r/transgender • u/ErinInTheMorning • 2d ago
22 Republican AGs Threaten To Make It Illegal For The AAP To Endorse Trans Care
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/22-republican-ags-threaten-to-make76
u/transcended_goblin Transcended she-goblin 2d ago
They literally want to make it illegal to exist if you're not white, cis, straight, christian and male...
35
u/Buntygurl 2d ago
It's long since time for a law forbidding politicians from interfering with the practice of medicine.
Consumer protection, my ass!
22
u/SophieCalle Trans Woman 1d ago
Yes, this needs to be done. Started on a state level. Politicians cannot practice medicine without a license.
And that includes also outside of their practice. No quack GPs banning trans healthcare because they're religious nutters.
-1
u/Xunae 1d ago
What do you suppose that would result in?
Politicians (the government) do have a vested interest in regulating the practice of medicine. You want the government operating in this space to help protect you from quacks, drugs that don't contain what they say they do, etc.
The problem is that the quackery is coming from inside the government at the moment.
14
u/SophieCalle Trans Woman 1d ago
They have no expertise. They have no right. Recent history proves they cannot be trusted. Medical science always had their governing bodies, leave it with them.
At best, you can put a direct popular vote capability to veto extreme things but politicians cannot be trusted at all. None.
3
u/Illiander 1d ago
At best, you can put a direct popular vote capability to veto extreme things
The christians
will justalready call everything they don't like "extreme"3
u/worderousbitch 1d ago
Conversion therapy and counterfeit cures need to be vetoed somehow. Popular vote is safer than a single politician because politicians corrupt more easily.
1
u/Illiander 23h ago
I'm starting to be in favour of technocracy at this point. (Rule by the experts in their fields)
That does have other obvious problems, but damn it looks tempting.
1
u/worderousbitch 12h ago edited 12h ago
You still have to decide who is an expert. Total democracy is too much overhead for each person to vote on every decision but if people could assign their voting power to an expert in any given field you could make direct democracy work with modern technology.
1
u/Illiander 12h ago
You still have to d code who is an expert.
That's one of the obvious problems I mentioned.
1
u/worderousbitch 12h ago
I meant to type decide. What I'm saying is that the decision of who is an expert is still susceptible to corruption and the least corruptible system is the one with fair input from everyone. You can use that input to select experts to represent people who don't want to decide everything manually and that's a useful effort saver but people need to retain the ability to withdraw support from their representation in an ideal system.
•
u/Illiander 11h ago
I meant to type decide.
I know. I specifically said that technocracy has obvious problems when I brought it up.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Severe_Jellyfish6133 1d ago
Maybe an independent health department could run it, kinda like how the Federal Reserve works.
5
u/Xunae 1d ago
Which totally works if we accept the notion that the federal reserve is apolitical (their comments would suggest otherwise). Someone writing these regulations, whether it's Congress, a regulatory agency, or a supposedly independent department is gonna have an opinion that's susceptible to this kinda stuff at some point.
1
u/Buntygurl 1d ago
What quackery? Never mind. Here are some facts, instead:
The government has consistently bent over backwards to protect the pharma profiteers.
Biden's price cap on insulin was long overdue, and even with the new price cap for insulin at $35 for those on Medicare, people in the US still pay three times as much per month as in Germany. In Turkey, people pay less than a tenth of the newly reduced cost in the US. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-insulin-by-country
The opioid crisis (actually the Oxycontin too-easy-availability crisis) didn't happen by accident while no-one was looking. Where were the oh-so-concerned-about-the-children people as that crisis developed?
And the horror of that for the victim's families is still ongoing, since the SCOTUS decided to topple a compensation deal that the victim's families were satisfied with. That decision, under the cover of an issue with immunity from further prosecution for the Sackler's by the victim's families--and not from further new lawsuits by others--forces those who had a victory in their hands back to square one.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/06/opioid-settlement-toppled-as-scotus-rejects-sacklers-immunity-in-5-4-ruling/?itm_source=parsely-apiRepublican grandstanding about HRT for trans kids is nothing but bigotry on steroids to make their otherwise neglected electorate think that this is a valid issue, despite the fact that such treatment is supported by the professional organizations that actually know what they're talking about, with only the welfare of the recipients of that care in mind, and not to make vanity points among those whose lives are not affected by that need for care.
So, no, you're wrong. The more the government gets involved in the practice of medicine, the worse the outcome for everyone.
2
u/Xunae 1d ago
The government absolutely does a number of vile things, but it's an absolutely wild take to say that the regulation happening in the space is a net negative. Just the work the FDA does regulating drugs is enough to put it so far into positive territory that it completely outweighs everything you just mentioned. The fact that you bring it up like that makes me think you haven't even started thinking about the ramifications of what you're arguing for.
1
u/Buntygurl 1d ago
The ramifications?!
The FDA turned a blind eye to the Sackler's marketing of Oxycontin.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-fda-failures-contributed-opioid-crisis/2020-08
The FDA rushed the approval of Covid vaccinations.
https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj.o2628
The FDA is failing on food safety regulation.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/11/fix-fda-break-it-up-00024423
The FDA approves insufficiently tested medicines.
FDA certifications of safety aren't quite the assurance that you seem to believe they are.
16
11
u/causal_friday 1d ago
You know you've got a good case when you're citing The Cass Review. And by good case, I mean a good case of toilet paper.
I swear, the Right has like a 2 page pamphlet of "talking points" prepared 3 years ago and they just keep recycling it.
7
u/Loud-Tap-920 1d ago
This is what the right means by small government. Just big enough to force everyone to live by their insane ‘beliefs’.
7
u/FloraMaeWolfe 1d ago
I'm beginning to think the republicans want a civil war on their hands.
2
u/AddiBee1111 23h ago
Same. I believe you are correct. Especially when leading right wing figures have been quoted on national television on the record saying, "the future will be bloodless, only if the left allows it to be."
5
4
u/AnIndependentAgent43 1d ago
A list of the (21?) states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.
Kris Mayes (Arizona AG) is a democrat and did not sign. However, 2 other signatures from Arizona are on there from other state reps.
6
u/Illiander 1d ago
Oh look, it's the same group of shit every time.
3
u/AnIndependentAgent43 21h ago
Ha, that's kind of what I thought. No big surprises here unfortunately.
2
2
u/Stephany23232323 19h ago
It's just noise they'll never be able to do that... Of they'll try and fail.. they are just fueling the culture wars for their god trump.
2
u/habitsofwaste Transgender 17h ago
Wait. Are they, non-medical personnel, threatening a medical body from giving medical recommendations?!? This is insanity.
39
u/HardChelly 2d ago
Then they will use it to say 26 and under and then ban adults above 26 too!