The National Defense Authorization Act has a provision barring the military's insurance from covering gender-affirming care for service members' children.
They’re still exchanging trans rights for those provisions, and if they cared as much as they said they did about them, it would have been a non-starter.
First, do no harm - you wouldn’t exchange women’s suffrage even if it was for something like Medicare for all, so why is it ok to exchange trans healthcare?
Oh, to live in the ideal of a world of do no harm… Reality is messier unfortunately. You often have to choose between one harm and another.
You can argue whether delaying this harm (which would still have come in January) was worth the benefits that would have been lost from delaying. That’s up to you. But to think that you can do no harm is just silly.
I personally don’t think a 1-month delay is a worthwhile trade-off for the things we would have lost.
But let’s be real about the impact. If you can find a trans person that would have gotten their surgery covered on January 3rd and that is negatively impacted by this, I’m happy to champion their GoFundMe and pay into it myself. I’m sure the Dems that voted for the lesser of two evils could be guilted into it as well.
As in the case with 3rd trimester abortions, the point isn’t that it’s a common procedure, the point is that care is being denied to people who need it in the most desperate of cases on top of it setting further precedent of government intervening with medical care for arbitrary ideological reasons.
Fascists will point to this as proof that democrats don’t actually oppose reactionary policy, just like they point to their support of border walls and immigrant deportation as evidence of ‘common sense’
Republicans intentionally raise these issues in order to erode trust in democratic institutions, and when democrats repeatedly cave to these ridiculous demands they prove Republicans right.
They’re still exchanging trans rights for those provisions, and if they cared as much as they said they did about them, it would have been a non-starter.
First, do no harm - you wouldn’t exchange women’s suffrage even if it was for something like Medicare for all, so why is it ok to exchange trans healthcare?
Oh, to live in the ideal of a world of do no harm… Reality is messier unfortunately. You often have to choose between one harm and another.
You can argue whether delaying this harm (which would still have come in January) was worth the benefits that would have been lost from delaying. That’s up to you. But to think that you can do no harm is just silly.
I personally don’t think a 1-month delay is a worthwhile trade-off for the things we would have lost.
But let’s be real about the impact. If you can find a trans person that would have gotten their surgery covered on January 3rd and that is negatively impacted by this, I’m happy to champion their GoFundMe and pay into it myself. I’m sure the Dems that voted for the lesser of two evils could be guilted into it as well.
As in the case with 3rd trimester abortions, the point isn’t that it’s a common procedure, the point is that care is being denied to people who need it in the most desperate of cases on top of it setting further precedent of government intervening with medical care for arbitrary ideological reasons.
Fascists will point to this as proof that democrats don’t actually oppose reactionary policy, just like they point to their support of border walls and immigrant deportation as evidence of ‘common sense’
Republicans intentionally raise these issues in order to erode trust in democratic institutions, and when democrats repeatedly cave to these ridiculous demands they prove Republicans right.
Is the perception of good better than doing actual good? I feel like that’s your argument but I’m not sure.
No amount of voting or not voting would prevent this travesty becoming law.