Trump administration dismantles LGBT-friendly policies

[edjr 5,547]

 

The nation's health department is taking steps to dismantle LGBT health initiatives, as political appointees have halted or rolled back regulations intended to protect LGBT workers and patients, removed LGBT-friendly language from documents and reassigned the senior adviser dedicated to LGBT health.

The sharp reversal from Obama-era policies carries implications for a population that's been historically vulnerable to discrimination in health care settings, say LGBT health advocates. A Health Affairs study last year found that many LGBT individuals have less access to care than heterosexuals; in a Harvard-Robert Wood Johnson-NPR survey one in six LGBT individuals reported experiencing discrimination from doctors or at a clinic.

The Trump administration soon after taking office also moved to change the agency's LGBT-related health data collection, a window into health status and discrimination. Last month it established a new religious liberty division to defend health workers who have religious objections to treating LGBT patients.

The changes at the Department of Health and Human Services represent "rapid destruction of so much of the progress on LGBT health," said Kellan Baker, a researcher at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health who worked with HHS on LGBT issues for nearly a decade. “It’s only a matter of time before all the gains made under the Obama administration are reversed under the Trump administration, for purposes that have nothing to do with public health and have everything to do with politics.”

The policy reversals also come after President Donald Trump repeatedly pledged during his campaign that he would support LGBT causes. "Thank you to the LGBT community!" Trump tweeted in June 2016. "I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs."

The Trump administration defended its approach to LGBT health as part of its broader health care strategy.

"The policies of the Trump administration are intended to improve the lives of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community," White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah said in a statement. "Through actions aimed at making health care more affordable, rolling back burdensome regulations, and combating the opioid crisis, the administration is working to ensure a healthier America."

The new leader of HHS — Alex Azar, who was sworn in as secretary last month — is thought to be more pragmatic than his predecessor Tom Price. Azar previously led U.S. operations for Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical company that has been hailed by the Human Rights Campaign, among others, for its pro-LGBT policies. Lilly opposed Indiana's religious liberty law, advanced by then-Gov. Mike Pence, that LGBT groups said was discriminatory.

However, staff inside the health department have raised concerns about several other Trump appointees now in senior roles who had a history of anti-LGBT comments before joining the agency. Among them is Roger Severino, a former Heritage Foundation official who has said that the Supreme Court's 2015 decision on same-sex marriage was "wrong" and repeatedly warned of its consequences.

"ame-sex marriage was merely the start, not end, of the left’s LGBT agenda," Severino wrote in May 2016, about 10 months before he was tapped by Trump to be the health department's top civil rights official. "The radical left is using government power to coerce everyone, including children, into pledging allegiance to a radical new gender ideology over and above their right to privacy, safety, and religious freedom."

Asked in an interview this month if he stood by those comments, Severino pointed out that since joining the health department he had reached out to LGBT advocates. He also said his responsibility as civil rights chief is to uphold constitutional protections for all Americans.

"Statements I've made in the past are not binding on what I do in my role as a public servant," Severino said. "What I'm guided by, and what I'm required to follow, is the law… I'm dedicated to treating everybody fairly and in accordance with the law."

HHS officials also pointed to a listening session that Severino convened in April 2017 with more than a dozen LGBT advocates as well as several follow-up conversations with medical experts. "The outreach has been significant," an agency spokesperson said.

But nearly all of those LGBT advocates said they've essentially been ignored since sitting down with Severino nearly a year ago.

"There’s been no communication since then through all the channels that he and his staff know how to reach us," said Mara Youdelman of the National Health Law Program, who attended last year's listening session and submitted subsequent requests for information that haven't been returned. "It was a one-shot deal — and all of their actions speak much louder than words and one listening session."

Though Barack Obama as a candidate for president opposed same-sex marriage, his administration immediately took steps to advance LGBT health issues, like loosening the rules on hospital visitation rights after some same-sex couples had been barred from seeing each other.

"[A]ll across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides… [and] uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans," Obama wrote in a 2010 memorandum, instructing HHS to expand visitation rights, a policy that still stands.

The Obama administration in 2016 also finalized a regulation, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, that banned discrimination in health care based on sexual orientation and extended those protections to transgender individuals for the first time.

While some conservative groups said that the Obama administration moved too quickly on LGBT health priorities, its leaders argue their efforts were necessary, even overdue. "The purpose of the agency is to serve all Americans, not just straight people. Our job was helping everyone," said Kathy Greenlee, who was appointed as an assistant HHS secretary in 2009 and is openly lesbian. "There was pent-up support for these issues."

But upon taking office last year, the Trump administration swiftly froze a series of LGBT-friendly rules, including proposed new regulations to further ban discrimination in Medicare and Medicaid. A regulation that would have allowed transgender HHS staff more protections when using the department's bathrooms and other facilities also was ignored.

"It was signed and technically finished on Jan. 19, 2017, but not posted online," said one staffer. "And the new administration considered it unpublished and pulled it back."

The Trump administration also reinterpreted the ACA's Section 1557 anti-discrimination mandate, with the White House declining to fight a court battle to enforce it and signaling that it would roll back the rule. The health agency's new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, which POLITICO first reported last month, is expected to offer greater protections for health care workers who do not wish to treat LGBT patients.

Meanwhile, the agency's senior adviser for LGBT health — a lawyer named Elliot Kennedy — was reassigned from the HHS secretary's office to an HHS office in Rockville, Md., to work on disease prevention. Kennedy's previous portfolio, including leading a committee to review and advance LGBT policy issues across HHS, also has lost influence, after openly LGBT leaders left the agency and current LGBT staffers say they've been dissuaded from attending. The committee's annual report has not been publicly posted since 2016.

"Elliot Kennedy currently serves in the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion as liaison for Healthy People 2020’s LGBT Health Topic and Objectives," an HHS spokesperson said, in response to questions about the reassignment. "He continues to serve on the HHS LGBT Policy Coordinating Committee."

Another quiet battle has been over a pair of HHS surveys, with the Trump administration moving to strike questions about sexual orientation that had been added by the Obama administration in order to understand health disparities and LGBT specific health issues. The two surveys are used to shape policy for older and disabled Americans, respectively. The Trump administration subsequently reinstated some of the questions after an outcry.

"A lot of people think data are really boring. But data are fundamental, especially to public health," said Baker, the Johns Hopkins researcher. "The only way to have the evidence you need to prioritize and spend wisely to address disparities is to have data about those disparities."

The Trump administration says that it’s worked hard to engage LGBT health advocates, pointing to the listening session convened by Severino in April 2017 and attended by 17 representatives from groups that specifically deal with LGBT health.

"We've done a lot of outreach to the LGBT community to hear people's concerns to be open, to listen and to learn," Severino said. "And we will continue to do that because it's important. I see my role as serving everybody."

But all of the LGBT advocacy organizations represented at the April 2017 listening session said that they had concerns about HHS' approach to LGBT health. Nearly every attendee said they hadn't had meaningful interactions with Severino or the civil rights division in 10 months and they were underwhelmed by last year's meeting.

"There’s a difference between hearing and listening," said Robin Maril of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the attendees. "For a listening session to actually be successful, we would’ve had to see actual, meaningful engagement. And we’ve seen nothing but disappointing and harmful policies come out of HHS and [the civil rights office] since the meeting."

"A number of us struggled with whether we would participate in something that would be used for exactly this purpose … a charade to be used by folks to suggest they are open-minded," added Sharon McGowan of Lambda Legal, who also attended. "That was the lost cause that we suspected that it was."

 

 

I thought Trump said he would defend LGBT rights?

 

That being said, I have a hard time knocking a change to anything Obama had a hand in invoking.

[Voltaire 4,554]

I started to read it, but then saw how long it was and suddenly it dawned on me that I don't give a fock about LGBT anything anyway.

[edjr 5,547]

I started to read it, but then saw how long it was and suddenly it dawned on me that I don't give a fock about LBGT anything anyway.

 

[12th Man 884]

#MAGA!!

[Baker Boy 1,477]

So they removed the PC or as they call it LGBT-friendly language from documents.

[edjr 5,547]

#MAGA!!

 

Make America Gay Again

 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

One would figure an article that long could offer an example that supports it's headline.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

 

The Trump administration soon after taking office also moved to change the agency's LGBT-related health data collection, a window into health status and discrimination. Last month it established a new religious liberty division to defend health workers who have religious objections to treating LGBT patients.

 

Okay, that one is an issue. If you want to pick and choose which patients you take care of, you chose the wrong profession. That is one step shy of a police officer choosing which citizens he wants to serve and protect.

[edjr 5,547]

One would figure an article that long could offer an example that supports it's headline.

 

I made it 1/2 way before I quit.

 

I was only assuming a headline would actually have some bearing on the actual story. How silly of me

[vuduchile 1,940]

 

Okay, that one is an issue. If you want to pick and choose which patients you take care of, you chose the wrong profession. That is one step shy of a police officer choosing which citizens he wants to serve and protect.

Agreed to a point.

 

But what about a nurse whos asked to assist with a c0ckectomy? Will she have to do it just as bakers have to make those pen!s cakes?

 

Are we allowing individuals to draw a line anywhere anymore?

 

Also, a police officer is a public official. Most healthcare pros are not.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Agreed to a point.

 

But what about a nurse whos asked to assist with a c0ckectomy? Will she have to do it just as bakers have to make those pen!s cakes?

 

Are we allowing individuals to draw a line anywhere anymore?

 

Also, a police officer is a public official. Most healthcare pros are not.

 

You probably picked about the only example that could even be up for debate (performing a procedure specifically for sex chance purposes). If the administration's plan is to create rules specifically so someone can opt out of attending that procedure that could make sense, but what exactly are the odds that they are doing it for that singular purpose?

[edjr 5,547]

 

You probably picked about the only example that could even be up for debate (performing a procedure specifically for sex chance purposes). If the administration's plan is to create rules specifically so someone can opt out of attending that procedure that could make sense, but what exactly are the odds that they are doing it for that singular purpose?

 

 

can you opt out of your own sex change surgery? i'm in for that.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

 

 

can you opt out of your own sex change surgery? i'm in for that.

 

Haha. But seriously, the people who would demand that they be allowed to not treat someone who is gay because of their religious beliefs would be throwing a fit if a Muslim doctor refused to admit them to the ICU because they are Christian, or because they have an anti-Muslim tattoo, or other sh*t.

[edjr 5,547]

 

Haha. But seriously, the people who would demand that they be allowed to not treat someone who is gay because of their religious beliefs would be throwing a fit if a Muslim doctor refused to admit them to the ICU because they are Christian, or because they have an anti-Muslim tattoo, or other sh*t.

 

Agree. We are weaving an incredibly foggy web.

[tanatastic 2,061]

can you opt out of your own sex change surgery? i'm in for that.

That would be bigoted and cisgendered towards yourself. #metoometoo?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,587]

I doubt anyone is being denied necessary medical care for any reason. Ninnies.

[vuduchile 1,940]

 

You probably picked about the only example that could even be up for debate (performing a procedure specifically for sex chance purposes). If the administration's plan is to create rules specifically so someone can opt out of attending that procedure that could make sense, but what exactly are the odds that they are doing it for that singular purpose?

It doesnt really stop with the surgery though.

 

Once the c0ck is removed, the mutilated genitalia will need aftercare, presumably for years.

 

Is every gynecologist in the land compelled to provide care at that point? And if so, will they be required to pretend its a real vaj?

 

Also, doctors refuse to see patients all the time for more mundane reasons. Weve been told by several pediatricians that they arent accepting any new patients. And both my sons peni are still attached!

[edjr 5,547]

 

Is every gynecologist in the land compelled to provide care at that point? And if so, will they be required to pretend its a real vaj?

 

 

 

Imagine the horror and lawsuits?

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

Agreed to a point.

 

But what about a nurse whos asked to assist with a c0ckectomy? Will she have to do it just as bakers have to make those pen!s cakes?

 

Are we allowing individuals to draw a line anywhere anymore?

 

Also, a police officer is a public official. Most healthcare pros are not.

Almost all hospitals receive federal funding, so most healthcare providers do have to abide by their rules. But few practitioners perform gender reassignment procedures, presumably with a team of nurses, etc. comfortable with the procedure. Fundamentally, once completed the post-op isn't any different than other genitourinary procedures. And penectomies occur for reasons other than gender reassignment.

It doesnt really stop with the surgery though.

 

Once the c0ck is removed, the mutilated genitalia will need aftercare, presumably for years.

 

Is every gynecologist in the land compelled to provide care at that point? And if so, will they be required to pretend its a real vaj?

 

Also, doctors refuse to see patients all the time for more mundane reasons. Weve been told by several pediatricians that they arent accepting any new patients. And both my sons peni are still attached!

As above, pretty routine post-op care, which wouldn't require years. And no recommendation for routine pap/pelvics like a normal vag.

 

Lastly, you're correct that doctors already cherry pick their patients. Even things like EMTALA, which mandates ERs not refusing emergent care, are pretty easily circumvented.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

dont care, just like no baker should be forced to bake a cake, no doctor or hospital should be forced to provide tranny changes. Its a personal decision and there should be specialty practices like plastic surgeons who do this stuff, go to them

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Also, doctors refuse to see patients all the time for more mundane reasons. Weve been told by several pediatricians that they arent accepting any new patients. And both my sons peni are still attached!

 

I'm primarily referring to hospitals. As you have said, private practitioners haven't really been effected by LBGT protections much anyway just by the way they do business. But allowing doctors, nurses, and other therapists in a hospital setting to choose who they will and won't care for can most certainly create negative consequences for those patients (not to mention, your examples have all been regarding patients who have had/are having sex changes, so why would gays and lesbians need to be thrown into that mix?)

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

 

I'm primarily referring to hospitals. As you have said, private practitioners haven't really been effected by LBGT protections much anyway just by the way they do business. But allowing doctors, nurses, and other therapists in a hospital setting to choose who they will and won't care for can most certainly create negative consequences for those patients (not to mention, your examples have all been regarding patients who have had/are having sex changes, so why would gays and lesbians need to be thrown into that mix?)

 

because they are all grouped together, I miss the days when Lezzes and Phags hated trannies

[drobeski 3,061]

dont care, just like no baker should be forced to bake a cake, no doctor or hospital should be forced to provide tranny changes. Its a personal decision and there should be specialty practices like plastic surgeons who do this stuff, go to them

this

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

 

Okay, that one is an issue. If you want to pick and choose which patients you take care of, you chose the wrong profession. That is one step shy of a police officer choosing which citizens he wants to serve and protect.

 

I'm perfectly fine with this. The reason is because I believe in Capitalism and allowing the market to drive society. Once people know that certain medical professionals won't help homosexuals, a large amount of people with stop going to those facilities. Other facilities will promote that they accept all homosexual patients and reap the benefits. If you want to make the most money you can, then serve the most people you can. It's Capitalism at it's core.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

 

I'm perfectly fine with this. The reason is because I believe in Capitalism and allowing the market to drive society. Once people know that certain medical professionals won't help homosexuals, a large amount of people with stop going to those facilities. Other facilities will promote that they accept all homosexual patients and reap the benefits. If you want to make the most money you can, then serve the most people you can. It's Capitalism at it's core.

 

I'm glad you live in a world where there are multiple medical facilities in every area that cover every field. It is probably a magical place where everyone's insurance offers equal coverage no matter what hospital/doctor you go to, too.

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

 

I'm glad you live in a world where there are multiple medical facilities in every area that cover every field. It is probably a magical place where everyone's insurance offers equal coverage no matter what hospital/doctor you go to, too.

 

Then maybe more people should come to South Jersey. We have a TON of open space. Don't go up north though. It's nuts up there.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

 

I'm perfectly fine with this. The reason is because I believe in Capitalism and allowing the market to drive society. Once people know that certain medical professionals won't help homosexuals, a large amount of people with stop going to those facilities. Other facilities will promote that they accept all homosexual patients and reap the benefits. If you want to make the most money you can, then serve the most people you can. It's Capitalism at it's core.

 

I want to open my hospital next to my bakery

 

We do mutiliations, and while you are waiting you can order your gay cake

[ZeroTolerance 582]

On a side note, aside from the 'performing a sex change procedure' or performing gay marriage/making gay wedding cakes examples, I will never stop being amazed by people who go to church every Sunday, wear their crosses and WWJD bracelets, then argue for things like the right to refuse to take care of someone because they are gay. It seems to me there is no shortage of people whose thought process is "What would Jesus do? Oh, f*ck that, let's do something else".

[Hardcore troubadour 12,587]

On a side note, aside from the 'performing a sex change procedure' or performing gay marriage/making gay wedding cakes examples, I will never stop being amazed by people who go to church every Sunday, wear their crosses and WWJD bracelets, then argue for things like the right to refuse to take care of someone because they are gay. It seems to me there is no shortage of people whose thought process is "What would Jesus do? Oh, f*ck that, let's do something else".

Who refuses to take care of someone? Never heard anything like that. Made up.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

On a side note, aside from the 'performing a sex change procedure' or performing gay marriage/making gay wedding cakes examples, I will never stop being amazed by people who go to church every Sunday, wear their crosses and WWJD bracelets, then argue for things like the right to refuse to take care of someone because they are gay. It seems to me there is no shortage of people whose thought process is "What would Jesus do? Oh, f*ck that, let's do something else".

 

I am an athiest, but I this isn't a matter of refusal of care, you aren't going to go into the ER or urgent care, and see a sign that says no trannies, don't worry

[ZeroTolerance 582]

 

I am an athiest, but I this isn't a matter of refusal of care, you aren't going to go into the ER or urgent care, and see a sign that says no trannies, don't worry

 

I am not talking about facility-wide refusal of care, I am saying it is hypocritical for someone to be a nurse or doctor, be proud followers of Christ and pray to him every day, then say "I can't treat this patient because they are gay and I don't agree with that, assign someone else", which seems like the precise idea behind "a religious objection to treating LGBT patients".

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'm perfectly fine with this. The reason is because I believe in Capitalism and allowing the market to drive society. Once people know that certain medical professionals won't help homosexuals, a large amount of people with stop going to those facilities. Other facilities will promote that they accept all homosexual patients and reap the benefits. If you want to make the most money you can, then serve the most people you can. It's Capitalism at it's core.

Do you believe medical supply and demand behave like other markets?

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

Do you believe medical supply and demand behave like other markets?

 

Yes. Supply and diemand.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Yes. Supply and diemand.

Suepply and diemand

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,493]

 

I am not talking about facility-wide refusal of care, I am saying it is hypocritical for someone to be a nurse or doctor, be proud followers of Christ and pray to him every day, then say "I can't treat this patient because they are gay and I don't agree with that, assign someone else", which seems like the precise idea behind "a religious objection to treating LGBT patients".

 

I can't believe people still use this type of bullshit argument.

 

Also, refusing to saving someone life because they are LGBT isn't the same as refusing to participate in letting them getting their cut off so they can pretend to be a woman.

[Cdub100 3,366]

booohooooohooooo

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

Do you believe medical supply and demand behave like other markets?

Yes. It would work even better if there were no government funded health care and less regulation. Something that would happen if there were less Democrats in office.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Yes. It would work even better if there were no government funded health care and less regulation. Something that would happen if there were less Democrats in office.

I wonder why no healthcare in the world functions in such a manner?

 

The ideal healthcare system treats all patients solely according to medical necessity. Adding financial incentive/disincentive promotes unnecessary testing/procedures for those able to pay and substandard care for those who can't.

[wiffleball 4,631]

I started to read it, but then saw how long it was and suddenly it dawned on me that I don't give a fock about LGBT anything anyway.

 

Poy