House Republicans have tucked a provision into a must-pass defense bill that would strip health care from military families’ transgender kids, putting parents in a position of having to choose between their careers in the military and providing medically necessary health care for their loved ones.
The language slipped into the National Defense Authorization Act, which the House is voting on later this week, is buried on page 399 of the 1,813-page bill. Republicans added it at the last minute, after Democrats had worked with them to help craft the legislation.
It’s just one sentence: “Medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided to a child under the age of 18.”
Do puberty blockers result in sterilization? Top surgery certainly doesn’t. Gender affirming bottom surgery is often postponed until 18 in any case. And there are also nonsurgical options for preventing menstruation in the meantime, even if the person can’t take puberty blockers.
None of which makes this provision anything other than cruel bigotry. In fact, don’t tell them, or they’ll take out that phrase to make the ban more sweeping. But I feel like, while they were adding the last-minute provision, someone sneaked in the sterilization bit like a little fairy godmother making the curse a little less dire.
I think the problem is that it says “could.”
“may.”Many thing couldmaylead to sterilization that aren’t intended to or common. It’s weasal language. It looks not particularly bad, but it can be used to extend far further than the obvious.You mean could
Oh, yeah. Thanks for the correction.
BTW, going to a trans positive therapist to talk about gender and asking a school to used personal pronouns can both be considered gender affirming care (I’m a foster parent, so have seen this stupidness firsthand). So yeah, I count my blessings every time they try to ban the fictional stuff