In a few of my videos I commented on the repeated rulings by judges across the country on "trans" issues. These rulings serve as precedents for future legal squabbles. It doesn't matter how illogical or wrong the rulings are. Once made, they can be referenced by other lawyers and few people or orgaanizations have the will or financial resources to take these up to SCOTUS who may decide not to hear the case. This strategy is obvious to anyone paying attention and it's not just the trans issue. So to be clear the program goes like this.
1) Find a case where the boundary can be pushed. For example, purposely aggravate a known Christian baker.
2) Sue him or her in a friendly venue or get the state itself to sue on your behalf (free to you!).
3) Drain the target of money leading to either their capitulation or loss of business/employment.
4) Set court precedence.
5) Rinse and repeat.
6) If by chance the case gets to SCOTUS and it is likely to be reversed, claim that the point is moot.
With that laid out lets examine the latest.
There is no such thing as "transgender healthcare". There is bodily mutilation at the request of mentally ill people and carried out by profiteering "doctors".
"A federal appeals court ruled on Monday that state health insurance plans must provide coverage for gender-affirming care in North Carolina and West Virginia. Trans advocates say it's a huge victory, especially since bills restricting the rights of transgender people have been on the rise in state legislatures."
Once again we see this at the federal judge level so that they can override the express wishes of the citizens of the state(s). Also, there is no such thing as "gender affirming care". I'll pause here to once again admonish those of similar mind to reject these euphemisms. At all times and all places, reject this language. These crazy people win, in part, by defining the language and getting you to use it. Once you use it, you have already lost the argument.
"The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., issued its decision about two cases. One was brought by North Carolina state employees and their dependents who are transgender and were unable to get coverage for gender-affirming care."
And this is NPR. They have adopted the language, thereby validating it. And note, the pattern as discussed above. Find a "victim" to make a case.
"The other lawsuit came from West Virginians who are transgender and on Medicaid. They could get coverage for some treatments — like hormones — but not for surgery."
They should get coverage for neither. If you want to voluntarily mess up your body do so. With your money.
"In oral arguments, the judges asked about mastectomies, as an example. Those are covered for patients with breast cancer, but they were not covered by the health insurance plans for transgender patients."
This is the part that bothered me the most. These judges actually let this argument go. A person with breast cancer has an actual deadly illness. Their body has a problem, not their mind. If untreated the cancer will kill the body regardless of the state of mind of the person. However. these mentally ill people have perfectly functioning bodies. They wish to harm their bodies. There is no logical universe where these two things are remotely similar.
"In an 8-6 decision, the majority of the 4th circuit decided that these patients were entitled to health insurance coverage for their care. Judge Roger Gregory, writing the majority opinion, called the denial of coverage "obviously discriminatory.""
The only health insurance claim these people are entitled to is mental health coverage as they are mentally ill. That is all. It is not "obviously discriminatory". Each of the 8 judges should be removed from the bench.
"West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey had defended his state's decision not to cover gender-affirming surgeries in Medicaid. Morrisey responded to the loss in a statement, saying: "Decisions like this one, from a court dominated by Obama- and Biden-appointees, cannot stand: we'll take this up to the Supreme Court and win.""
Just as I laid out earlier, resources wasted having to run up the court system. And be sure, getting SCOTUS to take up the case is not a sure bet. Also note the total fail on the part of Patrick Morrisey. He used the term "gender-affirmig" in his commentary. By embracing the term he is admitting there is some valid medical practice called "gender affirming care". If such a thing exists then you have NO grounds to deny coverage. Patrick SHOULD have rejected the term and called it what it was, bodily mutilation. He should have further stated that the state of West Virginia will not pay for bodily mutilation.
"The policies in question have already changed, Borelli notes. Both state health programs have had to cover transgender health care since lower federal district courts ruled in favor of the patients in 2022, she says.
Now that the appeals court has issued its decision, Borelli says it sets an important precedent and other states across the country should pay close attention."
Like I said. Set the precedent.
"Lawyers for North Carolina and West Virginia had argued that the coverage denials were based on saving taxpayer money, not bias."
This is a totally dumb argument and why they will fail until they tackle the very concept. Too many so called "conservatives" are afraid of being called an "ist" or "phobe" and so make up ridiculous arguments.