
As-yet-unnamed conservative groups are supposedly shopping around health care legislation that would strictly prohibit federal funds from being used in transgender surgeries, treatments, and procedures of any kind. And while no Republican has yet to put his name behind such rhetoric — "No taxpayer dollars for trannies!" — we just found the perfect candidate: Texas' Rep. Pete Sessions.
Actually, it'll never happen with Sessions — because the House already OK'd is version of the health care reform bill.
But it was Sessions, the NRCC Chairman, who in explaining why it's okay for women to pay higher health care costs than men, tried this one out in front of the House's Rules Committee: "Well, we're all different. Why should a smoker pay more?" (He uttered this "before getting interrupted by a burst of chatter throughout the room.")
Now, if an elected official compares having ovaries, breasts, and a vagina to the same health care concerns as someone who voluntarily inhales carbon monoxide and carcinogens, surely he's the kind of guy who doesn't want taxpayer dollars being used to convert that vagina into a penis. Maybe he has some friends in the Senate, who have yet to OK their healthcare bill?
Adam Lambert: Out Magazine Can Eat Shit + Die (135)
· Roger That says: Damn…if anything were going to make me ashamed to be gay, it would be the... »
· AxelDC says: I’m not sure why I am supposed to support gay guys who do everything to pretend... »
· dontblamemeivotedforhillary says: Out has sucked since Sarah Pettite left. It’s just soft porn... »
Is It Wrong to Report on a Marine Starring in Hardcore Gay Porn? (22)
· Cheeky says: A soldier performs in gay porn flicks that are broadcast on the internet. The soldier... »
· Another says: Eugene practically captured my longer sentiments. So let me just add to the post count... »
· AxelDC says: I adamantly oppose DADT, but I would think appearing in porn is a violation of military... »
“Did any provision in the Constitution guarantee a right to homosexual sodomy?” (26)
· B says: JRD wrote, “Does that mean the only arms we have the right to bear are single loading... »
Did Our Threats Really Convince Democrats to Announce Their DADT Repeal Timeline? (49)
· AxelDC says: Money talks; Dems glimpsed 2010 without gay cash and began to realize that maybe DADT... »
The D.C. Agenda Refuses to Write the Blade’s Obit (5)
· AxelDC says: Windows Media killed the Blade. It used to be a terrific local gay paper, with lots of... »
Welcome Back, Ru! … Hugo Chavez Supports the Gays, But Not Their Marriages (2)
· Helga von ornstein says: Let’s hope (or at least I do) that the producers will dig up Grace... »
Denying federal funds for cosmetic surgery is not the same thing as denying federal funds for the health care of "trannies" as you call them.
The culture that assumes a binary sex assignment is the "cure" for the "disorder" of transgenderism is the real bigotry against gender-variant people.
Don't go for the bait– the relative #'s of affected people and even of $ is so minimal. I am more concerned that there is no provision for drug dependence treatment, nor smoking cessation. Far more money and pain will be wasted by this shortsightedness.
From the Harry Benjamin Transgender Standards of Care:
Sex reassignment is not "experimental," "investigational," "elective," "cosmetic," or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound Gender Identity Disorder.
Yeah, and dentists will tell you every kid needs two years of braces.
i wouldn't want to my tax dollars to pay for it either.