If, like me, you are one of the millions of Americans who have been buffeted by the winds of Obamacare, then you’re holding out hope that the Republican majorities in Congress will be able to work with the new president to repeal this dreadful, nasty little law. Hope is about all we have to work with: Republicans are known for squandering electoral victories to great effect, and there is good reason to believe that Donald Trump doesn’t really have any interest at all in doing anything about the Affordable Care Act. But let’s keep our fingers crossed.
Repeal or no repeal, the law is still on rather shaky ground, at least as far as some of its more controversial and celebrated provisions go. As the new year turned, for example, Texas put a block on one of Obamacare’s core sops to progressive interest groups:
A federal judge in Texas on Saturday issued a court order barring enforcement of an Obama administration policy seeking to extend anti-discrimination protections under the Affordable Care Act to transgender health and abortion-related services.
The decision sides with Texas, seven other states and three Christian-affiliated healthcare groups challenging a rule that, according to the judge, defines sex bias to include “discrimination on the basis of gender identity and termination of pregnancy.”
In granting an injunction one day before the new policy was to take effect, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor held that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law governing rule-making practices.
The judge also ruled that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in court on their claim that the new policy infringes on the rights of private healthcare providers under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
It is a sign of the madness of our constitutional order that a law pertaining to abortion violates a federal procedure rulebook and a religious freedom statute but not, you know, the rights of the unborn: you can strike down a policy on the grounds of legal esoterica, but not on grounds of whether or not it’s okay to deliberately kill an innocent human being.
That being said, there is another weird, inexplicable aspect to this rule. Obamacare explicitly gives credence to the theory of “gender identity,” which holds that, say, if a woman honestly believes she is a man, then she is, in fact, a man—for all philosophical purposes and, if the woman chooses to go the extra mile, for all legal purposes, too. But a woman who “transitions” into “being” a man—assuming she hasn’t had a hysterectomy or undertaken a severe drug regimen to alter her body beyond repair—is still capable of getting pregnant, which means “he” is also capable of having an abortion.
What this means in a practical sense is obvious: gender ideology is insane and makes no sense. But within the socio-legal framework of Obamacare, it is also self-defeating: if transgender ideology is now the law of the land, then, by that logic, it must necessarily be the case that any anti-abortion statutes on the books also applies to men. A law that applies equally to women and men cannot at the same time be indicative of “sex bias!”
(One might argue that, given the low number of transgender “men” who seek out abortions, anti-abortion laws nevertheless qualify for the old legal proviso of “disparate impact” against women. But you could make the same case in the opposite direction for murder laws more generally: nearly 90% of murderers are men. Yet nobody is proposing we abolish these laws based on their “disparate impact” against male murderers.)
Liberals these days seem to prize abortion—the taking of innocent life—over everything else, so I suppose the likeliest outcome of this case, depending on how the ruling eventually goes, is that the Left will abandon the gender fight (at least as it applies to Obamacare) and instead focus on the crown jewel of modern progressivism, the “termination of pregnancy.” The pro-life movement, of course, will be waiting. In the meantime, we should also not forget the scourge of gender identity, which is quite obviously a mad stew of toxic lunacy that subjects vulnerable people to whimsical make-believe.
Source: The Indiscriminate Knife