Uh, did I just not explain to you in the simplest possible terms? I think I understand it sufficiently for anyone who’s not an employment lawyer or working in H.R.
Reading your reply, I think you are conflating this decision with a separate issue and court case, popularly described as ‘Trump rolling back protections’ (a lie because the ‘protections’ were based on an unconstitutional Obama-issued ‘rule’)
“The provision says patients cannot be turned away because they are transgender, nor can they be denied coverage if they need a service that’s related to their transgender status...
The existing health care rule was first issued in 2016, six years after the 2010 Affordable Care Act was signed into law. The rule prohibited providers and insurers who receive federal money from denying treatment or coverage to anyone based on sex, gender identity or termination of pregnancy.
It also required doctors and hospitals to provide “medically necessary” services to transgender individuals, as long as those services were the same ones provided to other patients.
That rule was challenged in court by a group of Christian providers called the Franciscan Alliance. They argued the rule forces insurers to pay for abortions and compels doctors to perform gender transition services, even if they disagree with those services on moral or medical grounds.
A federal judge in Texas agreed with that argument, issuing a nationwide injunction in late 2016 that is still in effect. The ruling said Congress had outlawed discrimination based on “the biological differences between males and females” but not transgender status.
The new proposed rule has been under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget...”
President Trump is changing that rule, and scrapping Obamacare anyway. It has little to do with today’s case, except as far as activist judges will move to connect the two.
So in a broad sense, I guess you make a good point!
Uh, did I just not explain to you in the simplest possible terms? I think I understand it sufficiently for anyone who’s not an employment lawyer or working in H.R.
Reading your reply, I think you are conflating this decision with a separate issue and court case, popularly described as ‘Trump rolling back protections’ (a lie because the ‘protections’ were based on an unconstitutional Obama-issued ‘rule’)
“The provision says patients cannot be turned away because they are transgender, nor can they be denied coverage if they need a service that’s related to their transgender status...
The existing health care rule was first issued in 2016, six years after the 2010 Affordable Care Act was signed into law. The rule prohibited providers and insurers who receive federal money from denying treatment or coverage to anyone based on sex, gender identity or termination of pregnancy.
It also required doctors and hospitals to provide “medically necessary” services to transgender individuals, as long as those services were the same ones provided to other patients.
That rule was challenged in court by a group of Christian providers called the Franciscan Alliance. They argued the rule forces insurers to pay for abortions and compels doctors to perform gender transition services, even if they disagree with those services on moral or medical grounds.
A federal judge in Texas agreed with that argument, issuing a nationwide injunction in late 2016 that is still in effect. The ruling said Congress had outlawed discrimination based on “the biological differences between males and females” but not transgender status.
The new proposed rule has been under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget...”
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/440108-trump-poised-to-roll-back-transgender-health-protections
President Trump is changing that rule, and scrapping Obamacare anyway. It has little to do with today’s case, except as far as activist judges will move to connect the two.
So in a broad sense, I guess you make a good point!