this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
563 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3011 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Horsey@kbin.social 71 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Every doctor I’ve had as an adult, except my university health center doctor and planned parenthood doctor, has been hesitant towards my “gay” care. Things like saying I have multiple sexual partners make them wince when I say I want to be tested for STDs on a regular basis. Only my gay friendly providers offered me an anal exam when I said I was generally the receptive partner (to check for warts, hemorrhoids, sores, etc).

[–] Aviandelight@mander.xyz 44 points 7 months ago

20 plus years ago when I first started working in healthcare anal pap smears weren't covered by insurance because paps were considered a "woman's test" and good luck finding a provider that would do them or a lab that would process them. Now it is considered routine testing covered by insurance and more doctors are learning to include this type of care while in med school. It breaks my heart to think about how many people don't get the care they need because of social prejudices and the slow crawl of progress.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

My doctor is with APLA in the Los Angeles area. LGBTQ+ flags and banners all over the doctor's office. I wish every LGBTQ+ person had this type of healthcare.

https://aplahealth.org

[–] adhdplantdev@lemm.ee 29 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Can anyone give us summary over what does enables other than insurance companies and health care providers Can't Turn You Away for simply lgbtq+

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 59 points 7 months ago (13 children)

Obama included gender, independent of sex, in anti-discrimination law for healthcare. Trump repealed it. Biden put it back.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 12 points 6 months ago

Project 2025 is already planning to pull it back.

Vote, people.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Sadly this means nothing unless it’s enshrined in law and we get a new, not fascist supreme court.

And neither party currently supports doing this.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Of course not. The Dems can't do it because not doing it by the book sets a dangerous precedent (really as authoritarian as it gets), and the Republicans can't do it because it's benefiting them. Best you can hope for is be able to impeach at least Thomas. Dems need more seats in Congress for that.

[–] Blademaster00@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

And neither party currently supports doing this.

That's simply not true. While it didn't exactly pass, Biden did try to enshrine it into law in 2021.

I know politics sucks but try not to get so jaded you make shit up please? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_(United_States)#:~:text=Purpose%20and%20content,-See%20also%3A%20LGBT&text=The%20Equality%20Act%20seeks%20to,Civil%20Rights%20Act%20of%201964.

[–] febra@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Took him long enough

Yours truly, a LGBTQ person

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 7 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Biden administration announced a new rule Friday expanding safeguards against potential discrimination of gay and transgender Americans seeking medical care, in a reversal of Trump-era limitations that nixed federal health protections for members of the LGBTQ+ community.

In a set of expansive new rules unveiled by the Department of Health and Human Services, the department moved to advance civil rights protections for patients by barring health providers and insurers receiving federal funding from discriminating against those seeking care on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.

The HHS rule restores Obama-era protections for transgender patients that the Trump administration rolled back in 2020 — a move that was condemned by LGBTQ+ advocacy and human rights organizations.

The contested rule stems from Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which bars “discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in specified health programs or activities.” The new HHS guidelines stipulate that while Section 1557’s prohibition on sex discrimination includes LGBTQ+ patients — and bans limiting access to care based on a patient’s sex assigned at birth or gender identity — exemptions based on health care providers’ religious beliefs still apply.

A 2016 interpretation of the clause under President Barack Obama expanded the ban on sex discrimination to encompass gender identity, but the HHS under Trump announced, on the four-year anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub shooting, that it was striking “certain provisions of the 2016 Rule that exceeded the scope of the authority delegated by Congress in Section 1557.”

That move swiftly met with legal opposition from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and was blocked by a federal judge a day before it was set to take effect.


The original article contains 551 words, the summary contains 264 words. Saved 52%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Why did it take 4 years? Oh, the election.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well he shouldn't have done it then! /s

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The point is that they could have done this 3 years ago but only did it to score points in an election. Don't be fooled that they are the good guys.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 months ago

Haha, love it!

[–] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Voter’s memories are notoriously short.

load more comments
view more: next ›