In a breaking development, it has been reported that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is taking legal action against the Biden administration. The lawsuit is in response to the new mandate that requires health care providers to perform transgender surgical procedures, even on children, and forces states to cover the cost. Bailey has described the mandate as “radical” and is seeking to challenge its implementation. This is a significant move that is likely to have far-reaching implications for the healthcare industry and the legal landscape surrounding transgender rights.
According to a statement by Bailey, which was initially obtained by Fox News Digital, Joe Biden is once again overstepping his legal authority to impose his radical transgender agenda on the American public. The Administration is reportedly using federal funding as leverage to coerce healthcare providers into performing or endorsing irreversible and harmful transgender procedures, and those who refuse to comply may face severe consequences.
According to Bailey, he is joining forces with the American College of Pediatricians and the attorneys general of Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah to take legal action against the imposition of “experimental gender transition procedures” on Missouri health care providers by federal officials who are not in tune with the needs of the populace. The aim is to prevent the use of taxpayer money for such procedures.
Every year, more and more individuals are leaving their jobs at abortion clinics and joining the March for Life movement. As for me, I am a proud member of that growing group. I made the decision to quit my job at Planned Parenthood and stand up for the sanctity of life. This was not an easy decision, but it was the right one for me. And I know that many others are making the same choice.
The Biden administration has issued a new mandate that compels healthcare providers to perform transgender surgical procedures, even on children. Additionally, the states are required to cover the costs of these procedures. This information was reported by Fox News Digital.
According to the lawsuit, “Compelling doctors to harm children should not be an option.”
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently revised a regulation in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that establishes non-discrimination “on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in certain health programs and activities.” The safeguard also applies to healthcare services or programs that obtain federal funding.
The latest version of Section 1557 now broadens the definition of “on the basis of sex” to encompass “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy.”
According to the rule, it is important to note that a Nondiscrimination Policy’s ban on sex discrimination covers a range of sex discrimination types, including pregnancy and related conditions such as termination of pregnancy. The parenthetical in § 92.8(b) has been updated to reflect this provision’s reference to sex discrimination, which is in line with the various types of sex discrimination outlined in § 92.101(a)(2), including ‘gender identity.’
A group of researchers has put forward an argument that the phenomenon of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” does, in fact, exist, despite the prevailing narrative opposing it.
The definition of “on the basis of sex” has been redefined in the newly finalized Section 1557 to now include “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy.” (Image: ALLISON DINNER/AFP via Getty Images)
According to the lawsuit, the new rule poses a threat to doctors and states who fail to comply, as it may result in significant financial penalties and exclusion from federally funded healthcare programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
According to the lawsuit, providing this punishment would prevent doctors and states from offering medical assistance to the most underprivileged children in low-income areas.
The American College of Pediatricians has recently released a statement expressing concerns over the use of gender-affirming treatments for youth. The group claims that such treatments do not provide any benefits to young individuals and may result in irreversible consequences. The statement calls for a more cautious approach to be taken when dealing with gender dysphoria in children and adolescents. It suggests that therapies focusing on addressing the underlying psychological issues should be the first line of treatment, rather than resorting to hormone treatments and surgeries. The group believes that such treatments promote a false narrative that gender is determined by external factors, rather than biological sex, which can be harmful to young individuals.
Andrew Bailey, the Attorney General of Missouri, was present during a House Homeland Security Committee hearing that took place in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, January 10th, 2024.
Bailey argues that although the new rule aims to enforce the ban on sex discrimination in ACA Section 1557, neither that statute nor its predecessor, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, requires gender-transition procedures to be implemented.
In addition to violating the Affordable Care Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, the lawsuit contends that the new rule poses a threat to freedom of speech. Another issue highlighted is the lack of clear notice or agreement from states and healthcare providers with regards to the funding or provision of gender-transition treatments under federal insurance programs, both under the new rule and the ACA.
As of late, numerous conservative states have been implementing laws that significantly limit surgical and nonsurgical transgender procedures for minors. Some states, including Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Florida, have even gone a step further by criminalizing the act of providing gender-transition prescriptions or performing surgical procedures, such as sex changes, to minors. This lawsuit is just one example of the growing tension between those who support and those who oppose these types of laws.
At present, many states have implemented “shield laws” which safeguard gender-transition prescriptions and procedures for transgender individuals. These states include California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Illinois, and Massachusetts.
This report was made possible with the contribution of Kendall Tietz from Fox News Digital.
As a politics writer, Jamie Joseph takes charge of the Senate coverage for Fox News Digital. Her expertise in the field shines through as she delivers in-depth analysis and updates on the latest political developments.
