comment: >
  
  So would you consider a cis womans desire for a hystorectomy a medical necessity? Because as i see it women have still far fewer rights when theyre born women than when theyre not. So where is the equality?
context: Six Supreme Court justices are sliding down poles as we speak, Bibles in hand, to protect doctors' right not to treat patients. >
  
  I was gonna say they're drafting their opinion right now so as not to waste any time. >
  
  its weird how much people hate people that have literally zero impact on their lives. >
  
  And it’s beyond infuriating that largely the same crowd believe that an evil snake, a cursed apple, a magic boat, and a talking shrubbery have a huge impact on their lives. >
  
  I dont think that demographic is as large as you think it is compared to the other demographics that feel the same >
  
  It's at least 30% and that's just enough to sway a vote. Hopefully it continues to drop. >
  
  United States Conference of Catholic Bishops shouldn’t have any access to or any regulatory authority of any kind over any medical facility. >
  
  I’ve lived with end stage kidney failure for 20 years and all I have to say is thank God for the Affordable Care Act >
  
  I hope you are doing better and are not in too much discomfort. I am glad that you had access to the ACA too. >
  
  Thanks! I’m doing well as long as this transplant holds out. Dialysis was horrible. It’s been the majority of my life now, and frankly I have a pretty decent life. Not perfect but very decent. >
  
  How does a healthcare provider deny healthcare to anyone in need. Why did they even join the profession? I work at ford, should I start only working on red 4x4 superdutys? Wt actual fuck is wrong with these people. >
  
  Also, lack of funds. Good luck getting care in the US if you can't pay for it. You can be seen in the ER sure, but if they find a serious issue, you can't follow up on it unless you can afford the doctors and the treatment. >
  
  Very right, but that’s not the doctors purposefully denying service to someone because the doctor is a bigot, which is the main issue here. >
  
  Im pretty sure it had nothing to do with the doctor and everything to do with the policy of the hospital. The article said that the doctor mistakenly scheduled the procedure there. That means the doctor agreed to do the procedure. They later declined to do it at that location bc of the policy not allowing the gender affirming care, and from what it seems, offered to do it elsewhere. >
  
  The surgeon was put in a difficult position. He was willing to do the surgery, but that specific hospital had a policy that prohibited gender confirmation surgery. When offered to perform the surgery at a different campus, the patient refused and instead sought litigation. Another example of a large hospital system using the provider as a scapegoat of their capitalist/religious driven intention. >
  
  From article:
  The University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center violated federal law when it refused to provide gender-affirming surgical care to a transgender man because of his gender identity, a federal court ruled Friday.
  Jesse Hammons, a transgender man diagnosed with gender dysphoria, was denied a hysterectomy to remove his uterus in 2020 after his scheduled surgeon discovered Hammons was transgender, citing a hospital policy that prohibits medical personnel from providing gender-affirming health care to transgender individuals.
  St. Joseph Medical Center, now part of the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS), was, up until 2012, owned and operated as a Catholic hospital by Catholic Health Initiatives. As a condition of its purchase agreement, UMMS pledged to continue operating St. Joseph “in a manner consistent with Catholic values and principles.”
  That includes complying with a “formal reporting mechanism” to ensure the hospital is held accountable for its Catholic identity. The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) audits the hospital every two years to assess its adherence to a set of religious directives for Catholic health services set by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
  While the directives themselves – known as the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services – state that medical procedures that induce sterility “are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology,” guidelines for transgender health care set by the NCBC are much more stringent.
  “Gender transitioning should never be performed, encouraged, or positively affirmed as a good in Catholic health care,” reads a guidance document issued by the group. It adds that government mandates “do not alter the immorality of gender transitioning interventions” and Catholic hospitals should seek religious exemptions. >
  
  This isn't really even a trans issue in all honesty. Conservatives and religious nutbags love making it impossible for anyone with a uterus to be sterilized optionally. 
  Men's sterilization is treated like a joke basically (took me only a simple conversation with a urologist to get a vasectomy) but female sterilization is exceptionally difficult to get - with some states even requiring the consent of a husband still. 
  They suck universally. >
  
  Unless said Uterus owner is native American or Black, historically speaking. >
  
  I did say optionally, unfortunately :( >
  
  Absolutely the correct decision by the court. Equality and equity require more than simple "tolerance" - they require a recognition that the differences between the LGBTQ community and cishet society are not just social, but also medical.