A lot of our hospitals are Catholic. Ppl who work there are already forbidden from giving "sinful" care, even if they disagree. For a lot of communities, that's the only option.
(Bc we don't have good social programs, and healthcare is an industry, independent hospitals just don't exist in a lot of places. The govt and the industry justify their failure by portraying Catholic hospitals as equal to public hospitals. Like how social programs will just not exist in a community, bc church "charity" is in place... and then the "charity" denies services to "those ppl." Very convenient for everyone but "those ppl.")
Canada sure is struggling. *Good* news is they just recently passed laws to provide universal “pharmacare,” which is apparently separate from universal healthcare… it’s a lot less simple than you believe it to be.
We don't pay a health care tax. I'm all about universal health care. I was just wondering how much extra tax it is? Most Americans have health insurance through their employer and cost can vary.
Right. And a big chunk of those goes directly to health care. And your chunk is bigger than the chunk we pay in Canada and everyone here gets health care.
Then on top of those taxes you pay, you have to add in your insurance, deductibles etc. When you add your taxes and insurance costs together, you pay twice what we in Canada pay for healthcare.
Canada is fine. FYI, the universal pharmacare will apply only to birth control and drugs for diabetes. This will also need to be agreed with the provinces prior to implementation
I noticed how the pharmacare bill was required to cover diabetes medicine. That’s kind of what my point rested on, how even though they had “universal healthcare,” it wasn’t fully taking care of diabetics. That’s what I mean when I say it’s somehow more complicated than “universal healthcare” to make sure everyone is taken care of.
Many Christians are drawing lines in the sand where their good will ends. They wont like how many people are going to disassociate with them because of it, or maybe they wont care.
That’s when they bust out old faithful, break glass in case of emergency, the killer of critical thought, “the world hates me cause I follow Jesus and he said this would happen cause I follow him… yada yada.”
When that line gets brought out that’s basically it, it’s a call that they’re going to double, triple, or quadruple down. Because I’m not the problem and nothing I’m doing is the issue, how could it be god said this would happen because I’m following him. It’s the world that’s the problem, obviously.
Like if fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. this verse from the Bible is the killer of critical thought/self awareness and reflection.
The older I get, the more I have come to understand how easily I can understand someone's politics by how badly they misunderstand dune.
So many conservatives genuinely believe the Fremen Jihad is a cool and good thing lol
That's probably what Suzanne Collins intended, but for 95% of the novels, she is nothing more than a puppet of the state and/or the rebellion. She has virtually no agency, is forced to go along with whoever is in charge, and has to rely on outsiders to stay alive. There's also nothing about her gender that matters in any way to the story; she could have just as easily been written as a man. But, you know, she volunteered as tribute and was fiesty and surly throughout, so yay for that.
People assume Dune is a Christian story, but it's actually an Islamic story. The protagonists follow the story of Islam. There are many analogues as Abrahamic religions.
It really covers both christianity and islam. In the timeline there are hundreds of different religions, the orange catholic bible is what paul is given and he reads from it frequently. The dune natives believed a version of islam.
But religion isnt really believed by the great houses. They understood it as a tool, a way of teaching life lessons while enslaving the masses.
Arguably that's what real religions were and are for too... if you study theology at a Catholic University you find that "heaven" is not even a place but instead acrually more like a mindset or officially "a way of being" which then makes you feel warm and fuzzy -- that's literally all heaven is. Plus, I think a strong case can be made that the "ressurection" of Jesus was acrually just the cannibalism of his dead body by the Appostles because technically heaven resides in our hearts -- so by eating Jesus he literally rises from the dead and ascends into heavan (our stomachs) in body and spirit. Ever noticed how Churchs eat "the body of Christ" and drink "the blood of Christ" in mass? Tgat could explain how his body dissapeared.
The point of all this is to control human behavior. But I happen to like the human behavior Catholicism promotes so I'm good with it.
I like this quote from Dune:
>“When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movements become headlong - faster and faster and faster. They put aside all thoughts of obstacles and forget the precipice does not show itself to the man in a blind rush until it's too late.”
Nope, my family quit being Christian damn near in mass after my oldest uncle killed himself, victim of the residential schools. Apparently trying to genocide our culture out of existence, the half assed response from the children of ‘god’, along with the personal loss of it all was the straw that broke the camels back.
But none of that matters is pattern recognition a uniquely Christian skill? You don’t have to be the most perceptive one out there when Christians do it, so reliably.
Idk why they can't see what they are doing.. younger people see all the bigotry and can see religion as a joke. So these fundamentalist Christianity are not only cutting their own throat they are ending the church..
Christianity can be a good thing but not when it's mixed with open bigotry and hatred as it is these days!
The real problem is that providing healthcare to employees costs companies a lot of money. Covering gender-affirming care in insurance plans costs even *more* money. The lawmakers here are really just protecting companies from
needing to cough up cash, and just like everything else in conservative states, they’re using God as the excuse.
I work in pharmacy. Viagra and cialis are usually the biggest cash transactions for pharmacies. Insurance isn’t covering them in the amount people want.
**The first century Christians**: The government is persecuting us for our faith but we should have the right to practice our beliefs in peace!
**Christians today**: I don’t care whatever your beliefs are, mine says you shouldn’t be able to live however you want to live therefore if you’re not gonna do what I say and change your beliefs I’m gonna make your life and health literal hell. *P.S. Jesus says he loves you <3*
That is not the brand of Christianity I see. Now i will not lie to you and tell you nothing is sin but I will love you, pray for you and teach the Bible. But it is up to you. Many people like the part about healing and Jesus love but they don’t likely the parts about go and sin no more.
The Bible is very clear on what is sin and if you don’t agree then you are not Christian you are something else.
Do you think being transgender is a sin? If so, can you point to where in the Bible it says that in a way that is “very clear”?
The only things I’ve ever seen are:
- Strained overreaches of very general verses (e.g. God made men and women, does that mean that it’s also sinful to be intersex? Or maybe the Netherlands is an abomination, since they’ve gone against God’s plan and turned the sea, which God separated from the land, into land?);
-Conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity (I’m a trans woman faithfully married to a cis woman, does this mean these people quoting lines about men lying with men and women with women agree that I’m actually a woman? I don’t think they accept that.); or
-Trying to apply Old Testament law inconsistently so that you’re holding trans people to an entirely different standard than other gentiles (so does Deuteronomy apply only to trans people and other people you don’t like, or does it apply to everyone?).
Idk who “they” is. You realize christianity is not represented by a party or political views? You realize denominations exist right? I am fully christian yet would vote for healthcare for everyone fully anyday
The article clearly states that the only service that they are denying to trans children is gender affirming care, not healthcare in general, please read the article before you claim this.
Gender affirming care is the healthcare they and their doctors agree is best for them.
Also, this article is about trans employees being denied healthcare, not children. So it's pretty clear *you* didn't read the article.
Unfortunately, issues like transitions and abortions are things that people with religious beliefs are not going to be forced to support. It’s not an issue of “love,” it really is an issue of protecting the religious rights of people who don’t want to fund the things that go against their religion.
It isn't like these businesses cut a check to pay for every procedure that gets done. They provide *insurance*.
What they're doing here is going out of their way to provide crummy insurance coverage that exempts particular medical treatments from coverage.
This doesn't save them any money. It just takes away their employees freedom to make their own medical choices.
Should your employer have a right to tell you what medical care is best for you?
Americans really hate themselves sometimes, I swear. We don't have to keep apologizing for the boot on our necks!
This is blatantly false. Conservatives Christians have no issue forcing their beliefs on others, so you can deal with having to live in a society where abortions and trans people exist.
Uh, we definitely shouldn’t be funding wars either. I’m *very* against this, and I’ve been vocal about it. I’m never going to “suck it up” and concede to my tax dollars being used to kill people in another hemisphere.
No, I don’t agree that your “rights” should be up for moral debate. I’m just saying that even though you think it shouldn’t be the case, the privileges of trans healthcare are definitely up for legal debate. I don’t necessarily think this is moral.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
We don't need to pretend.
>For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and **there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake**. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12)
"For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off."
The Bible states that a eunuch is responsible for Christianity spreading to Africa, and that God will create a gender "better than Man and Woman" in Heaven:
https://www.joyfulexile.com/verses/eunuchs/kjv
People would know this if they'd read.
Apparently Moses is greater than Isaiah or Jesus, but only when it comes to protecting their own bigotry.
Hilariously, they also say ESV is the best translation, which is amazing because it was explicitly created by conservative Christians looking to enshrine their misogyny and other horrible bigotry.
“Even” is a very key word here. The context is that eunuchs weren’t even allowed in the temple. Allowing them into heaven if they follow God is an act of grace that goes against the standard.
ESV is so much better than NIV, come on now.
I’d report your comment to be deleted, but I think it’s the icing on the cake of this argument, because it shows how your fragile emotions are present in this argument.
Of course. I can’t claim I read it all sequentially or anything. When I was 13 I tried to start at the Old Testament, and I definitely wasn’t able to make it past the long lists of family trees.
>it really is an issue of protecting the religious rights of people who don’t want to fund the things that go against their religion.
It's bullshit. If you want to do something, there may be other things required in order to participate. If you can't accept those collateral obligations, for whatever reason, then don't participate.
If Christians, or anyone, don't want to participate in something, they can just not do it instead of asking for special accommodations that aren't required due to physical limitations.
I'm trans. Some of the Christians are openly talking about beheading us, such as Charlie Kirk. Add that to my Christian family abandoning me in university, because I transitioned, and all I feel is Christian love. 💜
What a murderers row of freaks. Posobiec is the guy who was caught trying to perpetrate the "r*pe Melania" hoax a few years back, then Pizzagate... All while using neo-nazi language online.
Blake Neff is the writer who was fired from Tucker Carlson's show after being outed as a white supremacist. And now they're hanging with Charlie Kirk?
I remember seeing these comments at the time but I didn't see who was on this awful panel.
Genuinely sorry the way you were treated here.
One of them many reasons I left Christianity. I've seen very little evidence of love coming from Christians these days. I've seen far more Atheists follow the teachings of Jesus than I ever have Christians.
Actually, businesses offering healthcare was heavily boosted by an attempt to _restrict_ capitalism. Specifically:
> One of the most important spurs to growth of employment-based health benefits was—like many other innovations—an unintended outgrowth of actions taken for other reasons during World War II (Somers and Somers, 1961; Munts, 1967; Starr, 1982; Weir et al., 1988). In 1943 the War Labor Board, which had one year earlier introduced wage and price controls, ruled that contributions to insurance and pension funds did not count as wages. In a war economy with labor shortages, employer contributions for employee health benefits became a means of maneuvering around wage controls. By the end of the war, health coverage had tripled (Weir et al., 1988). ([Origins and Evolution of Employment-Based Health Benefits](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235989/))
Hey, Jesus came for the righteous men, the ones on their knees in a crowded temple, ripping their shirts and shouting their prayers for all to see. Jesus cast out the sick, he chopped the feet off of the prostitutes, he poisoned the wine of the drunkards and ruffians. He only came for the best. Suck it losers.
dislike the misleading heading. they should have just said gender affirming care. the headline implied trans people would be refused unrelated medical care on the basis of being trans.
Um what is this "90% of gender affirming care" provided to non-trans persons? I wonder if you're playing with definitions; but perhaps not, and so denying everyone "gender affirming care" sounds... nondiscriminatory?
it is misleading because intentionally leaving out the type of health care leads people to assume health care that would be provided to cis people is being denied based on someone's identity. "Full health care for trans employees" is twice as long as "gender-affirming care." The author is trying to mislead people.
It is sort of like how abortion is illegal in Texas, but nobody is saying "providing health for women is illegal in Texas," because that would obviously misleading due to the implication that there is some genocide against women as opposed to one medical procedure given to women being outlawed.
> health care that would be provided to cis people is being denied based on someone's identity
Except it is.
Most gender-affirming healthcare is, under certain circumstances, also offered to cis people. I can walk into my doctor's right now and ask for hormone replacement therapy. It's the exact same medicine that trans women use. Except I, as a cis woman, have no problem getting it. A trans woman does.
Exact same medication. Exact same healthcare.
Yes, healthcare that is provided to cis people is being denied based on a trans person's identity.
>It is sort of like how abortion is illegal in Texas, but nobody is saying "providing health for women is illegal in Texas,"
Except that is also true, since abortion is also healthcare, and because the laws are also scaring doctors into not providing miscarriage management healthcare.
It's not misleading just because you don't like accepting the truth of what you're supporting.
It very much is misleading. If gives off the impression employers are simply not providing trans people *any* healthcare. Heck, that's what I thought it was until I dug deeper, and others here seem to be under the same impression.
Is it bad? Absolutely. But we still need to acknowledge when something is misleading. It does us no favors to back bad journalism.
Gender affirming care *is* medical care. I suffered from severe depression and anxiety for years as I fought against transitioning. In that time, I tried multiple different antidepressants and other psych meds. They didn’t help me, but HRT did. At this point, transitioning has essentially resolved my depression and anxiety.
Were those antidepressants healthcare, even though they didn’t work? Is my HRT not healthcare, even though it helped me far more than the antidepressants ever did? Why should the antidepressants be covered under my health plan, but not estrogen?
[It’s Now Legal in Florida for Doctors to Deny Health Care to Anyone If They Feel Like It](https://newrepublic.com/post/172667/its-now-legal-florida-doctors-deny-health-care-anyone-feel-like)
[Arkansas governor signs bill allowing medical workers to refuse treatment to LGBTQ people](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/arkansas-governor-signs-bill-allowing-medical-workers-to-refuse-treatment-to-lgbtq-people)
[A Hospital Refused to Provide Medically Necessary Surgery Because I Am Transgender](https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/a-hospital-refused-to-provide-medically-necessary-surgery-because-i-am-transgender)
wow, more clickbait articles with misleading titles. I am so shocked.
1. the bill allows individuals to refuse to perform specific procedures based on their moral beliefs. Unlike what the title says, procedures cannot be denied to a person based on who they are. Also, if someone wants a procedure one doctor might not want to provide, they are allowed to switch doctors.
2. again, it is just about gender-affirming care
3. the most misleading title yet. "medically necessary" implies this person was going to die. In reality, the surgery was only necessary for their gender transition.
Sort of pithy, but not really relevant to the point here - which is that the commentator pulled three stories in an attempt to prove that Christians were trying to deny trans people non-gender reassignment treatment, and all three were not that.
in the gospels when Jesus was asked what is the most important thing for someone to live by he replied:
To love your neighbor as you would love yourself.
this does not come with stipulations.
It's not love your neighbor as you would love yourself- unless they're trans.
anyone who does not follow this very basic rule of life that Jesus so clearly outlined in all of the gospels is not actually following the teachings of Jesus Christ and is not actually a genuine Christian.
Maybe I’m wrong, but doesn’t this seem ironic? As a Christian, we are taught to love everyone, love the sinner, hate the sin. Therefore, why would Christian businesses deny full healthcare for supposed sinners?
As a Christian business, they should be providing health care to whomever they hire. Christ didn't ask the blind man's sexuality before healing him. He repeatedly healed the unclean. Maybe we should strive to be more like Christ and less like those who would turn their back on their fellow man
I'm pretty sure the ruling doesn't just apply to Christian-owned businesses. There are plenty of American Muslim business owners who are, no doubt, happy with this ruling.
(And to clarify - since it appears from a lot of the naive comments here that clarification is needed -- this ruling specifically relates to gender transition procedures. The post title makes it look like they're allowed to just say, "No, you don't get health care!" to trans-identifying people)
> “CEA’s sincerely held religious belief is that male and female are immutable realities defined by biological sex and that gender reassignment is contrary to Christian Values”
Hmm, I don’t remember the part of the Bible that condemns trans people.
Science recognizes that gender is not the same thing as biological sex, and that there is not a 1 to 1 correlation between the two. Science recognizes that gender is complicated. I’m not sure that one’s religious beliefs should matter when they contradict what science tells us, especially when the result is someone else’s rights being violated
The more I see stories like this, the more I wonder why freedom of religion should be so protected. Other than native american tribes winning the right to continue using peyote in the ceremonies, has a freedom of religion case ever fought to make things better for people? Instead we get parents fighting to keep their children from getting transfusions, priests fighting to protect pedophiles, and shit like this.
And how is that not discrimination? Is the US going toward another segregation era or what? "One's freedom stops where the freedom of others begin". Religion is a personal matter that shouldn't affect others. Stop projecting fellow Christians. I am religious myself but do you think that just because you are christian you are less of a sinner?
To be clear, this is specifically in regards to gender reassignment surgery. It isn't saying that a Christian employer's insurance can refuse to pay for a trans employee's cancer treatment.
Can they refuse other gender affirming care like puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy which are proven to reduce suicidal ideation caused by gender dysphoria? Because if so, then there is no difference between denying that and denying cancer treatments.
**Citations on transition as medically necessary, frequently life saving medical care, and the only effective treatment for gender dysphoria:**
* Here is a resolution from the [**American Psychological Association**](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf); *"THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APA recognizes the efficacy, benefit and medical necessity of gender transition treatments for appropriately evaluated individuals and calls upon public and private insurers to cover these medically necessary treatments."* More from the APA [**here**](http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/transgender/?tab=1)
* Here is an [**AMA resolution**](http://www.tgender.net/taw/ama_resolutions.pdf) on the efficacy and necessity of transition as appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, and call for an end to insurance companies categorically excluding transition-related care from coverage
* A policy statement from the [**American College of Physicians**](http://annals.org/aim/article/2292051/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-health-disparities-executive-summary-policy-position)
* [**Here**](https://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf) are the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines
* [**Here**](https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/events/alf_ncsc/Education.pdf) is a resolution from the American Academy of Family Physicians
* [**Here**](https://www.socialworkers.org/Practice/LGBTQIA/Sexual-Orientation-and-Gender-Diversity) is one from the [**National Association of Social Workers**](https://www.socialworkers.org/News/News-Releases/ID/2642/Gender-Affirming-Health-Care-Saves-Lives)
* [**Here**](https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_18.pdf) is one from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, [**here**](https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/improving-care/better-mh-policy/college-reports/cr181-good-practice-guidelines-for-the-assessment-and-treatment-of-adults-with-gender-dysphoria.pdf) are the treatment guidelines from the RCP.
---
**Condemnation of "Gender Identity Change Efforts", aka "conversion therapy", which attempt to alleviate dysphoria without transition by changing trans people's genders so they are happy and comfortable as their assigned sex at birth, as futile and destructive pseudo-scientific abuse:**
* [**From the APA**](http://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity.aspx). More detailed condemnation of "Gender Identity Change Efforts" for trans youth or adults [**here**](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity-change-efforts.pdf).
* From the [**American College of Physicians**](http://annals.org/aim/article/2292051/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-health-disparities-executive-summary-policy-position)
* In the [**AAP Guidelines**](http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf) - see coverage on this "therapy" starting p.12
* From the [**American Psychoanalytic Association**](https://www.psy.fi/files/1339/Position_Statement_on_Attempts_to_Change_Sexual_Orientation_Gender_Identity_or_Gender_Expression_APsaA_2012.pdf)
* From the [**Association for Behavioral Analysis International**](https://www.abainternational.org/about-us/policies-and-positions/policy-statement-on-conversion-therapy-and-practices,-2021.aspx)
* A joint statement from the [**UK Council for Psychotherapy, British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy, British Psychoanalytic Council, British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies, The British Psychological Society, College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists, The Association of LGBT Doctors and Dentists, The National Counselling Society, NHS Scotland, Pink Therapy, Royal College of General Practitioners, the Scottish Government and Stonewall.**](http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/01/16/health-experts-condemn-attempts-to-cure-trans-people-in-wake-of-controversial-bbc-documentary/)
skimmed thru the article, basically it’s saying that business’ owners don’t have to foot the bill for a trans-person to have a sex change.
I don’t see it as a violation of trans’ people’s rights as much as I see it as a preservation of a person’s values. If someone doesn’t urgently require medical attention, why should a business owner be responsible for non essential medical procedures that go against their own values.
Trans people have the right to their values and beliefs as much as Christians have the right to theirs.
Both sides are required to respect one another and we can move on with our day. That being said they don’t have to agree on everything
I’m tired of today’s society pressuring people to bow down to people based on their sexuality. Trans People are not special, they’re just people like anyone else, enough with the pandering and special privilege.
Generally, the health insurance you get through your employer isn't micromanaged by your employer for the particular kinds of medical care they approve of. An antivaxx employer doesn't specify that your health insurance mustn't cover vaccines. An antinatalist employer doesn't specify that your health insurance mustn't cover childbirth or pregnancy. A Jehovah's Witness employer doesn't specify that your health insurance mustn't cover blood transfusions. And so forth.
It's like wages. If you employ somebody, you pay them money, and then your right (and your spiritual responsibility) over that money is over. You don't get to follow them around saying "you're drinking too much soda, I veto this purchase".
> basically it’s saying that business’ owners don’t have to foot the bill
Guess what? They already didn't have to do that. How do you think workplace insurance works? Cause it's not "this business owner pays for the worker's healthcare bills".
>why should a business owner be responsible for non essential medical procedures that go against their own values
Why should they care what healthcare their employees are getting?
>Both sides are required to respect one another and we can move on with our day.
Denying people access to healthcare they and their doctors say is necessary for them is not respecting trans people.
>Trans People are not special, they’re just people like anyone else, enough with the pandering and special privilege.
How is it a special privilege to want to have access to the healthcare you need to live a full and fulfilling life like your cis peers?
Are you from America, cause it sounds like you have a really distorted view of how insurance works here if you think an employer is directly paying for *any* medical procedures.
Gender affirming care *is* essential medical care for people suffering from gender dysphoria. Like, I had to work with my doctor, therapist, and psychiatrist to prove that it was medically necessary for me, so that I could get it covered under my insurance. An employer should have no right to second-guess my doctors based on their religious ideology.
Doesn’t sound very Christian to not help people regardless of whatever sin they may be committing. I don’t think Jesus would’ve agreed with this ruling at all.
I'm a veryyyyy conservative and Christian VERY BUT!! this is not right. Trans employees should have health care AND SPECIALLY IF YOU ARE CHRISTIAN!. Jewish/Christian employer should always set an example.
That’s really strange, regardless of religious conviction. Trans people suffer from mental illness for life, gender dysphoria and/or addiction. The hrt drugs don’t even cost that much and usually phalloplasties are not covered by insurance so I’m not sure what the barrier is. If they can already deny employment due to mental conditions, why do they need the added salt if not paying for healthcare for the mentally ill? Job healthcare pays for insulin for diabetics so why not hormones and therapy for trannies? Beats me man…
See, while being trans is horrible for mental health, and goes against God’s creation, that shouldn’t be a reason to make it harder for someone to live. that isn’t what Jesus would do. People, please stop pretending that you are something else, you were made the way you are, but nobody should take away your health benefits for your beliefs, that ain’t right.
Trans shooters have been on the rise and they have been aiming at churches and Christian institutions.
This isn't being bigoted, this is for our safety.
Define healthcare.
Are we talking medical insurance as part of an employee package? Personal injury? Terminal illness?
Or are we talking elective hormone replacement therapy?
I mean, I work for a Jewish boss, so we don’t celebrate Christmas at all. I’ve never thought that was weird or rampaged against it though. It’s his company, he can run it how he wants
If we mean by denying them of treatment for illnesses, this is wrong. Have we become like the Pharisees?
Luke 7:39 NABRE
[39] When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/
So this is a relatively recent meta-analysis of gender affirming care and specifically the rates of suicidality pre and post treatment. It’s an even handed analysis of 19 “longitudinal” studies and admits the risk of type 1 error due to lack of controlling for comorbidities such as substance abuse, pre existing psychiatric disorders, etc.. Also of interest is the lack of long term data on the matter. Frequently these studies are based on questionnaires of transgenders post transition asking them if they are happy. These questions are asked at 1 year out and are subject to confirmation bias.
This is all to say that gender affirming care, while fashionable at present, does not have anywhere near the level of evidence most people think in support of it. In other words: the people going through gender affirming care presently ARE the research organisms. This is no different than any other experimental treatment such as experimental chemotherapy regimens. I don’t think the experimental nature of these treatments are given their due consideration publicly or between physician and patient.
I say this out of genuine concern for this population. I am a physician and I am very worried in 20-30 years what the landscape of degenerative skeletal diseases (arthritis and such) will look like in women placed on male sex hormones, building soft tissue mass, when the growth plates may have already fused and the skeleton is not designed to handle such mass.
We know hormone supplementation is linked with increased risks of heart disease in women and increased risk of stroke in men yet we do not take these things into consideration with the transgender population. This is negligence at best and overt malfeasance at worst.
In the first half of the 20th century lobotomy was an accepted treatment for unruly, difficult to manage, or downright antisocial children. It was extremely effective at reducing undesirable behaviors in children but it ruined their lives and it is a stain on medicine for ever considering such an irreversible treatment without any appreciation for the long term effects. I fear that while society may be patting itself on the back for such progressive ideas, we are merely sacrificing this population by subjecting them to treatments we truly have no idea what the long term effects are, to make us feel better about ourselves.
The lack of long term data on the issue is kind of a "duh, obviously" here. There's an obvious reason gender affirming care doesn't have much long term data. The old studies we have on this topic are... Well, not terribly useful for the obvious reasons.
And in terms of controlling comorbidities, sure. That's a fine point. And it's a problem plaguing a lot of the research in behavioral medicine.
In general what this suggests is that we need better studies and better ways of tracking long term outcomes - perhaps some better benchmarking for trans patients.
But unless we have actual clinical data supporting that there is "irreversible damage" (using that language as a zinger against the ding dong "research" promoted by people like Abigail Schrier), there isn't compelling reason to abruptly pause gender affirming care.
> We know hormone supplementation is linked with increased risks of heart disease in women and increased risk of stroke in men yet we do not take these things into consideration with the transgender population.
What makes you think those things aren't taken into consideration? That's the entire purpose of my regular endocrinologist appointments.
> I fear that while society may be patting itself on the back for such progressive ideas, we are merely sacrificing this population by subjecting them to treatments we truly have no idea what the long term effects are, to make us feel better about ourselves
So because there *might* be a long term problem with medications that cis people have been taking for decades without any serious issues, we should do nothing at all?
How exactly would we study the existence or nonexistence of these side effects if no one is allowed to take them?
Additionally, the entire conclusion of the study you linked is we don't have enough data about all the other things that could lead to suicide ideation (like say... a society that demonizes them, family and peers who ostracize them, governments who deny them equality), so more data is needed.
This is the expected outcome. Christian businesses are already permitted to discriminate in their healthcare since the Hobby Lobby ruling 10 years ago.
This is such a boomer decision. When they finally shoulder off, since they are basically tortoises who can’t die, paraphrasing John Stewart on that one, we will finally be done with these dumb laws and if you are a Christian and refuse to help someone because of who they sleep with, meaning consenting legal adults, you probably need to sit back and look at honest therapy options.
So "full" is doing all the lifting here?
Is "gender-affirming care" an optional category for healthcare providers?
The government can just require healthcare providers do include gender-affirming care into default plans and not charge more for that
1. What is a "Christian business" even. 2. You guys need universal healthcare already.
Businesses that are run by Christians, they dont wabt to fund abortions through healthcare
A lot of our hospitals are Catholic. Ppl who work there are already forbidden from giving "sinful" care, even if they disagree. For a lot of communities, that's the only option. (Bc we don't have good social programs, and healthcare is an industry, independent hospitals just don't exist in a lot of places. The govt and the industry justify their failure by portraying Catholic hospitals as equal to public hospitals. Like how social programs will just not exist in a community, bc church "charity" is in place... and then the "charity" denies services to "those ppl." Very convenient for everyone but "those ppl.")
We have it in Canada! We pay like 40% of our income in Canada to be told there are no doctors, go wait 16 hours at emergency.
I live in Canada and have never come close to waiting 16 hours for a doctor in emergency
Always 4 hours or less, which isn’t great but it’s free and the doctors are great
Oh good, since you've never seen it, must not exist. You live in a semi metropolitan area.
Right isn't "christian business" kind of an oxymoron lol. Maybe not though, Paul would probably condone this
This country needs universal healthcare, so this crap won't happen.
So glad I'm already there.
Amen to that.
Canada sure is struggling. *Good* news is they just recently passed laws to provide universal “pharmacare,” which is apparently separate from universal healthcare… it’s a lot less simple than you believe it to be.
There may be some struggles, but I'll take our system, both functionally and economically, over the US system any day.
Agreed
How much does it cost in extra tax?
It doesn't. We pay less in health care taxes than the US. And everyone gets health care.
We don't pay a health care tax. I'm all about universal health care. I was just wondering how much extra tax it is? Most Americans have health insurance through their employer and cost can vary.
Where are you that you don't pay taxes for health care?
The US
We pay a Federal tax, a state tax, and social security
Right. And a big chunk of those goes directly to health care. And your chunk is bigger than the chunk we pay in Canada and everyone here gets health care. Then on top of those taxes you pay, you have to add in your insurance, deductibles etc. When you add your taxes and insurance costs together, you pay twice what we in Canada pay for healthcare.
Looks like I gotta pack my bags and head out of the US then.
Canada's system struggles due to heavy population density in areas creating a queing problem. But it's fixable it just needs adjusting
And yet, we pay less than you on everything
Canada is fine. FYI, the universal pharmacare will apply only to birth control and drugs for diabetes. This will also need to be agreed with the provinces prior to implementation
I noticed how the pharmacare bill was required to cover diabetes medicine. That’s kind of what my point rested on, how even though they had “universal healthcare,” it wasn’t fully taking care of diabetics. That’s what I mean when I say it’s somehow more complicated than “universal healthcare” to make sure everyone is taken care of.
Many Christians are drawing lines in the sand where their good will ends. They wont like how many people are going to disassociate with them because of it, or maybe they wont care.
That’s when they bust out old faithful, break glass in case of emergency, the killer of critical thought, “the world hates me cause I follow Jesus and he said this would happen cause I follow him… yada yada.” When that line gets brought out that’s basically it, it’s a call that they’re going to double, triple, or quadruple down. Because I’m not the problem and nothing I’m doing is the issue, how could it be god said this would happen because I’m following him. It’s the world that’s the problem, obviously. Like if fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. this verse from the Bible is the killer of critical thought/self awareness and reflection.
I like the dune reference lol
The older I get, the more I have come to understand how easily I can understand someone's politics by how badly they misunderstand dune. So many conservatives genuinely believe the Fremen Jihad is a cool and good thing lol
Honestly, though, what can you expect from a culture that sees Katniss Everdeen as a figure of female empowerment?
Ha, you could have fooled me as someone who never read the books or watched the movies. I thought she was supposed to be exactly that.
That's probably what Suzanne Collins intended, but for 95% of the novels, she is nothing more than a puppet of the state and/or the rebellion. She has virtually no agency, is forced to go along with whoever is in charge, and has to rely on outsiders to stay alive. There's also nothing about her gender that matters in any way to the story; she could have just as easily been written as a man. But, you know, she volunteered as tribute and was fiesty and surly throughout, so yay for that.
People assume Dune is a Christian story, but it's actually an Islamic story. The protagonists follow the story of Islam. There are many analogues as Abrahamic religions.
It really covers both christianity and islam. In the timeline there are hundreds of different religions, the orange catholic bible is what paul is given and he reads from it frequently. The dune natives believed a version of islam. But religion isnt really believed by the great houses. They understood it as a tool, a way of teaching life lessons while enslaving the masses.
Arguably that's what real religions were and are for too... if you study theology at a Catholic University you find that "heaven" is not even a place but instead acrually more like a mindset or officially "a way of being" which then makes you feel warm and fuzzy -- that's literally all heaven is. Plus, I think a strong case can be made that the "ressurection" of Jesus was acrually just the cannibalism of his dead body by the Appostles because technically heaven resides in our hearts -- so by eating Jesus he literally rises from the dead and ascends into heavan (our stomachs) in body and spirit. Ever noticed how Churchs eat "the body of Christ" and drink "the blood of Christ" in mass? Tgat could explain how his body dissapeared. The point of all this is to control human behavior. But I happen to like the human behavior Catholicism promotes so I'm good with it.
I like this quote from Dune: >“When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movements become headlong - faster and faster and faster. They put aside all thoughts of obstacles and forget the precipice does not show itself to the man in a blind rush until it's too late.”
[удалено]
Nope, my family quit being Christian damn near in mass after my oldest uncle killed himself, victim of the residential schools. Apparently trying to genocide our culture out of existence, the half assed response from the children of ‘god’, along with the personal loss of it all was the straw that broke the camels back. But none of that matters is pattern recognition a uniquely Christian skill? You don’t have to be the most perceptive one out there when Christians do it, so reliably.
Idk why they can't see what they are doing.. younger people see all the bigotry and can see religion as a joke. So these fundamentalist Christianity are not only cutting their own throat they are ending the church.. Christianity can be a good thing but not when it's mixed with open bigotry and hatred as it is these days!
If you are having to draw a lot of hard lines then you are missing something. Probably humility and Gods love.
The real problem is that providing healthcare to employees costs companies a lot of money. Covering gender-affirming care in insurance plans costs even *more* money. The lawmakers here are really just protecting companies from needing to cough up cash, and just like everything else in conservative states, they’re using God as the excuse.
But we are still gonna cover boner pills, right? Can’t skimp on the boner pills.
I work in pharmacy. Viagra and cialis are usually the biggest cash transactions for pharmacies. Insurance isn’t covering them in the amount people want.
*We need women in politics!* 📢
That’s a big part of why I stopped considering myself Christian over 15 years ago. Even in middle and high school I could see where they were headed.
**The first century Christians**: The government is persecuting us for our faith but we should have the right to practice our beliefs in peace! **Christians today**: I don’t care whatever your beliefs are, mine says you shouldn’t be able to live however you want to live therefore if you’re not gonna do what I say and change your beliefs I’m gonna make your life and health literal hell. *P.S. Jesus says he loves you <3*
That is not the brand of Christianity I see. Now i will not lie to you and tell you nothing is sin but I will love you, pray for you and teach the Bible. But it is up to you. Many people like the part about healing and Jesus love but they don’t likely the parts about go and sin no more. The Bible is very clear on what is sin and if you don’t agree then you are not Christian you are something else.
Do you think being transgender is a sin? If so, can you point to where in the Bible it says that in a way that is “very clear”? The only things I’ve ever seen are: - Strained overreaches of very general verses (e.g. God made men and women, does that mean that it’s also sinful to be intersex? Or maybe the Netherlands is an abomination, since they’ve gone against God’s plan and turned the sea, which God separated from the land, into land?); -Conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity (I’m a trans woman faithfully married to a cis woman, does this mean these people quoting lines about men lying with men and women with women agree that I’m actually a woman? I don’t think they accept that.); or -Trying to apply Old Testament law inconsistently so that you’re holding trans people to an entirely different standard than other gentiles (so does Deuteronomy apply only to trans people and other people you don’t like, or does it apply to everyone?).
Conservatives and their behaviour are one of the biggest causes of the decline of Christianity.
As a former conservative myself, I agree with this statement
Also a former conservative, and I also agree.
Utterly shameful and sadly not surprising.
Remember this when they claim to love trans people. Denying trans people the healthcare they and their doctors agree is best for them is not love.
They've proven they don't love LGBTQ people. They just voted for a GOP candidate in North Carolina who wants LGBTQ people exterminated.
Idk who “they” is. You realize christianity is not represented by a party or political views? You realize denominations exist right? I am fully christian yet would vote for healthcare for everyone fully anyday
The article clearly states that the only service that they are denying to trans children is gender affirming care, not healthcare in general, please read the article before you claim this.
Gender affirming care is the healthcare they and their doctors agree is best for them. Also, this article is about trans employees being denied healthcare, not children. So it's pretty clear *you* didn't read the article.
Unfortunately, issues like transitions and abortions are things that people with religious beliefs are not going to be forced to support. It’s not an issue of “love,” it really is an issue of protecting the religious rights of people who don’t want to fund the things that go against their religion.
If a business owner is a Jehovah's witness can he deny the use of blood products?
It isn't like these businesses cut a check to pay for every procedure that gets done. They provide *insurance*. What they're doing here is going out of their way to provide crummy insurance coverage that exempts particular medical treatments from coverage. This doesn't save them any money. It just takes away their employees freedom to make their own medical choices. Should your employer have a right to tell you what medical care is best for you? Americans really hate themselves sometimes, I swear. We don't have to keep apologizing for the boot on our necks!
So? "Hey it is my religious belief that you should suffer" doesn't make the hatred any less real.
My religion supports LGBTQ+ people and abortions. Is this really going to be an issue of which religion can trample on the rights of which religion?
That is not a right though. Like zero percent. It's outrageous that people even suggest it is.
It's been a legal reality in the US since the Hobby Lobby lawsuit.
Except in the 99.9999999999% of situations where it isn't.
This is blatantly false. Conservatives Christians have no issue forcing their beliefs on others, so you can deal with having to live in a society where abortions and trans people exist.
I have to fund wars despite it being against my religious beliefs. Suck it up and welcome to society.
Uh, we definitely shouldn’t be funding wars either. I’m *very* against this, and I’ve been vocal about it. I’m never going to “suck it up” and concede to my tax dollars being used to kill people in another hemisphere.
[удалено]
Well, they are, so there’s that.
[удалено]
No, I don’t agree that your “rights” should be up for moral debate. I’m just saying that even though you think it shouldn’t be the case, the privileges of trans healthcare are definitely up for legal debate. I don’t necessarily think this is moral.
Oh. Fuck. Sorry for assuming.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Eunuchs are found literally all throughout the Bible.
Are we going to pretend they’re depicted in a positive light?
We don't need to pretend. >For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and **there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake**. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12)
"For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off." The Bible states that a eunuch is responsible for Christianity spreading to Africa, and that God will create a gender "better than Man and Woman" in Heaven: https://www.joyfulexile.com/verses/eunuchs/kjv People would know this if they'd read.
Apparently Moses is greater than Isaiah or Jesus, but only when it comes to protecting their own bigotry. Hilariously, they also say ESV is the best translation, which is amazing because it was explicitly created by conservative Christians looking to enshrine their misogyny and other horrible bigotry.
“Even” is a very key word here. The context is that eunuchs weren’t even allowed in the temple. Allowing them into heaven if they follow God is an act of grace that goes against the standard.
[удалено]
ESV is so much better than NIV, come on now. I’d report your comment to be deleted, but I think it’s the icing on the cake of this argument, because it shows how your fragile emotions are present in this argument.
Did you read it? I know Christians usually don't read the Bible. That's why I asked.
Of course. I can’t claim I read it all sequentially or anything. When I was 13 I tried to start at the Old Testament, and I definitely wasn’t able to make it past the long lists of family trees.
They are in the book of Esther
>it really is an issue of protecting the religious rights of people who don’t want to fund the things that go against their religion. It's bullshit. If you want to do something, there may be other things required in order to participate. If you can't accept those collateral obligations, for whatever reason, then don't participate. If Christians, or anyone, don't want to participate in something, they can just not do it instead of asking for special accommodations that aren't required due to physical limitations.
I'm trans. Some of the Christians are openly talking about beheading us, such as Charlie Kirk. Add that to my Christian family abandoning me in university, because I transitioned, and all I feel is Christian love. 💜
I am so sorry that you have been treated this way. If it helps, I am a Christian and I find their actions disgusting
Make it two of us. That is not what Christianity stands for!
I mean, when most Christians behave like that, doesn't that become what Christianity stands for?
What the actual... Talk about throwing Christ's teachings out the window. Those who hate their next has not seen God and wanders in darkness.
Can you share a link to this? That surprises me he would say that so I’m curious. If he did, happy to not listen to anything of his ever again.
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-fantasizes-about-children-watching-televised-executions-certain-age-its
What a murderers row of freaks. Posobiec is the guy who was caught trying to perpetrate the "r*pe Melania" hoax a few years back, then Pizzagate... All while using neo-nazi language online. Blake Neff is the writer who was fired from Tucker Carlson's show after being outed as a white supremacist. And now they're hanging with Charlie Kirk? I remember seeing these comments at the time but I didn't see who was on this awful panel. Genuinely sorry the way you were treated here.
What they did is very against the bible. They don’t represent what a christian should be like
One of them many reasons I left Christianity. I've seen very little evidence of love coming from Christians these days. I've seen far more Atheists follow the teachings of Jesus than I ever have Christians.
Why are businesses providing health care in the first place? Seems like the government is best placed to provide universal access.
welcome to unrestricted capitalism
Actually, businesses offering healthcare was heavily boosted by an attempt to _restrict_ capitalism. Specifically: > One of the most important spurs to growth of employment-based health benefits was—like many other innovations—an unintended outgrowth of actions taken for other reasons during World War II (Somers and Somers, 1961; Munts, 1967; Starr, 1982; Weir et al., 1988). In 1943 the War Labor Board, which had one year earlier introduced wage and price controls, ruled that contributions to insurance and pension funds did not count as wages. In a war economy with labor shortages, employer contributions for employee health benefits became a means of maneuvering around wage controls. By the end of the war, health coverage had tripled (Weir et al., 1988). ([Origins and Evolution of Employment-Based Health Benefits](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235989/))
Wow. They must really love Jesus.
Hey, Jesus came for the righteous men, the ones on their knees in a crowded temple, ripping their shirts and shouting their prayers for all to see. Jesus cast out the sick, he chopped the feet off of the prostitutes, he poisoned the wine of the drunkards and ruffians. He only came for the best. Suck it losers.
I genuinely can't tell if this is satire or not-
You and me both brrrrrother
I meant that in response to your comment, I can't tell if you were joking or not ._. *typo
I know. I'll let my flair answer that :)
Fuck Evangelicals
dislike the misleading heading. they should have just said gender affirming care. the headline implied trans people would be refused unrelated medical care on the basis of being trans.
> gender affirming care Something like 90% of gender affirming care is obtained by cis people.
Um what is this "90% of gender affirming care" provided to non-trans persons? I wonder if you're playing with definitions; but perhaps not, and so denying everyone "gender affirming care" sounds... nondiscriminatory?
> gender affirming care Which is healthcare. It's not a misleading title.
it is misleading because intentionally leaving out the type of health care leads people to assume health care that would be provided to cis people is being denied based on someone's identity. "Full health care for trans employees" is twice as long as "gender-affirming care." The author is trying to mislead people. It is sort of like how abortion is illegal in Texas, but nobody is saying "providing health for women is illegal in Texas," because that would obviously misleading due to the implication that there is some genocide against women as opposed to one medical procedure given to women being outlawed.
> health care that would be provided to cis people is being denied based on someone's identity Except it is. Most gender-affirming healthcare is, under certain circumstances, also offered to cis people. I can walk into my doctor's right now and ask for hormone replacement therapy. It's the exact same medicine that trans women use. Except I, as a cis woman, have no problem getting it. A trans woman does. Exact same medication. Exact same healthcare. Yes, healthcare that is provided to cis people is being denied based on a trans person's identity. >It is sort of like how abortion is illegal in Texas, but nobody is saying "providing health for women is illegal in Texas," Except that is also true, since abortion is also healthcare, and because the laws are also scaring doctors into not providing miscarriage management healthcare. It's not misleading just because you don't like accepting the truth of what you're supporting.
It very much is misleading. If gives off the impression employers are simply not providing trans people *any* healthcare. Heck, that's what I thought it was until I dug deeper, and others here seem to be under the same impression. Is it bad? Absolutely. But we still need to acknowledge when something is misleading. It does us no favors to back bad journalism.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gender affirming care *is* medical care. I suffered from severe depression and anxiety for years as I fought against transitioning. In that time, I tried multiple different antidepressants and other psych meds. They didn’t help me, but HRT did. At this point, transitioning has essentially resolved my depression and anxiety. Were those antidepressants healthcare, even though they didn’t work? Is my HRT not healthcare, even though it helped me far more than the antidepressants ever did? Why should the antidepressants be covered under my health plan, but not estrogen?
I'm pretty sure a decent chunk would love denying them that as well
okay, but acknowledge that is a situation you made up in your head and not a court ruling.
[It’s Now Legal in Florida for Doctors to Deny Health Care to Anyone If They Feel Like It](https://newrepublic.com/post/172667/its-now-legal-florida-doctors-deny-health-care-anyone-feel-like) [Arkansas governor signs bill allowing medical workers to refuse treatment to LGBTQ people](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/arkansas-governor-signs-bill-allowing-medical-workers-to-refuse-treatment-to-lgbtq-people) [A Hospital Refused to Provide Medically Necessary Surgery Because I Am Transgender](https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/a-hospital-refused-to-provide-medically-necessary-surgery-because-i-am-transgender)
wow, more clickbait articles with misleading titles. I am so shocked. 1. the bill allows individuals to refuse to perform specific procedures based on their moral beliefs. Unlike what the title says, procedures cannot be denied to a person based on who they are. Also, if someone wants a procedure one doctor might not want to provide, they are allowed to switch doctors. 2. again, it is just about gender-affirming care 3. the most misleading title yet. "medically necessary" implies this person was going to die. In reality, the surgery was only necessary for their gender transition.
Wow, double triple extra fuck Florida. I regret ever having lived there.
All three of those stories are again about the specific treatment of sex reassignment surgery.
[удалено]
Sort of pithy, but not really relevant to the point here - which is that the commentator pulled three stories in an attempt to prove that Christians were trying to deny trans people non-gender reassignment treatment, and all three were not that.
Guessing you have an excuse if we bring up states banning non-surgical gender affirming care for trans kids?
Wait are we talking about general health care or health care in terms of gender affirming care?
Just gender affirming care
Ok then the title is very misleading
This is sinful according to catholicism. Lutheranism was not the liberation he thought it would be, for it oppressed some to liberate many.
This is just wrong😬Jesus tells his followers to help everyone
in the gospels when Jesus was asked what is the most important thing for someone to live by he replied: To love your neighbor as you would love yourself. this does not come with stipulations. It's not love your neighbor as you would love yourself- unless they're trans. anyone who does not follow this very basic rule of life that Jesus so clearly outlined in all of the gospels is not actually following the teachings of Jesus Christ and is not actually a genuine Christian.
Maybe I’m wrong, but doesn’t this seem ironic? As a Christian, we are taught to love everyone, love the sinner, hate the sin. Therefore, why would Christian businesses deny full healthcare for supposed sinners?
As a Christian business, they should be providing health care to whomever they hire. Christ didn't ask the blind man's sexuality before healing him. He repeatedly healed the unclean. Maybe we should strive to be more like Christ and less like those who would turn their back on their fellow man
This is bullshit. The 3 mist basic commandments disprove this. Love god. Love your neighbor. Love yourself
I'm pretty sure the ruling doesn't just apply to Christian-owned businesses. There are plenty of American Muslim business owners who are, no doubt, happy with this ruling.
(And to clarify - since it appears from a lot of the naive comments here that clarification is needed -- this ruling specifically relates to gender transition procedures. The post title makes it look like they're allowed to just say, "No, you don't get health care!" to trans-identifying people)
> “CEA’s sincerely held religious belief is that male and female are immutable realities defined by biological sex and that gender reassignment is contrary to Christian Values” Hmm, I don’t remember the part of the Bible that condemns trans people. Science recognizes that gender is not the same thing as biological sex, and that there is not a 1 to 1 correlation between the two. Science recognizes that gender is complicated. I’m not sure that one’s religious beliefs should matter when they contradict what science tells us, especially when the result is someone else’s rights being violated
I love how many people are arguing in the comments about how this totally isn't discriminatory. Christians, we're watching.
The more I see stories like this, the more I wonder why freedom of religion should be so protected. Other than native american tribes winning the right to continue using peyote in the ceremonies, has a freedom of religion case ever fought to make things better for people? Instead we get parents fighting to keep their children from getting transfusions, priests fighting to protect pedophiles, and shit like this.
It's amazing to me, still, that a Christian can claim that his Christianity allows him to refuse medical treatment for someone.
So if I were a racist, I could establish a set of religious beliefs that I think being black is a sin, and refuse to hire black people?
And how is that not discrimination? Is the US going toward another segregation era or what? "One's freedom stops where the freedom of others begin". Religion is a personal matter that shouldn't affect others. Stop projecting fellow Christians. I am religious myself but do you think that just because you are christian you are less of a sinner?
Right because that’s what Jesus would do. Refuse to heal people. Ridiculous.
Really showing that Christian love here, aren't they?
To be clear, this is specifically in regards to gender reassignment surgery. It isn't saying that a Christian employer's insurance can refuse to pay for a trans employee's cancer treatment.
Can they refuse other gender affirming care like puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy which are proven to reduce suicidal ideation caused by gender dysphoria? Because if so, then there is no difference between denying that and denying cancer treatments.
If employers are paying for puberty blockers, I think there's an issue with your child labour laws...
Most employers allow you to put your children on your health insurance plan. So this is specious.
So you don’t know how insurance works in the US.
Health care? Removing breasts and making fake penises is not health care.
**Citations on transition as medically necessary, frequently life saving medical care, and the only effective treatment for gender dysphoria:** * Here is a resolution from the [**American Psychological Association**](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf); *"THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APA recognizes the efficacy, benefit and medical necessity of gender transition treatments for appropriately evaluated individuals and calls upon public and private insurers to cover these medically necessary treatments."* More from the APA [**here**](http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/transgender/?tab=1) * Here is an [**AMA resolution**](http://www.tgender.net/taw/ama_resolutions.pdf) on the efficacy and necessity of transition as appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, and call for an end to insurance companies categorically excluding transition-related care from coverage * A policy statement from the [**American College of Physicians**](http://annals.org/aim/article/2292051/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-health-disparities-executive-summary-policy-position) * [**Here**](https://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf) are the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines * [**Here**](https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/events/alf_ncsc/Education.pdf) is a resolution from the American Academy of Family Physicians * [**Here**](https://www.socialworkers.org/Practice/LGBTQIA/Sexual-Orientation-and-Gender-Diversity) is one from the [**National Association of Social Workers**](https://www.socialworkers.org/News/News-Releases/ID/2642/Gender-Affirming-Health-Care-Saves-Lives) * [**Here**](https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_18.pdf) is one from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, [**here**](https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/improving-care/better-mh-policy/college-reports/cr181-good-practice-guidelines-for-the-assessment-and-treatment-of-adults-with-gender-dysphoria.pdf) are the treatment guidelines from the RCP. --- **Condemnation of "Gender Identity Change Efforts", aka "conversion therapy", which attempt to alleviate dysphoria without transition by changing trans people's genders so they are happy and comfortable as their assigned sex at birth, as futile and destructive pseudo-scientific abuse:** * [**From the APA**](http://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity.aspx). More detailed condemnation of "Gender Identity Change Efforts" for trans youth or adults [**here**](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity-change-efforts.pdf). * From the [**American College of Physicians**](http://annals.org/aim/article/2292051/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-health-disparities-executive-summary-policy-position) * In the [**AAP Guidelines**](http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf) - see coverage on this "therapy" starting p.12 * From the [**American Psychoanalytic Association**](https://www.psy.fi/files/1339/Position_Statement_on_Attempts_to_Change_Sexual_Orientation_Gender_Identity_or_Gender_Expression_APsaA_2012.pdf) * From the [**Association for Behavioral Analysis International**](https://www.abainternational.org/about-us/policies-and-positions/policy-statement-on-conversion-therapy-and-practices,-2021.aspx) * A joint statement from the [**UK Council for Psychotherapy, British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy, British Psychoanalytic Council, British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies, The British Psychological Society, College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists, The Association of LGBT Doctors and Dentists, The National Counselling Society, NHS Scotland, Pink Therapy, Royal College of General Practitioners, the Scottish Government and Stonewall.**](http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/01/16/health-experts-condemn-attempts-to-cure-trans-people-in-wake-of-controversial-bbc-documentary/)
It is though, transition is the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria
This is transphobia... in case you were wondering
skimmed thru the article, basically it’s saying that business’ owners don’t have to foot the bill for a trans-person to have a sex change. I don’t see it as a violation of trans’ people’s rights as much as I see it as a preservation of a person’s values. If someone doesn’t urgently require medical attention, why should a business owner be responsible for non essential medical procedures that go against their own values. Trans people have the right to their values and beliefs as much as Christians have the right to theirs. Both sides are required to respect one another and we can move on with our day. That being said they don’t have to agree on everything I’m tired of today’s society pressuring people to bow down to people based on their sexuality. Trans People are not special, they’re just people like anyone else, enough with the pandering and special privilege.
Wanting healthcare coverage like everyone else is pandering and special privilege? Truly no hate like Christian Love.
Generally, the health insurance you get through your employer isn't micromanaged by your employer for the particular kinds of medical care they approve of. An antivaxx employer doesn't specify that your health insurance mustn't cover vaccines. An antinatalist employer doesn't specify that your health insurance mustn't cover childbirth or pregnancy. A Jehovah's Witness employer doesn't specify that your health insurance mustn't cover blood transfusions. And so forth. It's like wages. If you employ somebody, you pay them money, and then your right (and your spiritual responsibility) over that money is over. You don't get to follow them around saying "you're drinking too much soda, I veto this purchase".
> basically it’s saying that business’ owners don’t have to foot the bill Guess what? They already didn't have to do that. How do you think workplace insurance works? Cause it's not "this business owner pays for the worker's healthcare bills". >why should a business owner be responsible for non essential medical procedures that go against their own values Why should they care what healthcare their employees are getting? >Both sides are required to respect one another and we can move on with our day. Denying people access to healthcare they and their doctors say is necessary for them is not respecting trans people. >Trans People are not special, they’re just people like anyone else, enough with the pandering and special privilege. How is it a special privilege to want to have access to the healthcare you need to live a full and fulfilling life like your cis peers?
Are you from America, cause it sounds like you have a really distorted view of how insurance works here if you think an employer is directly paying for *any* medical procedures.
Gender affirming care *is* essential medical care for people suffering from gender dysphoria. Like, I had to work with my doctor, therapist, and psychiatrist to prove that it was medically necessary for me, so that I could get it covered under my insurance. An employer should have no right to second-guess my doctors based on their religious ideology.
Stopping trans people from getting medical treatment they need isn’t respecting them.
Is it ignorance or malice that leads you to the wrong conclusions? Do you just enjoy hurting people who are different?
Doesn’t sound very Christian to not help people regardless of whatever sin they may be committing. I don’t think Jesus would’ve agreed with this ruling at all.
I'm a veryyyyy conservative and Christian VERY BUT!! this is not right. Trans employees should have health care AND SPECIALLY IF YOU ARE CHRISTIAN!. Jewish/Christian employer should always set an example.
That’s really strange, regardless of religious conviction. Trans people suffer from mental illness for life, gender dysphoria and/or addiction. The hrt drugs don’t even cost that much and usually phalloplasties are not covered by insurance so I’m not sure what the barrier is. If they can already deny employment due to mental conditions, why do they need the added salt if not paying for healthcare for the mentally ill? Job healthcare pays for insulin for diabetics so why not hormones and therapy for trannies? Beats me man…
Ya what the hello is Christian business sounds like BS to me
Absolutely disgusting
See, while being trans is horrible for mental health, and goes against God’s creation, that shouldn’t be a reason to make it harder for someone to live. that isn’t what Jesus would do. People, please stop pretending that you are something else, you were made the way you are, but nobody should take away your health benefits for your beliefs, that ain’t right.
Trans shooters have been on the rise and they have been aiming at churches and Christian institutions. This isn't being bigoted, this is for our safety.
Maybe they sell incense and crucifixes and bustiers.
Define healthcare. Are we talking medical insurance as part of an employee package? Personal injury? Terminal illness? Or are we talking elective hormone replacement therapy?
I'm a Christian but I disagree with not providing EVERY employee with the care they need to remain healthy...
So a judge ruled that a religious business is allowed to be bigoted, breaking news for the US
That’s weird though, the title says “full health care” but the text body only says “gender affirming care.”
Freedom is the ability to act virtuously without restrictions, not the ability to do anything you want. So I find no fault with this.
So you believe that the religious views of *any* boss can be imposed on *any* worker? *Any* view?
I mean, I work for a Jewish boss, so we don’t celebrate Christmas at all. I’ve never thought that was weird or rampaged against it though. It’s his company, he can run it how he wants
If you were forced to abide by Jewish beliefs and practices during that season due to company policy, how would you feel then?
If we mean by denying them of treatment for illnesses, this is wrong. Have we become like the Pharisees? Luke 7:39 NABRE [39] When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.”
👍
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/ So this is a relatively recent meta-analysis of gender affirming care and specifically the rates of suicidality pre and post treatment. It’s an even handed analysis of 19 “longitudinal” studies and admits the risk of type 1 error due to lack of controlling for comorbidities such as substance abuse, pre existing psychiatric disorders, etc.. Also of interest is the lack of long term data on the matter. Frequently these studies are based on questionnaires of transgenders post transition asking them if they are happy. These questions are asked at 1 year out and are subject to confirmation bias. This is all to say that gender affirming care, while fashionable at present, does not have anywhere near the level of evidence most people think in support of it. In other words: the people going through gender affirming care presently ARE the research organisms. This is no different than any other experimental treatment such as experimental chemotherapy regimens. I don’t think the experimental nature of these treatments are given their due consideration publicly or between physician and patient. I say this out of genuine concern for this population. I am a physician and I am very worried in 20-30 years what the landscape of degenerative skeletal diseases (arthritis and such) will look like in women placed on male sex hormones, building soft tissue mass, when the growth plates may have already fused and the skeleton is not designed to handle such mass. We know hormone supplementation is linked with increased risks of heart disease in women and increased risk of stroke in men yet we do not take these things into consideration with the transgender population. This is negligence at best and overt malfeasance at worst. In the first half of the 20th century lobotomy was an accepted treatment for unruly, difficult to manage, or downright antisocial children. It was extremely effective at reducing undesirable behaviors in children but it ruined their lives and it is a stain on medicine for ever considering such an irreversible treatment without any appreciation for the long term effects. I fear that while society may be patting itself on the back for such progressive ideas, we are merely sacrificing this population by subjecting them to treatments we truly have no idea what the long term effects are, to make us feel better about ourselves.
Transition has been proven to reduce the suicide rate
The lack of long term data on the issue is kind of a "duh, obviously" here. There's an obvious reason gender affirming care doesn't have much long term data. The old studies we have on this topic are... Well, not terribly useful for the obvious reasons. And in terms of controlling comorbidities, sure. That's a fine point. And it's a problem plaguing a lot of the research in behavioral medicine. In general what this suggests is that we need better studies and better ways of tracking long term outcomes - perhaps some better benchmarking for trans patients. But unless we have actual clinical data supporting that there is "irreversible damage" (using that language as a zinger against the ding dong "research" promoted by people like Abigail Schrier), there isn't compelling reason to abruptly pause gender affirming care.
> We know hormone supplementation is linked with increased risks of heart disease in women and increased risk of stroke in men yet we do not take these things into consideration with the transgender population. What makes you think those things aren't taken into consideration? That's the entire purpose of my regular endocrinologist appointments. > I fear that while society may be patting itself on the back for such progressive ideas, we are merely sacrificing this population by subjecting them to treatments we truly have no idea what the long term effects are, to make us feel better about ourselves So because there *might* be a long term problem with medications that cis people have been taking for decades without any serious issues, we should do nothing at all? How exactly would we study the existence or nonexistence of these side effects if no one is allowed to take them? Additionally, the entire conclusion of the study you linked is we don't have enough data about all the other things that could lead to suicide ideation (like say... a society that demonizes them, family and peers who ostracize them, governments who deny them equality), so more data is needed.
Of course this is in the US. Didn't even have to read the article to confirm this. Do things like this happen anywhere else in the world?
“Love the sinner hate the sin” yeah failed here
When a business doesn’t want to cover erectile dysfunction these people are going to be furious.
Stop trying to legislate your clown beliefs.
This is the expected outcome. Christian businesses are already permitted to discriminate in their healthcare since the Hobby Lobby ruling 10 years ago.
This is such a boomer decision. When they finally shoulder off, since they are basically tortoises who can’t die, paraphrasing John Stewart on that one, we will finally be done with these dumb laws and if you are a Christian and refuse to help someone because of who they sleep with, meaning consenting legal adults, you probably need to sit back and look at honest therapy options.
So "full" is doing all the lifting here? Is "gender-affirming care" an optional category for healthcare providers? The government can just require healthcare providers do include gender-affirming care into default plans and not charge more for that
The shamefulness Jesus would never deny anyone healthcare.
How unchristian of them