Search This Blog

Friday, April 26, 2024

Battleground Pennsylvania gets first electric school buses funded by Biden admin

 Pennsylvania received its first electric school buses funded by the Biden administration Thursday, an effort in the critical battleground state that is expected to highlight the president’s climate agenda.

First Student, which is the leading school transportation provider in North America, is set to host a ribbon-cutting ceremony Thursday in Harrisburg, Pa. The event will celebrate the deployment of the buses that are funded by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean School Bus Program, which was included in the bipartisan infrastructure law.

The state received six new electric school buses that were manufactured by IC Bus Tulsa in Oklahoma, a shop with United Auto Workers laborers. The infrastructure law authorized $1 billion to the EPA for this program for each fiscal year from 2022 through 2026, and the EPA then gave First Student $140 million.

Kevin Matthews, head of electrification at First Student, told The Hill communities welcome the electric school buses, regardless of political affiliation, because they see the benefits of it.

“School buses are not red, they’re not blue. They’re yellow, and we all benefit when we make them greener. And, the parents like it because their kids are not going to be exposed to the emissions. The mayors see it as a reduction of emissions in his or her community, which is often their goal,” he said. “The school district likes to show that they’re cutting edge … and then our drivers like it from a performance standpoint and how they operate.”

“I think everybody sees the benefit of electrifying school buses,” he added. “School buses are in literally every community … it’s a real good place to start, figuring out issues for everybody.”

Matthews also spoke about the benefits of electrifying school buses, beyond climate impacts. He said that quieter buses can help with students behavior, because the students don’t yell over the diesel engine noise of the bus and in turn aren’t as animated, and he said students with special needs can also benefit from the quieter buses. 

Additionally, improvements in behavioral issues among students could help with the current school bus driver shortage; student behavior is one reason that drivers quit, along with wages, he said.

First Student operates more than 330 electric school buses in North America. Other states that have received them so far include Oregon, California, Missouri, Illinois, Montana and Rhode Island. The buses are charged by First Student FlexCharge chargers that are stationed on campuses.

EPA’s Clean School Bus Program aims to provide school districts with clean or zero-emission school buses to help fight climate change and lessen the risks of cancer and asthma in young kids.

Biden’s campaigning has focused on Pennsylvania, which he won in 2020 and considers a second home to him after neighboring Delaware. Biden is polling behind former President Trump, his likely GOP opponent in November’s election, in Pennsylvania by 0.4 percentage points, according to the Decision Desk HQ aggregation of polls. Biden campaigned throughout the state last week, making visits to Scranton and Pittsburgh.

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4620801-pennsylvania-electric-school-buses-infrastructure-law/

CDC describes how unlicensed ‘vampire facial’ treatment infected women with HIV

 Three women likely were infected with HIV after undergoing “vampire facials” at an unlicensed New Mexico spa, the first known instance of the virus being transmitted through cosmetic injection services. 

The investigation shows the dangers of unlicensed establishments that mix medical procedures with beauty treatments.  

According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report released Thursday, the investigation began in summer 2018 when a woman with no known HIV risk factors was diagnosed. 

The patient reported no injection drug use, recent blood transfusions, or recent sexual contact with anyone other than her current sexual partner, who received a negative HIV test result after the patient’s diagnosis.  

However, the patient said she underwent a so-called “vampire facial,” a cosmetic procedure that draws a client’s blood, separates the platelets, and then reinjects the platelet-rich blood into their face through microneedles. 

Proponents of vampire facials say it helps plump sagging skin and reduces the appearance of acne scars or wrinkles, but the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) said there’s little evidence to support it. 

However, the AAD said the facials seem safe as long as blood is handled properly.  

The CDC recommended “requiring adequate infection control practices at spa facilities offering cosmetic injection services” to help prevent the transmission of HIV and other blood-borne pathogens. 

Within months of the positive test, the Albuquerque salon was shut down. The New Mexico Department of Health said it had “identified practices that could potentially spread blood-borne infections, such as HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C to clients.” 

Investigators found a rack of unlabeled tubes containing blood on a kitchen counter. Unlabeled tubes of blood and medical injectables, such as Botox and lidocaine, were stored in the kitchen refrigerator along with food. Unwrapped syringes were found in drawers, on counters, and discarded in regular trash cans. There was no steam sterilizer, and equipment that was meant to be single use, like disposable electric desiccator tips, was being reused. 

The spa’s owner operated without appropriate licenses at multiple locations and did not have an appointment scheduling system that stored client contact information. Investigators compiled and cross-referenced names and telephone numbers from client consent forms, handwritten appointment records, and telephone contacts to create a list of potentially affected clients. 

In 2022, the spa’s owner pleaded guilty to five felony counts of practicing medicine without a license and is now serving a 3 1/2-year prison sentence. 

Investigators found five patients with confirmed spa-related HIV infections, including one who had tested positive for HIV two years before getting a vampire facial in 2018, and a sexual partner of the woman. 

The other three patients identified had no known social contact with one another, and the only thing they had in common was the procedure done at the spa. 

HIV is transmitted via contact with bodily fluids from an infected person, which is why it is most often contracted through sex or the sharing of needles. Investigators couldn’t determine the exact way the patients had been infected. 

Two of the five patients had previously received a positive rapid HIV test result during routine evaluations for life insurance. One patient was diagnosed after hospitalization with an AIDS-defining illness in fall 2021, and another after being hospitalized in spring 2023. 

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4624084-cdc-vampire-facial-hiv/

Aaron Sorkin Is Working on a Jan. 6 Movie: ‘I Blame Facebook’

 Aaron Sorkin is bringing the Jan. 6 Capitol Riots to the big screen with a new film. In the newest episode of podcast The Town, Sorkin opened up (slightly) about his new project, and how it might connect to his hit film The Social Network.

While discussing the state of politics in America, Sorkin made it known who he thinks is responsible for the insurrectionist attack on the White House on January 6th. “I blame Facebook for January 6,” he said, and on being pressed to explain why, he dropped some bombshell news. “You’re gonna need to buy a movie ticket,” to find out.

Sorkin then went mum on the subject, out of deference to his publicist, who was apparently in the audience at a pre-White House Correspondents Dinner party on Wednesday night hosted by WME and Puck in Washington, D.C.

He did ultimately explain why he blames Facebook, once the live audience recovered from excitement about the movie news. “Facebook has been, among other things, tuning its algorithm and tuning its algorithm to promote the most divisive material possible because that is what will increase engagement,” he said. “That is what will get you to, what they call inside the hallways of Facebook, ‘the infinite scroll.’”

Sorkin went on to narrow the focus of his blame for the events that day, naming Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as a singular force for making the political climate worse in America.

“There is supposed to be a constant tension at Facebook between growth and integrity,” Sorkin said. “There isn’t—it’s just growth—so if Mark Zuckerberg woke up tomorrow morning and realized that there is nothing you can buy for $120 billion that you can’t buy for $119 billion,” and then thought “So ‘How ‘bout if I make a little bit less money, I will tune up integrity and tune down growth?’” he could have a significantly more positive impact on the country.

“He can do that by honestly switching a one to a zero and a zero to a one,” Sorkin continued, adding that he’s traded words with Zuckerberg in the last 10 or 12 years “only through the op-ed pages of The New York Times.”

Upon being asked if he intends for his January 6th movie to be a sequel to The Social Network, Sorkin declined to answer, saying instead that he’s going to give his publicist “a break and not talk about it anymore”—but it certainly sounds like the answer could be a yes.

Although he associates TikTok with the “deterioration of character and standards,” Sorkin said, “I’m not blaming TikTok for January 6th or for the election of Donald Trump.”

“I’m sure that if I learned more about TikTok I would blame them,” he added.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/aaron-sorkin-working-jan-6-151832526.html

Pro-Palestine’ campus mobs think Jew-hatred is progressive

 Ideas that reduce complex problems into simple mantras are always popular. But those that cloak a political ideology in the sort of language and symbolism in sync with the cultural fashions of the moment and allow people to imagine themselves on the right side of history can spawn world-changing movements. When young people especially are indoctrinated with such notions—the idea of correcting a historical wrong—the results can produce the shocking surge of antisemitism that’s unfolding right now on U.S. college campuses.

The spectacle of a critical mass of this current generation of American college students—egged on by many of their professors and even administrators—chanting slogans about erasing the State of Israel from the map (“from the river to the sea”), cheering on Islamist terror against Jews everywhere (“intifada revolution” and “globalize the intifada”) and speaking openly about banning the presence of “Zionists” from their midst, if not condoning violence against them, has shaken many Americans. That is especially true for liberal Jews and others who believe that antisemitism is primarily if not solely a problem on the political right.

Yet the most important part of this story is what hasn’t happened. Instead of a united nation responding to these expressions of hate and bigotry with one voice, many declarations are being heard in defense of what are, for all intents and purposes, a burgeoning mass movement supporting the Hamas terrorist movement that carried out the manifold atrocities in southern Israel on Oct. 7.

Toxic leftist ideas

How is it possible for what is supposed to be the best and the brightest of American students—those who attend Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell and many other elite universities where the “pro-Palestine” protests have sprung up—to embrace such a profoundly evil cause? 

The simple answer for what should be seen as responsible points to the intellectual fashion of the day, which, for lack of a better term, we are forced to call “woke” ideologies. The toxic ideas of critical race theory and intersectionality, which teach that the world is permanently divided between “white” oppressors and people of color who are their victims, have decided that Israel and the Jews belong to the former, and Hamas and its mass of Palestinian supporters are among the latter.

These ideas have been mainstreamed of late in America’s educational system and culture. Since the moral panic about race that occurred in the Black Lives Matter summer after a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd in May 2020, they have become the new orthodoxy against which dissent is not permitted in U.S. leading institutions.

While some of us have been pointing out for years that the BLM movement and the ideas behind it grant a permission slip for antisemitism, this has only become obvious to most people in the last six months. To the horror of many people, the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust didn’t engender sympathy for Israel or the Jewish people. Instead, it provided the spark for a surge in antisemitism around the world almost immediately after Oct. 7.

Many Jews believed they could always count on enlightened liberal opinion in this country not only to condemn expressions of right-wing Jew-hatred in the strongest terms but to also isolate it. Instead, they have watched with amazement and concern as the mobs engaging in antisemitic invective have been defended or rationalized in mainstream liberal media like The New York Times and MSNBC as idealists or, at worst, emotional children whose actions are an understandable reaction to Israeli atrocities. In doing so, those who are taking this line aren’t just repeating and spreading Hamas propaganda and blatant falsehoods. They are accepting the premise that opposition to the existence of the one Jewish state on the planet is somehow the natural political position of those who call themselves progressives.

‘Very fine people’

Indeed, much like the BLM riots that wreaked havoc in American cities in the summer of 2020, the campus protests are being described as “mostly peaceful.” The narrative about the campus mobs in much of the corporate media is that they are merely “pro-Palestine” and that any antisemitism is merely the excessive behavior of a few marginal people who don’t represent the true spirit of the protests.

Almost as troubling is the fact that even when the antisemitic nature of the protests is recognized, the core problem is ignored. It’s not just that those taking part are engaging in demonstrations where Israel and its supporters are demonized, Jewish rights erased and Jews are being threatened. It’s that the people doing this don’t think they are wrong. They are convinced that they are speaking up for a righteous cause. Not only is that false premise being reinforced by mainstream press coverage, but it is also being upheld by leaders of the political left.

Indeed, the most outrageous example of that didn’t come from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who is notorious for her own antisemitic statements and who showed up on the Columbia campus this week to show solidarity with the “pro-Palestine” mob in the company of her daughter, a student at Barnard College who had been suspended for her role in violating the school’s rules.

The best encouragement the students received was from President Joe Biden, who, when asked about antisemitism on college campuses, condemned it but then added that he was just as concerned about “those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians.” It was, as Alan Dershowitz and Andrew Stein wrote in The Wall Street Journal, a “very fine people” moment for the president.

That referenced the infamous claim that former President Donald Trump had said that there were some “very fine people” among those who gathered in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017 for the neo-Nazi “Unite the Right” rally. Of course, Trump didn’t say that since he was referencing those who opposed the taking down of Confederate statues, and not Nazis or members of the Ku Klux Klan.

While that distinction was ignored in the media scramble to condemn Trump, Biden is largely getting a pass for his own effort to treat the cause that the antisemitic agitators are supporting as valid. The point being is that much of the media and leftist opinion are treating those yelling slurs at Jews as “very fine people” who are just going a little too far in their advocacy.

In the wake of Columbia University president Minouche Shafik’s ambivalence about enforcing the school’s rules against illegal demonstrations and hate speech, the narrative in the liberal media has again flipped with The New York Times concentrating on what they see as a wrongheaded decision to call in the New York City Police Department to remove the pro-Hamas encampment (though the tents returned the next day). Indeed, the paper’s urban affairs columnist Ginia Bellafante wrote that the main problem isn’t campus antisemitism but the willingness of administrators to punish the antisemites, who she and those reporting in the news section analogized to the anti-Vietnam war and anti-South African apartheid demonstrators of the past.

A movement steeped in ignorance

What is lacking in the coverage and most of the discourse is that—as interviews with them show—most of the students even at a school like Columbia can’t really explain why they are against Israel except by mindlessly repeating slogans about racism and oppression that have nothing to do with the facts on the ground in the Middle East or patent falsehoods about “genocide” in Gaza. They don’t know the history of the conflict and seem to think that Israelis and Jews are, as Palestinian propagandists claim, settler/colonialists in the one country in the world where Jews are, in fact, the indigenous people. Their demands for university divestment from Israel are based on intersectional ideology in which the century-old Arab war to deny Jewish rights is falsely depicted as analogous to the civil-rights movement in the United States.

The ignorance of these young adults is pathetic, as is their absurd cosplaying in which the wearing of keffiyehs has become campus terrorist chic. Lacking their own strong identity, they are adopting one that they perceive will give them some cachet as supporters of an embattled though fashionable cause. But having been spoon-fed the same lies that spawned the BLM movement throughout their educational experience, in which antisemitism has been redefined as progressivism, no one should be surprised by any of this.

Nor should we accept the claim that they are merely demonstrating sympathy for Palestinians or shock at human-rights violations. Far greater losses of life in wars in the Congo or Sudan—and an actual genocide in Western China where Beijing has put an estimated 1 million Muslim Uyghurs in concentration camps—haven’t moved them to utter a single word. If they really were for peace or the theoretical cause of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they would be in favor of eradicating Hamas, which is opposed to any peace that doesn’t involve the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its people.

The sad truth is that massive numbers of students at elite schools and elsewhere have been taught to adopt the Hamas Charter, whether they understand what they are supporting or not. If you think that Zionism—the national liberation movement of the Jewish people—is racism, you are denying rights to Jews that no one would think to deny to anyone else. That is antisemitism. If you are advocating for a ceasefire that would allow Hamas to get away with mass murder, you are supporting Hamas. And if you think Israel is illegitimate and should be destroyed, you are also supporting Hamas terrorists, and their genocidal plans and actions.

Tolerating the intolerable

People who advocate for hateful ideologies—whether they are directed at African-Americans, Jews or anyone else—have a First Amendment right to express their views. But they don’t have a right to be tolerated in educational institutions or treated as principled dissenters in the Times. We all know that there is zero tolerance for neo-Nazis or other right-wing extremist Jew-haters at American universities or in the liberal media. But because these institutions have been captured by woke ideologues and mainstream politicians like Biden fear their wrath, their moral equivalents on the left demonstrating on college campuses to “free Palestine” are tolerated, rationalized, excused and even lauded as heroes. In doing so, we are being asked to tolerate the intolerable.

To be “pro-Palestine” today is not to stand up for oppressed people. To the contrary, it is an expression of solidarity with latter-day Nazis and a willingness to mainstream hatred of the Jewish people, not just Israeli policies. But to condemn them is not enough. The only way to explain what has happened and to do something about it is to roll back the woke tide and purge schools, cultural institutions and the mainstream media of those spreading racialist ideas that foment this toxic hatred. Until the “progressive” ideas at the heart of the problem are dismantled, all the hand-wringing and expressions of concern about campus antisemitism will be meaningless.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate).

https://www.jns.org/pro-palestine-campus-mobs-think-jew-hatred-is-progressive/

Alito reignites fetal rights debate in Idaho abortion case

 The Supreme Court justice who authored the Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade jumped headlong Wednesday into the debate about whether a fetus is entitled to the same rights as a person.

Abortion-rights advocates were concerned ahead of arguments that the case about whether Idaho’s abortion ban violated a federal emergency care law might be used to advance the fight for fetal rights.

The Department of Justice argued that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals that take Medicare funds to provide stabilizing treatment to a patient in an emergency, even if that treatment is an abortion.  

Idaho said the law doesn’t mention abortions, and the state has set its own standard: a total ban on abortions except when it is needed to save a pregnant woman’s life, but not to prevent serious risks to her health.

As the Supreme Court wrestled for the first time with the fallout of a state abortion ban since it overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Justice Samuel Alito seemed to endorse the idea that a fetus needs the same “stabilizing treatment” as the pregnant person.

The conservative justice zeroed in on the law’s reference to an “unborn child.”

“Isn’t that an odd phrase to put in a statute that imposes a mandate to perform abortions?” Alito asked Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.

“The hospital must stabilize the threat to the unborn child, and it seems that the plain meaning is that the hospital must try to eliminate any immediate threat to the child, but performing an abortion is antithetical to that duty,” Alito said, adding that the hospital has a duty to protect “the interests of the unborn child.”

Prelogar countered that Alito’s reading of the statute was “erroneous” and the hospital only has a duty to stabilize the pregnant women.

Congress amended the law to add the phrase “unborn child” in order to expand protections for pregnant people and ensure a woman got the treatment she needed, Prelogar argued.

“Congress wanted to be able to protect her in situations where she’s suffering some kind of emergency and her own health isn’t at risk, but the fetus might die,” Prelogar said, in instances such as a prolapse of the umbilical cord in the cervix where the fetus is in distress, but the woman is not.

“Hospitals otherwise wouldn’t have an obligation to treat her, and Congress wanted to fix that,” she said.

Anti-abortion groups have long argued that life begins at conception, and some like The Heritage Foundation have promoted views that the 14th Amendment can be interpreted to ban abortion nationwide. Granting a fetus the same rights as a person would mean abortion for any reason is murder.

“It’s not surprising to hear some of the justices expressed sympathy for fetal personhood. This was a significant motivating part of the efforts to overrule Roe vs. Wade,” said Leah Litman, a professor at University of Michigan Law School.

“This theory would just radically reshape the health care and reproductive rights landscape as we know it, because it would just mean no abortions anywhere in the United States, period, and also jeopardize other forms of reproductive care as well,” Litman said.

The idea of fetal personhood gained steam when Roe was overturned, but dozens of states consider a fetus to be a person at some point during pregnancy.

At least 19 states have either extremely broad personhood language in their laws or somehow define “person” to include a fetus or “unborn child,” according to a report from the liberal organization Pregnancy Justice.

Abortion-rights advocates said Alito has been laying the groundwork for federal fetal personhood since his opinion in Dobbs, though he did not take an explicit position on the issue.

“According to the dissent, the Constitution requires the States to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right — to live — at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed. Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that ’theory of life,’” he wrote.

The court also sidestepped the issue a few months after Dobbs, when it declined to hear a case that asked the justices to declare whether a fetus has constitutional protections.

Litman said the justices could be taking incremental steps toward fetal personhood protections, essentially nudging the law in that direction rather than declaring it outright.

“I don’t know that the Court wants to do this, like, immediately, two years after Dobbs in the immediate lead up to an election,” she said. “I think the strategy is like, in addition to just asking for full blown constitutional fetal personhood, why not do a few things that move us toward that end.”

On a call with reporters, Alexa Kolbi-Molinas with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project said fetal personhood is the goal for conservatives.

“Whether or not we see a decision in this case that discusses fetal personhood or recognizes these issues or excludes pregnant people from the protection of federal law, we know that is what these extremist anti-abortion politicians are pushing and they’re not going to stop,” she said.

During arguments Wednesday, it wasn’t just Alito asking about the “unborn child” language in the law.

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Idaho’s attorney, Joshua Turner, what to do with EMTALA’s definition of “individual” to include both the woman and the unborn child.

Turner said it wasn’t the state’s position that EMTALA prohibited abortions, because in some states abortion can be allowed as stabilizing treatment.

But he said adding “unborn children” into the law was deliberate.

“It would be a very strange thing for Congress to expressly amend EMTALA to require care for unborn children … and yet also be mandating termination of unborn children,” Turner said.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4622500-alito-fetal-rights-idaho-abortion-case/

Biden's Abortion Obsession Reveals Lopsided Priorities

 As his list of catastrophic failures mount, including an unprecedented border crisis, growing economic disparities, soaring housing costs, debt and inflation, President Biden has chosen as his singular focus the promise to leverage the full force of the government to shove his extreme abortion goals down Americans’ throats.

Actions taken in the last week provide just the latest example of the Biden administration’s lopsided priorities. While the impeachment trial for Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas was casually ignored, Biden’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its final rule related to enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). While the law was passed with the promise to provide uncontroversial protections for expectant mothers, the EEOC used its discretionary authority to re-interpret the law to foist more abortion on Americans. The final rule contains a provision which mandates that employers must cover leave for pregnant employees seeking abortions.  Meanwhile the mandate provides almost zero protections for moral and religious exemptions widely protected in the past. The contrast was stark.  While refusing to address the human catastrophe at America’s borders – which even the Washington Post admits has led to 7 in 10 Americans disapproving of Biden on immigration – the president chose instead to prioritize banning employers from acting on their deeply held beliefs, thereby compelling American business owners to be complicit in the monstrous practice of abortion.

Biden’s obsession with abortion has turned into an obsession at all levels of his flailing administration. Since the historic Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, the current administration has worked tirelessly to subvert pro-life state laws.

Another recent example includes the Department of Health and Human Services hijacking of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) in order to make it a vehicle for forcing emergency room doctors to perform abortions. This law, originally passed in 1986, requires hospitals to provide “stabilizing” healthcare to patients in emergency situations regardless of their ability to pay. It was intended to protect poor and underinsured patients from being denied life-saving care. It’s notable that EMTALA is one of the rare instances in federal code which refers specifically to an “unborn child” who is to be protected along with his or her mother.

But Biden’s HHS issued purposely distorted guidance on the enforcement of EMTALA requiring emergency medical personnel to perform abortions or risk losing federal funding. This rule, the administration argues, trumps state pro-life protections even though every state which limits abortion already has exceptions to save the life of the mother. The administration is so hellbent on co opting EMTALA to impose their abortion goals, that it will defend its gross overreach at the Supreme Court this week.

Biden, a Catholic, has taken every possible measure - enthusiastically - to mandate abortion-on-demand everywhere possible, trampling over any state that has chosen to limit abortion in any way. The maniacal focus on abortion is both a scandal and a painful reminder of who calls the shots in today’s Democrat party. 

One wonders if Biden’s current disastrous polling would look different if he chose to give as much attention to the border, crime, and the plight of families barely surviving our lopsided economy as he does fighting for the ‘right’ to terminate the lives of unborn children.  If Biden goes on to lose in November, observers will be right to point out that ignoring the concerns atop every issue poll in favor of abortion may prove his  fatal mistake – to say nothing of the children such policies will destroy, together with the moral fabric of the nation. 

Biden promised unity and a commitment to our nation’s higher ideals. Yet his obsession with abortion has reduced his presidency to a depressing national crusade rooted in despair about our future. To borrow a phrase from his mentor and predecessor, what the nation needs most this November is hope and change.

Brian Burch is the president of CatholicVote.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/04/26/bidens_abortion_obsession_reveals_lopsided_priorities_1027738.html

White House bolsters transgender health protections, rolls back Trump admin rule

 The Biden administration is bolstering health care protections against discrimination for gay and transgender people, reversing a Trump administration rule that gutted the protections. 

In a wide-ranging final rule released Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) strengthened the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) rules that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, in certain health programs and activities.  

“Today’s rule is a giant step forward for this country toward a more equitable and inclusive health care system, and means that Americans across the country now have a clear way to act on their rights against discrimination when they go to the doctor, talk with their health plan, or engage with health programs run by HHS,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement. 

The rule involves protections in Section 1557 of the ACA that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age and disability in certain health programs and activities. 

The final rule comes at a time when GOP-led states are curtailing access to gender-affirming medical care. According to health research group KFF, 24 states have enacted laws or policies to restrict or ban gender-affirming care for children. 

The previous administration’s policy kept protections against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. But the then-update narrowed the definition of sex to only mean “biological sex,” cutting out transgender people from the protections. 

Advocates were concerned that the previous policies would have made it easier for doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to deny care or coverage to transgender and nonbinary patients, as well as women who have had abortions. 

The Biden administration made it clear in the rule that federal protections for religious freedom and conscience still apply. Those protections say health providers are not engaging in discrimination if they decline to provide abortion or any other care if it conflicts with a “sincerely-held belief.” 

“Today’s rule exemplifies the Biden-Harris Administration’s ongoing commitment to health equity and patient rights,” HHS Office of Civil Rights Director Melanie Fontes Rainer said. “Traveling across the country, I have heard too many stories of people facing discrimination in their health care. The robust protections of 1557 are needed now more than ever.” 

Section 1557 has been contentious since the start and has been the subject of ongoing litigation. The Obama-era rule made it illegal for doctors, hospitals and other health care workers to deny care to someone whose sexual orientation or gender identity they disapproved of. 

The White House under former President Trump issued a final rule rolling back the protections in June 2020, but a day before the rule was set to go into effect, a federal judge blocked aspects of the policy and said a Supreme Court decision on workplace discrimination contradicted the new policy. 

That decision concluded federal laws against sex discrimination in the workplace also safeguarded gay and transgender people. 

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4625008-white-house-bolsters-transgender-health-protections-undo-trump-rule/