Texas Federal Judge Grants Injunction to Group Who Wants to Discriminate against Trans People's Right to Health Care

Yesterday, I read an article online in the Washington Examiner that a Federal judge in Texas granted a temporary injunction against regulations in the Affordable Care Act that mandates health care providers provide medically necessary health care services to people who identify as transgender.

 "The Catholic Benefits Association, which represents more than 700 Catholic employers including many hospitals, filed a lawsuit in federal court Dec. 28 in an effort to get its members exempted from the rule. Five states and several other Christian healthcare providers are already fighting the requirement in another case against the rule. A Texas judge halted the rule over the weekend.

The rule, which went into effect Jan. 1, says that doctors can't refuse to provide medically necessary health services within their scope of practice because of a patient's gender identity. For instance, a gynecologist couldn't refuse to perform a cervical Pap test for a transgender man .The rule doesn't explicitly require doctors to perform gender transition services, but it says providers can't refuse services they already provide based on discrimination. The Department of Health and Human Services wrote that it would deal with complaints of discrimination on a case-by-case basis, by looking into whether a doctor provides the same service when it's not related to gender transition.

"These provisions do not … affirmatively require covered entities to cover any particular procedure or treatment for transition-related care," the rule says." ( Washington Examiner 1/3/16)

Those who are suing believe that the rule can be interpreted so that medical providers would be compelled to specifically provide medical care for medications and procedures that are directly related to transitioning, such as prescribing hormones, gender reassignment surgery, feminizing voice therapy, or mental health services.

I think that their argument is specious at best; no health care professional can be compelled to practice in an area that they have no training or expertise (or interest for that matter). As a transsexual, I would not wish to place my health care for specific services that related to my own transition in the hands of a provider who did not have expertise in those areas related to my transition and ongoing medical care.

However, there are many areas of health care that we receive that have nothing to do with our transition. For instance, everyone needs to have the blood chemistrys, lipids and blood counts done done once or twice a year as part of routine health care. People need to be treated for high blood pressure and screened for breast cancer, colorectal cancers and other health conditions related to aging, regardless of their gender identity if they are biologically at risk for these conditions. I'm reminded of Robert Eads, who had ovarian cancer and was unable to find health care professionals in Georgia who refused to investigate symptoms that suggested cancer until it was too late for him to be cured and he died needlessly due to blatant discrimination based on his identity. I think such callous treatment of any human being is criminal.

It is concerning that some members of the new Trump Administration appear to be opposed to transgender rights established by the Obama Administration, notable Vice President elect Mike Pence. The nominee for the Health and Human Services Tom Price has also voiced opposition to the Obama Administration's policies as well, but Obama's agenda included allowing those who have not had gender reassignment surgery to use locker rooms and showers with cis gender individuals and personally, while I am for free access to public rest rooms, I think the Obama Administration's position on locker rooms and shower facilities were only trying to create a political wedge issue and there would have been much less opposition to enacting rules that allow for bathroom use only. 

It is difficult to find whether these individuals are strictly anti trans in every circumstance or whether they have more nuanced views. Primarily, I find the truth difficult to come by because the media is openly biased and does not report the news objectively any more. Transpeople are lumped in with GLB coalitions and people don't even understand who we are. The media certainly doesn't distinguish in reporting news that pertains to us. In any case, I think that if a health care professional refuses to provide medically necessary treatment that is non transition in nature, that health care provider should lose their license to practice.

 Again, time will tell. Mr. Trump himself appears to be at worst, neutral towards transgender people, and in some instances has expressed support for us.

I think it is incumbent for us to communicate with our legislators of every political persuasion by writing to them and writing in a respectful and well reasoned tone about what we believe. If one wants to persuade a legislature, one should not engage in hyperbole or be antagonistic in nature. We have more to gain by respecting civility, rather than engaging in a rant. 

Donald Trump, the Islamic Radical Terrorist Threat, and American Politics

Donald Trump is a Republican candidate in the coming Presidential election. Recently, he called for a ban on allowing Muslim refugees from entering the United States on a temporary basis and has been denounced both by Democrats and the majority of  Republicans. The American news media have shed all pretense of being objective in vociferously attacking Trump rather than staying true to their role of simply reporting the news objectively. That isn't surprising however. The majority of news agencies have been pushing a liberal political agenda as long as I can remember going back to the late 1960's and now the minority of news agencies are no less objective in reporting by pushing a conservative agenda. It is curious, though, how many Republicans have joined the bandwagon calling him a racist and a bigot.

I am not a supporter of Donald Trump. Eight years ago he was a vociferous supporter of Barak Obama, who has easily eclipsed, in my opinion, the worst president of my lifetime, Jimmy Carter. Obama makes one nostalgic for the old days when Carter contributed to destroying the U.S. economy with high taxes and seriously weakened national security. He brought our nation the energy crisis that left us with terrible energy shortages. Gasoline was rationed in the summer of 1979 and I remember having to wait in long lines because you could only buy gas every other day depending whether your license plate ended in an even or an odd number. Jobs were difficult to come by and wages were lagging with inflation. President Carter brought us an economic index called the "Misery Index" Because of his perceived weakness as a President who was weak on national defense, we had the Iranian hostage crisis, which only ended after our citizens were held in captivity by Iran. His administration sold out our closest Middle East ally, Israel. He gave away the Panama Canal, which is now controlled by the People's Republic of China. Amazingly, the Iranian hostage crisis ended within the first several weeks after President Reagan was sworn into office as President of the United States. While Iran had no fear of Carter, they knew that President Reagan was not a leader to further antagonize. But even President Carter had the common sense to ban Iranians from entering our country and revoked the Visas of Iranian Students who were studying at our colleges and universities during that time of crisis.

President Obama cannot even identify the threat to our country as Radical Islamic terrorism. He consistently underestimates the threat ISIS poses to our country, calling them the (Junior Varsity) in January of this year after the first terrorist attack in Paris, and announcing that ISIS was contained the day before the horrific attack in Paris in November of 2015. My best hope is that he is merely incompetent and out of touch about the danger we face here and abroad, and my worst fear is that his pronouncements are a deliberate intent to aid and abet the destruction of our country and our way of life. His address last Sunday and the recent statements of our attorney general reveals that he and his administration consider us more of a threat to Muslims than Radical Islam is to the citizens of the United States. I find that quite astonishing.

When Reagan left office eight years later, our country was strong economically and our national defense was strong. It is really quite hard to believe that the United States has fallen so far in such a short period of time. My opinion is that much of the responsibility lies at the feet of liberal Democrats and center left to left leaning Republicans. Both the Democrat party and the Republican party have sold us out.

So why am I not a supporter of Donald Trump, you may ask? I am not a supporter of him for several reasons. While I agree with most of the things he says and what he says appears to resonate well with conservative people, the way he presents his views are unacceptable as he antagonizes people and does not try to persuade people who disagree with him. He does not present himself or his views in a presidential manner.

I also question whether he is a Trojan Horse, really a liberal democrat who is out to destroy any chance of electing an alternative to Hillary Clinton who will continue the policies of destroying our country that Barak Obama began. Apparently, he is a good friend of Ms. Clinton's too. I simply do not trust him to govern in a manner that is consistent with his stated political opinions. I do believe that he is an extremely divisive figure and not a uniting force in America.

As far as his opinion that we should temporarily ban Muslims from entering our country, I agree with that position as our government has proven itself incompetent in screening Muslim Immigrants coming into our country. In Europe, we have seen that ISIS (or ISL, or however we call them on any given day) has secreted terrorists among the refugees flooding the European Union. Mr. Trump NEVER said that Muslims in America today should be rounded up, interred in prison camps or expelled from our country. He simply believes that no Muslims should be granted entrance to our country until we can determine who they are, their history and whether they pose a threat to our country. Given that a Pew Poll in 2013 found that 13% of Muslims in our country are sympathetic to Radical Islam and would like to see Sharia Law imposed in America, his position seems prudent.

Here in America, we have accepted almost no Christian refugees (less than 1% and more persecuted than anyone in the Middle East), while the majority of  Muslim refugees are not women and children, but young men of military age. There is something VERY WRONG with this picture, and our government has no clue about the background of these people they are allowing into our country, even in the face of vocal opposition of the majority of the American people. In my opinion, this is a prescription for disaster.

Until we can find a way of learning exactly who these Muslim people are, my hope is that they will be prevented from entering the United States until they can be properly identified and certified accurately as not being a threat to American citizens. These people do not want to assimilate into American Life, many want to bring Sharia law to our country. They are hostile to Western values and are hostile to the existence of transgender people. We need to find ways of properly evaluating each of the refugees before they are cleared to enter our country
. 

What a Difference Fourteen Days Make

When I last posted two weeks ago ("Useful Idiots"), I was actually referencing what I believe is either the gullibility, the ignorance or the deliberate failure, or unwillingness of President Obama (and those who blindly follow him) to identify Islamic terrorism for what it is. One can only wonder what his motives are.

He dismisses the threat to freedom and way of life that Islamic terrorism poses to our country. He sees ISIS as the "J.V. team": and told us that the threat of terrorism originating from the
Islamic world was contained the day before Paris was attacked for the second time in less than 12 months. Is he merely disengaged? Is he not in touch with the reality of what is happening abroad and in our own country? Is there something more to what is going on than what people are willing to say on the record  about what they think his motivations really are about?

In my opinion his inability to take seriously the threat not only to our country, but to Western Civilization in its entirety is beyond comprehension. For some reason he cannot bear to utter the words "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamic Jihad. No other Western ally has a problem with identifying the nature of the threat to our civilization.

It is all well and good that Barak Obama has made progress in creating a more equal playing field for transgender people in the United States, but what will it amount to if he delivers people such as myself to radical Islamic terrorists who will execute me as soon as they can get a chance, along with others who are Christian and Jewish, or who do not bend to to their perverted and distorted concept of the will of Allah.

 Could it be that he is essentially lulling us into a type of political stupor while he unwittingly   (or deliberately) delivers us into the hands of those who will destroy our way of life? Really, does he truly believe that "Global Warming", now relabeled as "Climate Change" (because they couldn't really ever sell the idea that Global Warming is man made and a threat to our survival) is a greater threat to our existence than Islamic Terrorism?  I guess he really showed the Islamic terrorists by having that conference on climate change in Paris.

I do not believe that the religion of Islam is evil. I believe that all the religions of the world are how God has revealed Himself to different peoples of the world. However, as we all know, there are people of all faiths who pervert religion to serve purposes of evil and to subjugate other people who believe differently. This is the case with Islam today. 

It is irrelevant to waste time worrying about where Barak Obama was born or if his faith is Christian or Muslim It really doesn't matter. What does matter is his behavior. Why does he have such a singular of purpose in forcing America to admit "refugees" from Syria who mainly consist of young Islamic males of military age, relatively few women and children and no Christian refugees from the Middle East when the majority of Americans recognize the threat they pose and do not want them to enter our country? 

His behavior is strongly reminiscent of that Neville Chamberlaine, the former British Prime Minister who sold out Great Britain and Western Europe to the Nazis. Really, was Chamberlain's politics so different from Obama's? Those who do not take heed and learn from history will repeat it.

Why does he try to dictate to other countries to seal their borders, yet he  insists having open and porous borders in the U.S., particular on our southern borders when we know Muslims who have been tied to Syria and terrorist organizations are entering through this poorly controlled border.

In the United States, a 2011 poll from Pew showed that 21 percent of Muslims are concerned about extremism among Muslim Americans. 19 percent of American Muslims as of 2011 said they were felt favorable toward Al Qaeda.

It's time to take the threat to freedom that radical Islamic terrorism poses to our way of life very seriously. Soon it will be too late. It's time to stop paying attention to what Barak Obama says and start paying attention to the consequences of what he does.

I pray to my God it is not too late to turn back from the road of self destruction that we are on, but in the best case scenario, it will be a long uphill battle to save our nation.

In the current climate, I am fearful about maintaining an on line presence. I have debated about deleting this blog. I have not made a decision. I have, however, discontinued most of my social networking on line. I'm not sure it is a safe thing to continue to do. At this time I remain undecided. It is a decision I will have to make in the near future. The internet being what it is, though, it may be too late. Who knows?

And If Pope Francis Does Meet With Barak Obama........

I hope that Pope Francis inquires of Barak Obama why President Obama allows just under a quarter of a million Muslims from the Middle East into our country each year but won't allow Middle Eastern Christians to enter our country when they are so horribly persecuted and murdered in a genocidal manner by ISIS and other Muslim terrorist organizations. Inquiring minds want to know!

So Now We Learn the Vatican Has Objected to the White House Guest List

As our French friends would say, "Quelle Surprise!" (What a surprise!) Not really. Of course the Vatican would object to a White House reception that Obama planned in order to attempt to humiliate the Pope, Catholicism and Christendom at large. To participate in that planned circus would be a humiliation of the greatest degree. Perhaps Obama expected the Pope to bow to him and his controversial guests as Obama has made a show of bowing to other leaders of State who he thinks America owes apologies to for our history.

Pope Francis is a very liberal Pope and endorses views that I personally oppose, such as open borders and a belief that global warming is the result of human activity ( more on that perhaps another time, some scientists are lobbying to have Obama legally prosecute other scientists who dissent from the opinion that global warming is the result of human activity). He holds other views that I do not agree with or support, but I respect Pope Francis and believe that he has done things that have been good for the Catholic church and for the progress of Christendom at large. He has granted audiences to people who are transsexual and not rejected them, though the teachings of the church is at odds with the belief that transsexuals and transgender people have a place at the table in the world of Christendom. He has met with gay people as well and seems to say they should not be excluded from being offered the sacraments, though he believes having a transsexual or transgender identity or gay sexual orientation is a sin. Christian theologians recognize that there is no sin greater than another and while I disagree that I am sinning because of my identity as a woman, I know that I can be forgiven for that if it is a sin as it is no worse than any other sin.

In principle, Obama and Pope Francis share much on an ideological basis. It puzzles me why Obama would attempt to set up such a situation. Is it mere arrogance? Obama seems to be able to act outside of the United States Constitution with impunity. However, Pope Francis and the Catholic church are much bigger than the United States and in this instance, it might behoove Mr. President to remember his place in the grand scheme of the world and seek to build bridges instead of continuing to burn them to the ground.

Mateo Williamson, Barak Obama and Pope Francis

Barak Obama has decided to welcome Pope Francis to America and to the White House by inviting some guests to help him greet the Pope. He has invited Gene Robinson, a retired Episcopal Bishop who is a gay man, Sister Simone Campbell, who is a pro abortion nun and is the Executive Director of the social justice lobby group Network, and Mateo Williamson who is supposed to be representing "transgender" people to the Catholic church.

First, I must question why Barak Obama is insisting on sticking his thumb in the eye of Pope Francis and by extension Catholics in America and the rest of the world? How will this possibly move the dialogue forward between Christians who are Catholic, and by extension all Christians who are not accepting of abortion, particularly unfettered access to abortion which includes partial birth abortion and the harvesting and sale for profit of the organs of unborn children? How does having a gay man who likes to wear women's clothes advance the acceptance of people who are transsexual with the Catholic Church and the broader body of Christ when he has nothing in common with transsexuals and confuses the public about who transsexuals are?

While the Episcopal church has recognized that gay people have a rightful place as members of Christendom and are just as much children of God as straight people, presenting Bishop Robinson along with Sister Campbell and Mateo Williams discredits the message that Bishop Robinson could bring to meeting with the Pope and diminishes the opportunity and hope for reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Episcopal and Anglican churches, which is a much desired outcome between these denominations. It certainly isn't going to help me find acceptance in the broader sense of Christendom. Presently, I worship with the Episcopal church, but I long for the day when I can find acceptance as a woman of Christ in the Southern Baptist Convention where I spent my formative years.

It utterly confuses me why Mateo Williams would be included in this meeting. I quote Mateo Williamson from his own words published in Breitbart News: "Today I identify as a gay man and before that was difficult to understand because I thought that in order to be transgender, in order to be a transgender male that I had to be attracted to females but I never have throughout my entire life.”

How he came to the conclusion that he "had to be attracted to women to be transgender" escapes me. I can only conclude he has never been familiar with the professional literature (of which I am very well acquainted dating back to the mid 1960's). In actuality, in the earliest days, professionals believed transsexuals must be attracted to men and there has been considerable debate on whether people who are attracted to women or can only imagine themselves as being women having intimate relationships with men were fetishists. I'm sure Barak Obama could have found someone more grounded and more knowledgeable about transsexualism to greet the Pope if only the President cared about substance over symbolism.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/16/white-house-invites-trio-catholic-dissenters-greet-pope-francis/

Mateo Williamson is not a woman of transsexual experience. He's a gay man who likes to wear women's clothes for whatever reason. He has had a clear confusion about his identity over the course of his life and that is what the problem with the umbrella term "transgender". His life and his experiences which make him sound by his own words to be a drag queen at best, or just another gay man, have nothing to do with people like me and others I know and have worked with. Presenting him in the context of representing people like me to the Pope devalues my unique identity and experience. People like him and people like me have nothing in common with the exception that we are all human and have the right to be respected for who we are, but other than that, we have nothing in common.

The fallacy of likening people like him with people like me is that his issues, plainly spoken in his own words, have to do with his sexual orientation. My issues are based on my gender identity. To have him publicly be the face of some conglomeration of people in which I am lumped in only makes it harder for the public to understand and become more tolerant of people like me.  

I do understand that what I rail against here means very little, but I do have a voice and a separate identity that should not be subsumed under some term like transgender or like LGBTQI (Et Cetera Ad Nauseam) that blurs my unique experience for some larger political lobby that does not represent me or care about my rights or needs. Because under that paradigm, any hope for advancement or gaining access to health care, or other basic human rights are slowed to a snail's pace.