Trans Surgeries Funded

PUBLISHED: 5:30 PM 27 Jul 2018

Federal Judge Rules Wisconsin To Cover ‘Medically Necessary’ Gender Reassignment Surgeries

They claimed their ‘gender dysphoria’ should be covered under the Affordable Care Act

Two transgender persons in Wisconsin will have their surgeries state-funded under a liberal judge's ruling which considered the Afforable Care Act and fourteenth amendment protections.

It is one thing if confused individuals want to identify with things that they are not in private; however, the transgender movement has admittedly gotten out of control in their fight for ‘equality.’

Now, trans individuals are demanding to have their reassignment surgeries funded under Medicaid, claiming “their rights to equal protection.” Despite gender dysphoria having been previously verified to be a mental disorder, a federal judge recently ruled in accordance with an Obama-era policy which considers sex reassignment surgeries ‘medically necessary’ in being funded in Wisconsin.

Under the Affordable Care Act signed into law by former president Barack Obama in 2010, “discrimination based on gender identity” is prohibited.

However, a state law in Wisconsin, “adopted in 1996” and enforced since 1997, bans what are considered ‘transsexual surgeries’ from being funded under Medicaid.

In April, two transgender persons, Cody Flack, 30, from Green Bay, Washington; and Sara Ann Makenzie, 41, from Baraboo, Wisconsin; filed a suit against the state claiming that their fourteenth amendment rights were being violated in preventing their surgeries from being paid for.

The plaintiffs argued in citing that their gender dysphoria, or being born in the ‘wrong’ gendered body, is a legitimate condition for which reassignment surgeries would be “medically necessary.”

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge William Conley ruled in favor of Flack and Makenzie, issuing a preliminary injunction against the Wisconsin Department of Health Services’ enforcement of the 1996 law.

Judge Conley further outrageously continued that the ruling could eventually lead to all persons suffering from gender dysphoria to be considered for Medicaid-covered surgeries.

He further continued that he was favoring Flack and Makenzie’s wellbeing above “any marginal impacts on the defendants’ stated concerns regarding public health and limiting costs.”

The liberal judge also supported the discrimination claim, saying that “one would be hard-pressed to identify a class of people more discriminated against…than transgender people.”

The state of Wisconsin has since been mandated “to process the medical requests within 10 days” of the ruling; and Makenzie and Flack, according to attorney Rock Pledl, may have their associated surgeries in the next several weeks.

Pledl further continued being optimistic that Wisconsin will “abandon this discriminatory policy once and for all” if the injunction is expanded.

Attorney Catherine McKee with the National Health Law Program claimed that the current state law is an “illegal and outdated policy of denying transgender individuals access to health care services they need.”

Yet the opposition to the ruling and opinion towards the transgender community lies not in the disagreement that gender dysphoria is a legitimate condition, but rather how such should be handled.

According to Dr. Paul R. McHugh, formerly on behalf of John Hopkins Hospital, “transgenderism IS a ‘mental disorder,’ that merits treatment.”

However, given this fact, which the plaintiffs also claimed, a transsexual surgery does not actually cure the individual of their illness, as the result would then be a patient still suffering from gender dysphoria yet is now considered to have the ‘correct’ genders’ anatomy.

Dr. McHugh continued that the condition can be considered a form of mental illness given two specific qualifications: “that the idea of sexmisalignment…does not correspond with physical reality,” and that, if left untreated, “can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

He expanded on the ‘reality’ consideration in comparing such a situation to that of one with an eating disorder where the individual considers their body to be different than it really is, such as when a ‘dangerously thin’ individual believes themselves to be ‘overweight.’

Under such circumstances, a patient would not then be considered a candidate for weight-loss surgery simply because it aligns with their ‘personal truth,’ as McHugh called such.

While the anorexic individual could die from such a surgery, a post-operation transgender patient could face otherwise serious consequences, as the reported “suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people.” A high rate of formerly transgender-identified persons reportedly “spontaneously lost those [dysphoria] feelings” later on.

By advocating for transsexualism to be ‘normalized,’ Dr. McHugh argued that the liberal media and LGBT community pushing for trans rights as a “civil rights matter” is irresponsibly “promot[ing] a mental disorder.”

Unfortunately, such indoctrination is being done through additional legislation which expands transgendered persons’ rights.

Such recently occurred in Iowa when Chief Judge Arthur E. Gamble issued a similar ruling which permitted two transgender individuals to have their surgeries covered under Medicaid, citing the “Iowa Civil Rights Act and the state’s constitution.”

Considering the democratic party’s continued support for transgender rights, similar laws can, unfortunately, be expected in other states, of course at the taxpayer’s expense.

However, the most disturbing aspect as to how politicians and judges are handling gender identity crisis lawsuits and pressures is that they are encouraging mentally ill persons to undergo surgery which they do not need.

If they are to cry treatment being ‘medical necessary,’ then perhaps doctors and liberal legislators should consider treating the associated mental illnesses just as most others are, through counseling and treatment instead of irreversible procedures.