Does Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, justify enforcing doctors to violate Hippocrates' oath and perform castration to deal with transgender ideology? A reasonable legal mind cannot reach that conclusion.
However, the judiciary has been so politically compromised that even the fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals, perhaps conservative, has supported the interpretation of laws that force physicians to carry out these procedures, or Medicaid. You risk losing your Medicare refund.
Why doesn't Trump's orders get the same respect when doctors have to wait until they're punished to challenge the rules? What happened to legal consistency?
As part of the Biden administration's relentless efforts to impose transgender ideology across the country, the president issued an order last year interpreting section 1557 of affordable care, requiring physicians to irreversibly castrate It was done as. Originally designed to prohibit discrimination based on gender under the 1972 Act, Section 1557 is now twisted into the legal justification of previous administrations for these procedures.
Yes, it's deeply flawed
Bostock v. Clayton County Decisions – Thanks to Judge Neil Gorsuch – expanded the 1972 law to include protection for transgender individuals. But how does the anti-discrimination law create the right to enforce procedures that doctors believe will cause harm?
Bostock An employee was involved who was fired for cross dressing at work. By contrast, Biden's orders not only ban discrimination, but also force employers to provide irreversible medical procedures, not just dressing.
Status Questions – and Bad Precedents
For a Republican-appointed judge, this should have been a simple decision. In 2022, Judge Matthew Kakusmalik, Trump appointee for the Northern District of Texas, ruled in favour of the doctor plaintiff. He issued a Declarative judgment It says the administration has completely misinterpreted the non-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act. He also confirmed that the doctors have a clear position to sue the order.
In December, a panel of three judges in the Fifth Circuit, including two Republican appointees, determined that doctors were not in a position to sue the Biden administration.
“The plaintiffs do not consider their actions to be gender-consensual discrimination and do not provide evidence that HHS views them that way,” the court said.
“The plaintiffs have failed to show that they are in fact breach of the notice and are not facing a reliable threat of enforcement,” said Edith Jones, Catalina Haynes and Dana Douglas. I wrote it in
Curiam opinion.
Last week, despite a majority appointed by 12-5 Republicans, all James Ho except one judge refused to hear the case
en bancwhich allows this precedent to be set.
This case highlights how judges selectively apply choices based on political considerations. The left rarely stands. During Trump's presidency, his executive orders faced immediate legal challenges, and the free judges regularly gave him positions.
For example, the Blue State successfully sued Trump over Trump's orders on Anchor Baby Citizenship, while the Red State was repeatedly denied a position to challenge Biden's immigration law violations.
The contradiction is blatant. Doctors facing a potential loss of Medicaid refunds probably don't have a “justified case,” but Trump's executive orders were routinely banned before they came into effect.
The idea that doctors cannot sue regulations that threaten Medicaid reimbursement until the outcome denied legal precedent.
Awful double standard
Meanwhile, Trump's executive orders were blocked before they appeared on the federal register. How can a court ban the presidential order before it becomes an official regulation?
Why doesn't Trump's orders get the same respect when doctors have to wait until they're punished to challenge the rules? What happened to legal consistency?
Doctors who have not yet faced punishment but who may lose Medicaid refunds for refusing to castrate are ripe, legitimate claims are absurd given what happens in the daily courts is.
I'm all looking for a minimalist judicial approach, but why does it never apply to people suing Republican presidents? Certainly the court is a one-way ratchet on the left.
in
Active opposition Judge Ho argued from his 16 colleagues (what he's become accustomed to) that refusing to provide hormone therapy is not the same as category discrimination. Doctors who refuse to prescribe hormones due to gender discomfort have not refused to treat fractures in transgender patients.
The Supreme Court was already in control
Geduldigv. Aiello (1974) Deniing pregnancy compensation does not constitute discrimination based on gender. “It is true that only women can get pregnant, but I do not follow that all legislative classifications of pregnancy are gender-based classifications,” Justice ruled.
On the issue of standing, Judge Ho criticized the majority for debating on the notion that podiatrists do not provide “transition” services anyway. Therefore, not all doctors should sue. He called this absurdity and pointed out that the plaintiff in this case, Dr. Susan Niese, practices general internal medicine.
“She can provide such services to minors,” writes Ho. “She thinks it's wrong to do that.”
“If there is some plausible basis for theorizing that simply referring a minor patient to another doctor who specializes in the field and that it is in some way outside of Dr. Nice's speciality. , the US doesn't offer that,” he concluded.
Trump is likely to overturn this policy anyway, but as Ho warned, the Fifth Circuit's decision will allow bad precedents to stay for future cases.
“By refusing to rehearse
en bancour court today leaves a published precedent ruling in the book that overturns the faithful efforts of the district court and examines administrative overreach in the area of deep sensitivity,” he wrote in a footnote. Ta.
We can only speculate, but given the left-wing political attack on the Fifth Circuit, some are concerned that judges are easing their stance to avoid looking too conservative. Even if it's on the left of the ideology, whether it's better or worse than siding is debated. Either way, Trump should insist on appointing more judges like James Ho in his second term. It is a jurist who has the courage to not only retain sound legal principles, but also control accordingly.
