President Biden Signs Defense Bill Blocking Health Care For Trans Military Children, First Anti-LGBTQ+ Federal Law Enacted Since ‘Defense of Marriage Act’
President Biden Signs Defense Bill Blocking Health Care For Trans Military Children, First Anti-LGBTQ+ Federal Law Enacted Since ‘Defense of Marriage Act’
Thousands of Military Families Now Face Loss of Medically Necessary Care for Their Children
HRC Article:
WASHINGTON — Last night, President Biden signed the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, which includes a provision inserted by Speaker Mike Johnson blocking healthcare for the transgender children of military servicemembers. This provision, the first anti-LGBTQ+ federal law enacted since the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, will rip medically necessary care from the transgender children of thousands of military families – families who make incredible sacrifices in defense of the country each and every day. The last anti-LGBTQ+ federal law that explicitly targeted military servicemembers was Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which went into effect in 1994.
Biden's press release:
No service member should have to decide between their family’s health care access and their call to serve our Nation.
You're viewing a single thread.
Biden isn’t the worst president ever, but he’s a piece of shit. He was entirely not up to the task of our time, and that was obvious in 2020. His presidency had more to do with fulfilling an old man’s lifelong desire to sit in the big seat, rather than meet the needs of the citizenry. It was basically a make-a-wish project for establishment Democrats who desire gentlemanly order and aggrandizement more than any meaningful policy goals. This was a group project, and all of the self-interested facilitators that covered up his senility (going back before the 2020 race), are directly culpable in the emerging feudal reign that Republicans are orchestrating, as well as the unjust murders of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Gaza. I started his administration feeling weary but cautiously hopeful that we may have averted calamity. I end his administration having lost confidence in not only our government, but of our people. I could not have more contempt for the entire American project and all the hollow sentiments that cloak the inhumanity of it. Biden is such a clown.
He's literally patting himself for doing the best job he could instead of bowing out sooner.
What a dumb take. If Harris had been in the Presidential seat, she would have lost by more.
Trump's fear mongering and lies are all that got him elected. Plain and simple. Putting ANY candidate up against a sitting president for re-election that just lies and says fascist bullshit non-stop is a sure winner.
This is not, in general, true, or else everyone would be doing it. Trump is a right-wing populist who's taking advantage of people's dissatisfaction with the status quo and the Democrats' unwillingness to change it. You need both sides for this equation to make sense.
Exactly. The Ds wanted to keep things the way they were, to the point they threw Biden in last minute in 2020 for the Ds to rally around. The Ds had a supermajority with Obama and they did jack shit with it. Unless they abandon the status quo stance they have they will continue to lose, which with Pelosi pushing the old guy over AOC shows they haven't learned yet and will cling to the way things are until we boot them out with prejudice.
Yes. Neoliberalism fails wherever it is tried, and the US managed to export it across the western world. What's going on in the US isn't unique and the same dynamics apply.
Lol, that's clearly not the take away, but you do you.
It's absolutely the takeaway. Did you even read your own link? It's not about "incumbents" it's about "establishments".
Mexico also had an aging president who named a younger woman as his successor in a 2024 election, and she won in a landslide. The difference was that Obrador and Sheinbaum are left populist. That is despite the fact that Mexico is less educated, more religious, and more culturally conservative.
Yes, but your take that neoliberal whatevers is the cause is your own slant. Has nothing to do with it.
What do you think western establishment political philosophy is? You can pick from neoliberalism or neoconservativism. There's not much difference.
Just chiming in to say that if your only counterargument is "lol no," consider your own stance could be due for reevaluation.
I don't really strongly agree with either of you, but you've thrown in the towel with this bit.
Read the article.
What do you think I missed and what is it about whether I did or did not miss a salient point that excuses your dismissive attitude during a debate?
Fuck no. Biden, Harris, and the Democratic consultancy machine did not run a presidency or a campaign that came within a million miles of supporting that claim.
In a populist age, like we are in, what beats right wing populists (fascists) is left wing populists. The Biden presidency nudged the party in that direction, but neither he nor Harris were capable of running a populist campaign.
The Biden presidency nudged the party in that direction,
Well, the Biden administration briefly entertained some left-wing populist positions, which were unceremoniously jettisoned along with any credibility Democrats once had on the subject.
As Biden just did with the now-ridiculous notion that Democrats support trans people.
Biden made serious progress for unions, consumers, and in antitrust. I'm not putting him up for sainthood, but progress is progress. He was the most progressive president of the last 50 years which, sadly, is a super low bar.
Politics is compromise. Biden is not supreme leader of the United States. He shares power with Republicans. The Republicans will get some wins, and every one of them will be ugly and outrageous. If America wanted to support trans people, they should have elected a Democratic House.
Biden made serious progress for unions, consumers
no, he absolutely did not. He just lost an election for being out of touch with consumers, and he ended a rail strike he should have stayed out of, and then followed up with peanuts for the strikers and called it a win. Then when police started busting the amazon strike, he did nothing.
Your understanding of the railroad strike is deeply incomplete. The following is from an IBEW statement.
"We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.
Here are 8 Ways the Biden Administration Has Fought for Working People by Strengthening Unions.
Here is an article covering Biden's consumer protection and anti-trust initiatives. Lina Khan was Biden's appointee to the FTC, and she did amazing work in her short time in office - even pissing off a lot of Democratic donors.
IBEW was one of the unions that ratified the original proposal. They were already happy with the deal with no sick days and didn't want to strike in the first place.
from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_railroad_labor_dispute
"Congressional intervention In September 2022, U.S. Senators Richard Burr and Roger Wicker introduced a bill that would have required labor unions to agree to the terms proposed by the Presidential Emergency Board, to prevent a strike.[18] It was blocked by Senator Bernie Sanders, who noted that freight rail workers receive a "grand total of zero sick days" while railroad companies made significant profits.[19] In the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "We’d rather see negotiations prevail so there’s no need for any actions from Congress."[16]
In late November, after some unions had rejected the agreement, Biden asked Congress to pass the agreement into law. On November 30, the House of Representatives passed the existing tentative agreement along with an amended version that would require railroad employers to ensure 7 days paid sick leave.[20] On December 1, the Senate passed the tentative agreement with only 1 day of sick leave.[21] President Joe Biden signed the legislation into law on December 2.[4] The Biden administration's intervention in the dispute was condemned by over 500 labor historians in an open letter to Joe Biden and Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh.[22]"
Seems to me that by the end of that 5 year debacle, Biden had taken away the strikers power and forced them to accept scraps compared to what they asked for, and the centrists want to be thanked and praised for that pathetic dog's dinner. The presidents proposal to the strikers initially didnt include any paid sick time at all, but Sanders blocked it and forced it to change. So I give Biden a pretty low score for leadership there. Give Bernie the praise for those results. Biden was full speed ahead on the railroads side, as is his nature. Also, the strikes werent just about having no paid sick leave, there were other issues that werent addressed.
And where was Biden on the amazon strike? No help.
On Khan, yes Biden deserves some priase for that anti trust work. Whenever Biden does something progressive (and not centrist), we all seem to agree that its praiseworthy. Weird eh?
Seems like the stuff you linked in 2022 and the follow-up he linked (when they got the stuff) was 2023.
Seems to me that Biden took away the strikers power to give them scraps
Seems to me that your talking out of your ass.
and the centrists want to be thanked and praised for that dogs dinner.
I didn't link you to the centrists asking for credit, I linked to the union giving them credit.
On Khan, yes Biden deserves some praise for that anti trust work.
And consumer protections. Khan did good work on both.
Whenever Biden does something progressive (and not centrist), we all seem to agree that its praiseworthy. Weird eh?
Uh, no? Not weird at all. Credit where credit is due, and condemnation where that's appropriate as well. I've got all kinds of problems with the Biden presidency. Gaza is probably the biggest one I have, but there are plenty of valid criticisms domestically as well.
The Republicans will get some wins, and every one of them will be ugly and outrageous. If America wanted to support trans people, they should have elected a Democratic House.
Our Democratic Senate voted overwhelmingly against trans people.
The Senate doesn't rule any more than the President. The Senate must also compromise with the House. If America doesn't want Republicans to influence policy, then America has to stop voting for Republicans.
The real question is, why do Republicans choose to use their leverage on this shit? The answer is simple. It allows them to undermine Democrats by splitting the left. Your reaction is the exact reason why trans people just got screwed. You are personally more responsible than anyone in the Senate.
There need to be hard red lines. Human rights are one of these. This bill is literally, without any exaggeration, going to result in several thousand dead children. But the very survival of trans people is "political," so it's OK to sacrifice our lives for the sake of political expediency.
A few thousand dead kids is nothing, because deep down, people don't see trans people as human beings.
without any exaggeration, going to result in several thousand dead children.
I sincerely doubt it. The impact is limited to trans children of active service members who do not have a second parent with health insurance. Furthermore, trans healthcare for kids generally means puberty blockers, not surgeries or other expensive interventions. As far as I can gather, that's about $5k-$12k per year if insurance pays, and likely lower with self pay discounts. That's easily doable with a GoFundMe.
None of that is to say it's OK. I'm just addressing the assertion of thousands of deaths.
Nobody should be thrown under the bus, but political reality in a split government says that someone will be. This gave Republicans the hate fix they so desperately wanted with probably less impact than with any other group. I still agree it sucks, but without knowing what the alternatives were, it's not rational to assume Democrats just didn't care to do better.
There are about 2 million minors on Tricare. Around 1% of the population is trans, then that's 20,000 kids. The suicide attempt rate among trans kids untreated is about 40%. If only a quarter of those succeed, that's 2,000 dead kids among Tricare's current enrollees.
Now your despicable suggestion that people rely on GoFundMe for their life-saving healthcare? Or your hope that most families on Tricare have good insurance through their other partner? When military famously move so much that the other partner mantaining a good job is difficult? Those have obvious problems with them. The GoFundMe is a particularly demonic suggestion. Suffice it so say that no, thousands of families of trans kids are not going to find donors for thousands a year on fucking GoFundMe. This is healthcare, and that is what health insurance is for.
So yes, thousands of dead children is not in any way an exaggeration. Congress just willingly voted to murder several thousand children. And people like you are perfectly happy with it, as you do not consider trans people to be human beings.
The Senate doesn’t rule any more than the President. The Senate must also compromise with the House.
Compromise is not enthusiastic capitulation, which is what we got. This wasn't a squeaker. Democrats overwhelmingly voted for this in the senate. The party abandoned trans people and you're defending them for it.
If America doesn’t want Republicans to influence policy, then America has to stop voting for Republicans.
Well, Democrats' last word to trans people for the foreseeable future was "we're doing what Republicans want." Democrats had an opportunity to do better here.
The real question is, why do Republicans choose to use their leverage on this shit?
Because they know that Democrats will break solidarity with any vulnerable minority and then blame anyone who is upset about it, like so:
The answer is simple. It allows them to undermine Democrats by splitting the left. Your reaction is the exact reason why trans people just got screwed. You are personally more responsible than anyone in the Senate.
This is bullshit. Centrists are responsible for their own cowardice and their own complicity. Don't blame people who are upset because you got everything you wanted.
An overwhelming vote is not the same as an enthusiastic vote. The bill got 100% of the Democratic vote in the executive branch, yet Biden was far from enthusiastic about that provision.
The Democrats had to compromise with Republicans on something, and Republicans choose which issues to compromise on, and which to hold firm to. The Republicans chose trans people, not the Democrats. It's possible that the Democrats could have offered some other group, but they don't have the power for it not to screw any vulnerable minority. That bill was never going to arrive at the Senate.
Cowardice and centrism have nothing to do with this bill. I'm the first to agree that Democrats are cowardly centrists, but not in this context. When Democrats have to compromise with Republicans to pass critical legislation, that legislation will definitionally be more "centrist" than the Democrats themselves.
Where cowardly centrism comes into play is in presenting their case to the American people. I absolutely do blame Kamala and her consultants for totally avoiding trans issues in her campaign. But, when the election is done, the country doesn't operate without compromises with elected Republicans.
I'm not sure why you would assume I got everything I wanted. The trans stuff is just the start of what I don't like about this funding bill. I also have no doubt that if the Democrats owned both branches that there would still be a lot I don't like, but I think the trans provision would be gone.
It was unfair of me to say it was your fault that Republicans chose to force the trans issue in this bill. It's not. It will be your fault when they do it next time though, because you are rewarding them for it.
An overwhelming vote is not the same as an enthusiastic vote.
Yes it is.
The bill got 100% of the Democratic vote in the executive branch, yet Biden was far from enthusiastic about that provision.
He says he isn't. You give him the benefit of the doubt. You trust him. I do not.
But, when the election is done, the country doesn’t operate without compromises with elected Republicans.
Or capitulation, as in this case.
I’m not sure why you would assume I got everything I wanted.
Because you're carrying water for a lame duck president whose career is over.
I also have no doubt that if the Democrats owned both branches that there would still be a lot I don’t like, but I think the trans provision would be gone.
I don't.
It was unfair of me to say it was your fault that Republicans chose to force the trans issue in this bill. It’s not. It will be your fault when they do it next time though, because you are rewarding them for it.
And the next time Democrats throw trans people under the bus, it'll be your fault for defending them. Not that this isn't the intended outcome.
He should have bowed out of the race and let a primary happen, not resigned as president. I agree, any incumbent was fucked, but Harris didn't have to run as continuation and someone else entirely could avoid the association even further. Democrats need to play to win, and that includes (selectively) throwing kind uncle Joe under the bus if it helps.
I doubt a primary would have even helped. There was no time for a proper full primary. It would have just been through horse trading at the convention. And that process would have inevitably resulted in another centrist geezer empty suit winning the nomination. Populist firebrands aren't the type that win such back room contests.
There was no time for a proper full primary.
Convenient...
Not left when he did and then have a primary. Never ran for a second term.