"Transgender Rights" Bill to Be Rammed thru by Illegitimate Means?

In Washington, they just rammed through ObamaCare illegitimately using “reconciliation”, ignoring the Senate’s 41 opposition votes. In Massachusetts, they attach controversial bills as budget amendments so they can sneak them through when legislators and voters aren’t watching carefully. That way, they can’t be repealed. (That is how they sneaked through the Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Youth in 2007, making it repeal-proof.)

We suspected this tactic might be the fall-back for the radical Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill, H1728. Sure enough, that fear is confirmed at MassPoliticsBlog:

Rep. Joseph R. Driscoll of Braintree and Rep. Jason M. Lewis of Winchester have submitted an amendment to the budget to add the controversial ‘Transgender Rights‘ (H1728/S1687) Bill to the House Budget.

The amendment is written in an abbreviated form to make it less conspicuous, and the amendment proposes that the language be added as section 20, in a large budget bill, with 51 sections. One troubling aspect is that Rep. Driscoll is on the House Ways and Means Committee and in a good position to sneak the language in, and hopefully have it not be noticed by the majority of legislators when they vote on the full budget bill.

The Transgender Rights bill would change many sections of Massachusetts law designed to protect people from sexual or racial discrimination, adding the transgendered as a protected class. Among its critics the bill is called the “Bathroom Bill” because it would allow men who self identify as women to use women’s bathrooms.

Whatever your position on the bill, this is a clear attempt to circumvent the legislative process, and to avoid public debate of a controversial issue. [emphasis added]

"Trans rights" supporters parade in Northampton, 2008:

For a glimpse of the bizarre public behaviors this bill would legitimize, see our reports on the cross-dresser invasion of a Peabody restaurant, the Trans Pride parade in Northampton, and our video of huge men using the women’s restroom at the Peabody Marriott.

Body mutilation on parade in Northampton, 2008:

Sex Change Operations Now Tax Deductible!

GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders – the group that brought “gay marriage” to Massachusetts) won a big case against the IRS for “transgender rights”.

Former construction worker Rhiannon O’Donnabhain wanted to write off his “male-to-female” sex-change procedures as necessary medical treatments. But the IRS denied the deduction, declaring the procedures “cosmetic”. Then the U.S. Tax Court bought GLAD’s arguments and overruled the IRS.

“In this landmark ruling, the Tax Court affirmed the consensus position of the medical establishment that transition-related medical care is essential for many transgender people,” explained Jennifer Levi, Director of GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project. 

 

He’s a “woman” now, and gets a tax deduction too.

The AP reported:

The US Tax Court ruled yesterday that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her [sic] sex-change operation, a decision that could have wide implications for transgender people.

Rhiannon O’Donnabhain, who was born a man, sued the Internal Revenue Service after the agency rejected a $5,000 deduction for approximately $25,000 in medical expenses associated with the sex-change surgery.

The IRS said the surgery was cosmetic and not medically necessary.

In its decision yesterday, the tax court said the IRS position was “at best a superficial characterization of the circumstances’’ that is “thoroughly rebutted by the medical evidence.’’ …

“I think what the court is saying is that surgery and hormone therapy for transgender people to alleviate the stress associated with gender identity disorder is legitimate medical care,’’ said Jennifer Levi, a GLAD attorney. …

The court got down to details, noting he could not deduct the itemized cost for his “breast augmentation surgery, because it found that she [sic] had achieved breast enhancement through hormone treatments.”

Yikes. So what we see in the photo is a combination of hormone treatments plus breast augmentation surgery. What kind of documentation did the court look at to determine that? They must have studied before and after photos, to weigh hormones vs. surgery? How did they determine what breast size was adequate for his mental health needs?

This will be a huge precedent for health coverage in this country, especially as the government takes more and more control. We’re sure that no Massachusetts insurer would now dare to cross GLAD and deny any and all transgender procedures to patients. If the Transgender Rights bill is passed here in Massachusetts, any discrimination on the basis of “gender identity or expression” will be banned.

So all citizens will be underwriting such procedures through their insurance premiums and through our tax system.

But the transgender advocates are also tying themselves -- and us -- up in illogical knots over the grounds for their appeals. In this IRS case, they apparently won by arguing that transgenderism is a “serious mental disorder” needing treatment – including hormone therapy and “sex-reassignment” surgery.

At the same time, the activists are arguing that transgenderism is a normal variation on the “sexuality spectrum” and are actively fighting to de-classify it as a disorder in the DSM-IV manual. They are using this “normal” argument to push their “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill” in the Massachusetts legislature. That’s so they can deny that the government will be actively sanctioning and promoting a disorder in protecting “gender identity or expression.”

How will they resolve this contradiction?

By the way, O’Donnabhain is a member of the Mass. Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth. He’s there to help confused teenagers.

Coakley’s Support of “Transgender Rights” Would Force Taxpayers to Fund Murderer’s Trans Procedures

The ultra-leftist Huffington Post thinks Scott Brown is a bad guy … for opposing taxpayer-funded sex-change procedures demanded by a convicted murderer.

According to the Huffington Post, it’s bad enough Brown opposes homosexual “marriage” -- but then they go on to list this as another of his bad deeds:

“The two-time incumbent [Brown] took a firm stance on opposing the request of a convicted murderer for a sex-change operation.”

Huff Post brands this "engaging in the culture wars," and that's a no-no. (They want conservatives to just shut up.) But Brown was courageous enough to stand up against the leftist trans madness fad and debated this issue on New England Cable News (7/16/07) with a trans activist from the International Foundation for Gender Education. (Unfortunately, the video has been taken down.)

The convicted murderer’s demands have been supported by a prominent transgender activist (and Massachusetts voter) “Nancy” Nangeroni, who testified alongside Martha Coakley for the “Transgender Rights” bill in Massachusetts last July. The transgender rights bill would mandate coverage for exactly such insane procedures.

 

Attorney General Martha Coakley testifying in favor of “Transgender Rights” Bill H1728.  Nancy Nangeroni (right), trans activist, looks on. [MassResistance photos]

The murderer in question is Robert Kosilek, who has demanded his transgender treatments in court -- dressed as a woman.

Convicted wife murderer, Robert Kosilek [AP photo]

Scott Brown was simply displaying common sense. It’s Martha Coakley who’s out of the mainstream. And if she gets her hands on health care legislation, you can be certain she’ll ensure transgender procedures are covered under all government-approved insurance plans.

“No discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression!”

USA Today, “Transgendered inmates push for state-funded sex-change surgery” (8/19/2006):

In Massachusetts, four of the 12 inmates diagnosed with gender identity disorder are receiving hormone shots.

Kosilek has been receiving hormone therapy since a federal judge ruled in 2002 that he was entitled to some treatment for gender identity disorder. Although Judge Mark Wolf did not order a specific treatment plan, he ruled that Kosilek had proven he has a serious medical condition that had not been adequately treated.

After Wolf's ruling, the corrections department allowed Kosilek to receive female hormones and laser hair removal. He was also given access to female undergarments and some makeup.

During testimony this spring in his second lawsuit, Kosilek said the female hormones and other treatments have not been enough to relieve his suffering and said he would likely commit suicide if he does not get the surgery.

Such talk infuriates state Sen. Scott Brown, who filed legislation seeking to ban sex-change operations for inmates in 1998. The legislation died in committee.

Brown points out that most private health insurers do not cover sex-change operations, and says taxpayers should not have to pay for such "elective" surgery for inmates.

"I just think it would be deemed a luxury for him to have that operation. He is in there because he murdered his wife," Brown said. "There are no luxuries that are supposed to be available."

But advocates for transgendered inmates say that in some cases, sex reassignment surgery is a medical necessity, not a luxury.

See also CBS/AP, “Cross-Dressing Killer Robert Kosilek Wants You To Pay For Hair-Removal Treatments Behind Bars” (11/23/09).