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. 

Reply to Edy on my last blog article "Time Loves a Hero"

Generally, I would have responded to Edy's comment which was polite and respectful as a reply under her comment but because I expanded my remarks in detail, it was too long there to post and instead I will post it as a separate blog article. Please read Time Loves a Hero to put this entry into proper context!

 Dear Edy,

Thanks for commenting on my blog. Originally, I supported Ted Cruz because of many problems confronting our country that are much larger than the ones I have as a transsexual.

 Our current circumstances remind of what John Kennedy said- “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Too often it is about what the government is going to do for me, anymore. I prefer to live my life with minimal interference or social engineering from the government.

Originally, I was for Ted Cruz because of what he stood for: Strong borders preventing people from entering our country illegally, a strong national defense, the willingness to prosecute a war against ISIS and Islamic terrorism, here in our country and abroad, and rebuilding the economy which has been pitifully lagging for the past 12 years or so. We need real jobs for people, not a lot of low paying part time jobs with no benefits that people can’t live on and no potential for potential career development. Initially, Ted Cruz looked as though he could deliver that better than the other Republican candidates.

It was towards the end of the primary election process that I learned what Ted Cruz was saying about people. As a result, I determined that Donald Trump would be the candidate I would support.

You mention the bathroom issue in North Carolina for being shocked that I would support Mr. Cruz or Mr. Trump. I believe the left created a problem where one really didn’t exist to attempt to create a wedge issue with voters.

This problem didn’t originate in North Carolina. It was originally created by the City Council of Houston, Texas, controlled by the democrats. They held a referendum on an ordinance for transgender rights to use public restrooms. People like me have been using the appropriate bathroom to our gender identity for quite some time. For the most part there have not been problems, particularly if we assimilated into our gender identity and have had our legal documentation changed. For the most part, the general public is not very well educated about the lives of transgender people. We have been largely invisible, something that has worked for me very well. I prefer it that way. The referendum was defeated, public attention and scrutiny of people who previously had no problems suddenly had unwanted attention cast their way. In response the City of Charlotte North Carolina passed an ordinance allowing transgender people to use the bathrooms appropriate to their gender identity. This provoked the North Carolina legislature to pass HB2 prohibiting transgender people from using the bathroom that is appropriate for them to use. Prior to the left getting involved there was not much of a problem. So I am saying “Thank You very little” for making my life more complicated.

Then to dump gas on a fire, Obama comes out saying transgender people will be allowed to use locker rooms and shower facilities. To me it’s an attempt to use people like me as pawns in the struggle of identity politics. I am adamantly opposed to being used for a fight that only served to further marginalize transpeople. Being pre op, I have no place in a woman’s locker room. After I have GRS,  then  that is an entirely different manner. Think about this: Why on earth would I want to put myself in a position to make other women feel uncomfortable with my presence? I share the same sentiments as genetic women about privacy and feeling a sense of safety when I use these facilities?

The bathroom is a totally different situation. Women’s bathrooms offer much more privacy. Everyone uses an individual stall with a door. You go in, do what you need to do, wash your hands and check your makeup and hair.

Let’s face it, NO ONE like to have something crammed down their throats, particularly when it’s something relatively unknown. I surely don’t. That’s why I feel like the left has used us like pawns. They don’t really seem to care about us individually, just as a collectivist block of votes. They see us as expendables. That’s why I don’t support the Democrats. It’s been the same way with the Gay Lesbian and bisexual political organ: they threw transsexuals under the bus as expendables since the times I can remember. We are an afterthought.

The Republicans in North Carolina were stupid to react to the Charlotte city council. They have been played like a fine Stradivarius violin. As they are poised to repeal HB2 in a deal with Charlotte, now Liberal Charlotte threatens to pull back to repeal their bathroom ordinance. They would rather score political points against Republicans and Conservatives than do the right thing and make the whole bathroom thing a nonissue again.

In any event, my belief is that my inalienable rights as a human are not granted or removed by any government; they are bestowed by my Creator, no matter how you define the Creator.

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.

It Seems Like Being an American Citizen Doesn't Mean Much Anymore

Today, I saw a news report from a source called "The Daily Caller" that reports an illegal alien who is also a convicted felon under our law (besides having entered the country illegally) was granted asylum because she claims she is a person who is transgender and alleges she was abused sexually by family members.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION

Federal Court: Illegal Immigrant And Convicted Felon Can’t Be Deported Because He’s Transgender

Blake Neff reports:

"A federal appeals court has ruled that an illegal immigrant and convicted felon can’t be deported back to Mexico because he identifies as a transgender woman, which leaves him vulnerable to torture back in his home country.

Edin Carey Avendano-Hernandez was born male in Mexico, and claims to have been raped by his brothers and suffered other torments. In 2000, he illegally entered the U.S. and took up residence in Fresno, California. Avendano-Hernandez also started taking female hormones and began living openly as a woman in 2005. In 2006, he committed two separate drunk driving offenses, the second of which injured two people and resulted in a felony conviction. After serving a year in jail, he was deported back to Mexico in 2007.

Back in Mexico, Avendano-Hernandez claims to have been subjected to more harassment from family and neighbors and to have been raped by members of the Mexican army. He illegally entered the U.S. again and, after being arrested, petitioned for sanctuary in the U.S. under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing that deporting him would violate the CAT because he would more likely than not experience torture at the hands of Mexican authorities.

An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) both rejected Avendano-Hernandez’s arguments on the grounds that he had committed a serious crime (felony drunk driving) and was not likely to face official torture.

Now, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says Avendano-Hernandez must be allowed to stay in the U.S., because he “more likely than not” will be tortured if returned to Mexico.

Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, an Obama appointee, chastised immigration officials for improperly handling Avandano-Hernandez’s gender identity.“The [judge] failed to recognize the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation, refusing to allow the use of female pronouns because she considered Avendano-Hernandez to be ‘still male,’ even though Avendano-Hernandez dresses as a woman, takes female hormones, and has identified as woman for over a decade,” Nguyen’s decision says. “Although the BIA correctly used female pronouns for Avendano-Hernandez, it wrongly adopted the [judge’s] analysis, which conflated transgender identity and sexual orientation. The BIA also erred in assuming that recent anti-discrimination laws in Mexico have made life safer for transgender individuals while ignoring significant record evidence of violence targeting them.”

Nguyen cites the repeated sexual abuse Avendano-Hernandez claims to have endured as evidence of de facto torture, and furthermore concludes that these actions were not crimes co“Avendano-Hernandez provided credible testimony that she was severely assaulted by Mexican officials on two separate occasions: first, by uniformed, on-duty police officers … and second, by uniformed, on-duty members of the military. Such police and military officers are “public officials” for the purposes of CAT,” Nguyen wrote. She added that this torture was likely to resume should Avendano-Hernandez ever return to Mexico.

The belief that Avendano-Hernandez was raped and tortured in Mexico appears to be based entirely on his own claims, which were deemed to be “credible” by his immigration judge.

Nguyen said it did not matter that in recent years Mexico has passed laws intended to protect its gay community, arguing that those laws don’t extend far enough to protect the transgendered.

The belief that Avendano-Hernandez was raped and tortured in Mexico appears to be based entirely on his own claims, which were deemed to be “credible” by his immigration judge.

Nguyen said it did not matter that in recent years Mexico has passed laws intended to protect its gay community, arguing that those laws don’t extend far enough to protect the transgendered.

“[L]aws recognizing same-sex marriage may do little to protect a transgender woman like Avendano-Hernandez from discrimination, police harassment, and violent attacks in daily life,” she said. She added that Mexican police sometimes target the transgendered for extortion and sexual favors, and said the country has an alarming number of unsolved murders of the transgendered.

The decision technically doesn’t spare Avendano-Hernandez from deportation, but it means his deportation will be delayed until he no longer faces a risk of being tortured.

While the decision only applies to Avendano-Hernandez, it could encourage more transgendered Mexicans to seek asylum in the U.S., as Nguyen’s description of torture in Mexico is quite general."

It seems to me that our government is not so concerned with protecting our U.S. Citizens and guaranteeing the rights of law abiding transgender citizens as they are trying to weaken the rights of American citizens across the board. It amazes and appalls me that our courts find that illegal aliens have the right to bear arms under the second amendment of the United States Constitution. Sanctuary Cities are allowing to illegal aliens to vote in their elections.

It seems to me that under the current government's interpretation of constitutional law, law abiding natural born citizens, including law abiding transgender citizens are not being afforded the Constitutional protections we are entitled to, while those whose rights have been suspended or removed due to criminal conviction, or because they are here because they entered the country illegally (which is in of itself a felony) are being afforded more protections and freedoms than the rest of us.

It really doesn't mean much to be a law abiding transgender American citizen, much less any American citizen anymore. Convicted felons who identify as transgender get better health care and more access to transgender health care up to and including sexual reassignment surgery. Anyone who claims they are transgender who are illegal aliens get asylum and get all kinds of access to social welfare programs and transgender healthcare no matter what crimes they commit, in addition to entering the country illegally.

Those of us who are natural U.S. citizens who go to our jobs and work every day and meet our daily obligations are pretty much short of luck in getting the health care we need. On top of that, to add injury to insult, we have to pay the government to take care of the people who have committed felonies and come here illegally. If we protest, then we are branded as racists and inhumane. We have to pay to provide transgender health care for convicted felons that we can't afford for ourselves. What a crock of junk this is for us to have to swallow. So yeah, I'm pretty disgusted at this point and to me it really does seem that being an American citizen doesn't mean much anymore. There's not much left to take pride in.