News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



Bam Bam Barber engages in trans-bashing re: "cosmetic genital 'sex-change' mutilation"

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:00:00 AM EDT


Bam Bam is worried about his tax dollars going to gender reassignment surgery in his latest hysteria-laden e-blast. He calls it "subsidizing the elective practice of genital ‘sex-change’ mutilation."

The right wing has been knee-deep in shilling misinformation and twisting facts to frighten people. It's no surprise he wants to fixate on something he believes is fertile ground for generating heat on Obama's health reform. Trans-bashing is easy; I'm sure we'll see more about this, since even he knows trying to ban reproductive freedom at this point is a losing proposition for his crowd.

Gee, a lot of people call circumcision genital mutilation, since it is not medically necessary or medically appropriate, but is commonly covered by health plans. Is Barber against that as well, or is that just a matter of religious freedom subsidized by the taxpayer. Just asking.

DATE: August 4, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ObamaCare Likely to Mandate Free “Sex-Change” Surgeries  

Washington, DC – When asked by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) whether President Obama’s proposed socialized healthcare plan will mandate taxpayer funded abortion, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) admitted that it will require “any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.” It now appears that the plan’s “medically appropriate” umbrella is far more expansive than most Americans could have imagined.

In addition to abortion on demand, the weight of the evidence indicates that cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgeries for both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who suffer from APA recognized “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) may also be provided – free of charge – courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. The current price tag for such a procedure can exceed $50,000.   

Page 972 of the House version of the bill (H.R. 3200) provides for “standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health and health care” based on “sex, sexual orientation [and] gender identity.” The Senate draft indicates that the government will “detect and monitor trends in health disparities,” requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to “develop standards for the measurement of gender.” (i.e., officially recognize subjectively self-determined “transgender” or “transsexual” gender identities). It further mandates ‘‘participation in the institutions’ programs of individuals and groups from…different genders and sexual orientations.” 

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action commented: “There’s a gulf of difference between what Obama and liberals in Congress, and the American people deem ‘medically appropriate;’ especially when it’s ‘we the people’ footing the bill. To force Americans, against their conscience, to fund abortion on demand and to facilitate gender confusion by subsidizing the elective practice of genital ‘sex-change’ mutilation is unconscionable.  

“After hearing Sen. Mikulski’s ‘any service deemed…medically appropriate’ admission, I was prompted to dig a little deeper. I contacted the offices of Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. Barney Frank and the House Subcommittee on Health. I asked, very simply, for ‘an assurance that the proposed healthcare plan will not allow taxpayer funded gender reassignment surgeries or hormone therapies.’ When faced with the bill’s relevant language, every staffer I spoke with either declined to answer or would neither confirm nor deny that such procedures would be covered.  

“It’s time for the mainstream media to do its job and demand straight answers on this government healthcare scheme. Instead of acting as ObamaCare cheerleaders, journalists need to ask the same questions I did and refuse to take ‘no answer’ for an answer. I also call on the American people to ask their Congressional representatives the following question: ‘Will you pledge to oppose this legislation unless taxpayer funding for both abortion and sex change surgeries are expressly excluded?’

“It’s no wonder that, as Americans find out what’s hidden within this socialized ObamaCare monstrosity, furious opposition to it continues to skyrocket.”  

Pam Spaulding :: Bam Bam Barber engages in trans-bashing re: "cosmetic genital 'sex-change' mutilation"
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
:eyeroll:
Of course, it's never worth dignifying Barber with a response, but it's important to point out that (at least as far as I know), there's no proposal under consideration to mandate coverage for any medical procedures associated with transsexuality and gender transition, neither by the government nor by private insurers.  Forget "the surgery", I'm not aware of a legal requirement to provide prostate exams for trans women and pap smears for trans men (assuming, of course, they've got health insurance at all).

This is more of the same old, same old blathering on about "special rights."  The danger is that while most folks don't agree with (or even know about) Barber, this kind of rhetoric makes it harder for us to get people to understand how underprivileged we are.  Most of my cissexual friends have no clue about how bad the health care situation is for transsexual people, just as a great number of allies of gay and lesbian people are opposed to homophobia, but don't really understand how widespread and damaging its impacts are.


Sex-Reassignment-Surgery for $50K?
Last time I asked a guy, his phalloplasty including follow-ups and so forth cost quite on the way up to $100K.  Plus the cost of the chest surgery, another $12 - $15K or so as was mine.  Or are they averaging costs of FtM and MtF surgeries?

If a person has a uterus with a disorder that can be treated quite satisfactorally medically, it should be done.  If a person has a prostate that's misbehaving, what difference should it make if the prostate-bearing person is a standard issue man or a trans-woman?

There certainly should be coverage for prostate exams for transwomen who have them and Pap tests for transmen with cervices.


[ Parent ]
Bam-Bam's forgetting something here...
"There's a gulf of difference between what Obama and liberals in Congress, and the American people deem 'medically appropriate;'

Maybe he hasn't noticed, but some American people are already forced, through Medicare, Tricare, and the VA, to subsidize medical procedures against their consciences. But I haven't noticed the Jehovah's Witnesses out in force demanding a stop to government funding of blood transfusions. And while I personally find it ghoulish to keep a person who has no hope of recovery alive by hooking her up to a shipping pallet's worth of machines, if somebody wants their Medicare-covered grandma to hang on another day or two or ten, well, that's their call, not mine, so I chalk up my personal tax impact on that one to the cost of living in a civilized society and move on.


Personal liberty
I knew this would come up sooner or later.  Conservatives are so about personal liberty and freedoms, but only their version of it.  What's next?  Does he want to require a religious counseling session at the doc's office?

GD, Take it on!!!
I've seen this a couple times, now.  And frankly, getting vocal and countering this $#!t with the facts is one of the best ways to make it possible.  This is actually an opportune way to open this dialogue, and I can guarantee you that the more extreme the far right goes to lie about it, the more people will see through it.

Instead of worrying about how the transgender bogeyman might hurt healthcare, it has to be turned around.  It's what we've been doing in Alberta, and although the government hasn't changed its position, I can tell you that the media and a significant amount of the public have changed position by learning about our stories, about how cosmetic GRS isn't, about the medical facts of the matter.

I'm in Canada, but would be happy to help anyone interested in taking on the matter.


Mercedes
I love your writing, but I'm a bit skeptical about applying your experiences to the US.  I'm not saying it's not worth a try, but I am saying that demonstrating that GRS is important, life saving, and non cosmetic is largely irrelevant to getting insurance coverage.  I think you could argue that covering GRS may save insurers and the government money, but I'm still pretty skeptical about getting government support for gender transition, much less government mandates on private insurers.

[ Parent ]
Gastric Bypass Surgeries for Obese Evangelicals
are cosmetic and ought not be covered, either.

Just how do politicians and religious types get to make demands on medicine based upon their prejudices and in defiance of science.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid


Bam Bam Should Look on the Bright Side
ObamaCare would pay for him to have a brain implanted in that empty cavity between his ears.

People ask, "How have you guys managed to stay so long?" I tell them, "Don't sweat the small stuff." It's mostly small stuff.

Fix his wrist too.


Cisgender. Because "Genetic" (or non) is so 2006.

[ Parent ]
Taxation without representation
Since he thinks the government health insurance plan should not cover any gender therapy, I guess I'll withhold sending them my taxes.

Dena  

Cisgender. Because "Genetic" (or non) is so 2006.


I bet...
they'd be the first people to advocate "genital mutilation" for children born with ambiguous genitalia.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox