in the guise of a seemingly innocuous question. Nancy Pelosi bought Visa stock years ago and has held onto most of it. She sold some of it at one point for a loss.

let’s talk Epstein, Bill Clinton and of course the uber complicit Hillary...

By all means, let's. Precisely what allegations are you making? You say "Hillary" is "uber complicit[sic]", surely you can say what she's complicit in?

Trumps tax returns will come out.

Not while Richie Neal is in Congress they won't.

Biden may possibly win but civil war IS coming.

That sounds like a threat. Are you making a threat?

up
Voting closed 19

his republican base expect Talibanism and he delivers the hate they consume.

up
Voting closed 12

Why would gender define/refuse Healthcare?
People get sick. Hospitals treat them.

up
Voting closed 30

People get sick. Hospitals treat them.

Except when they don't.

That's what this is all about.

up
Voting closed 17

Are there really so many healthcare providers who refuse to treat trans patients, that this is a problem that needs solving?

A reasonable person can argue that the initial regulations were political posturing, and created regulation where it's not needed. This leads to today, where we have a "federal rollback" which itself is political posturing that maybe isn't needed either. In 2021 we might see a rollback of today's rollback, which will be even more posturing.

up
Voting closed 17

Also, licensing by the state.

If someone wants to stop treating trans patients due to religion? No license. No longer a doctor, no longer a problem.

up
Voting closed 23

I believe you mean Hippocratic oath. Normally, I wouldn't bother, but your spelling sort of implies something very different.

up
Voting closed 18

Are there really so many healthcare providers who refuse to treat trans patients, that this is a problem that needs solving?

Let's try it on you. Let's say that an unknown percentage of healthcare providers will refuse to treat people in your demographic, and an unknown percentage of hospitals will refuse to admit you, and the president of the United States wants to make that fully and unambiguously legal. Not a problem, right?

up
Voting closed 16

That's not even hypothetical. A nonzero percentage of healthcare providers already refuse to treat me, because they're out of network for my insurance.

So I use providers who are in network, and it's okay.

up
Voting closed 12

So if some percentage of providers in your network decided to arbitrarily exclude people who share some characteristic with you, you'd be fine with that?

up
Voting closed 14

...if providers in your network refused to treat you because of, let's say, your race.

up
Voting closed 12

That's not even hypothetical. A nonzero percentage of healthcare providers already refuse to treat me, because they're out of network for my insurance.

So I use providers who are in network, and it's okay.

jfc this is absolutely magnificent bullshit

but you've unintentionally made a great point, see if you can find it

up
Voting closed 15