The
courts delivered the first blow this week against
President Joe Biden ’s unconstitutional rewrite of
Title IX , which his administration is using to force schools, medical centers, and other institutions to comply with gender ideology.
In Texas, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that Biden cannot force medical professionals to perform irreversible sex-change treatments if those treatments violate their
religious beliefs. The case,
Neese v. Becerra, was brought by two Texas physicians who argued Biden’s mandate would force them to choose between their jobs and their consciences.
FLORIDA MEDICAL BOARDS VOTE TO BAN YOUTH GENDER TRANSITION PROCEDURES
Dr. Susan Neese, one of the plaintiffs, said it would violate her beliefs to provide sex-change treatments, such as puberty blockers, to a minor patient or refer that minor for a surgical sex-change procedure. Neese noted she has treated many transgender patients in the past, but argued medical ethics require doctors to consider each patient and situation carefully and deny care in cases “where a patient's denial of biological realities will endanger their life or safety." Biden’s mandate would prevent her from using her medical judgment to help each patient individually and would harm a great number of patients as a result, she explained.
Likewise, Dr. James Hurly “recognizes that some biological men may identify as women (and vice versa),” but also understands that biology is fundamental in the practice of medicine and cannot be ignored. In one case, for example, Hurly “diagnosed a biological male patient with prostate cancer, but the patient refused to accept Dr. Hurly's diagnosis because he identified as a woman and insisted that he could not have a prostate." Under Biden’s mandate, Hurly would have been forced to acquiesce to this patient’s demands, even if those demands put the patient’s life at risk.
Unlike Neese and Hurly, the Biden administration doesn’t seem to care at all about the medical and ethical consequences of denying biological reality. It argued in court that the
Affordable Care Act 's Section 1557, which prohibits “discrimination on the basis of sex,” allows the Department of Health and Human Services to force its will on concerned doctors.
But that argument relies on an even faultier line of legal reasoning: Biden’s decision to redefine “sex” in Title IX to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."
Kacsmaryk cut to the core of this argument, pointing out that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has accepted this redefinition of sex. In
Bostock v. Clayton County, which the administration tried to use to justify its overreach, Kacsmaryk notes that the court specified that its decision to expand anti-discrimination protections to sexual orientation and gender identity only applied to matters of employment. Likewise, the Affordable Care Act makes no mention of “gender identity,” Kacsmaryk said.
“When adopting [the Affordable Care Act], Congress could have included ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ in the statutory text. Congress chose not to do so. Instead, Congress limited [the ACA’s] protections to those afforded by other federal statutes — including Title IX,”
he wrote . “Because Title IX does not protect ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity’ status, neither does [the ACA].”
Title IX itself contains language making it clear that it refers only to biological sex and not only “allows sex distinctions,” but “sometimes even
requires them to promote equal opportunity,” Kacsmaryk noted:
For instance, although not at issue here, Section 1686 states: ‘nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit any educational institution receiving funds under this Act, from maintaining separate living facilities for the different sexes.’ The implementing regulations clarify educational institutions "may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex."
The implementing regulation highlights the sex binary by referencing "the other sex"—which speaks directly to biologicalsex. ("f such activities are provided for students of one sex, opportunities for reasonably comparable activities shall be provided for students of the other sex."(emphasis added)). "[T]here is no canon against using common sense in construing laws as saying what they obviously mean." If "on the basis of sex" included "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," as defendants envision, Title IX and its regulations would be nonsensical.
Biden’s redefinition of sex has far-reaching implications that go well beyond the medical community, as Kacsmaryk noted. It would strip doctors of their right to ethical judgment, force prisons and homeless shelters to put inmates and those in need at risk by opening up their rooms to members of the opposite sex, and destroy female athletes' right to fair competition by allowing physically advantaged males to compete against them.
“Defendants' reinterpretation of Title IX … imperils the very opportunities for women Title IX was designed to promote and protect — categorically forcing biological women to compete against biological men,” he wrote. “Title IX says nothing about ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity. And why would it? Title IX's protections center on differences between the two biological sexes.”
This is a robust defense of biological sex and an important rebuke of Biden’s efforts to redefine it. Biden does not have the authority to rewrite the law via executive fiat, nor does he have the right to force the Left’s distortion of reality onto the public. Men are men and women are women, and denying that fact will only open both sexes up to harm, both physically and emotionally.The courts delivered the first blow this week against President Joe Biden ’s unconstitutional rewrite of Title IX , which his administration is using to force schools, medical centers, and other institutions to comply with gender ideology.
In Texas, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that Biden cannot force medical professionals to perform irreversible sex-change treatments if those treatments violate their religious beliefs. The case, Neese v. Becerra, was brought by two Texas physicians who argued Biden’s mandate would force them to choose between their jobs and their consciences.
FLORIDA MEDICAL BOARDS VOTE TO BAN YOUTH GENDER TRANSITION PROCEDURES
Dr. Susan Neese, one of the plaintiffs, said it would violate her beliefs to provide sex-change treatments, such as puberty blockers, to a minor patient or refer that minor for a surgical sex-change procedure. Neese noted she has treated many transgender patients in the past, but argued medical ethics require doctors to consider each patient and situation carefully and deny care in cases “where a patient's denial of biological realities will endanger their life or safety." Biden’s mandate would prevent her from using her medical judgment to help each patient individually and would harm a great number of patients as a result, she explained.
Likewise, Dr. James Hurly “recognizes that some biological men may identify as women (and vice versa),” but also understands that biology is fundamental in the practice of medicine and cannot be ignored. In one case, for example, Hurly “diagnosed a biological male patient with prostate cancer, but the patient refused to accept Dr. Hurly's diagnosis because he identified as a woman and insisted that he could not have a prostate." Under Biden’s mandate, Hurly would have been forced to acquiesce to this patient’s demands, even if those demands put the patient’s life at risk.
Unlike Neese and Hurly, the Biden administration doesn’t seem to care at all about the medical and ethical consequences of denying biological reality. It argued in court that the Affordable Care Act 's Section 1557, which prohibits “discrimination on the basis of sex,” allows the Department of Health and Human Services to force its will on concerned doctors.
But that argument relies on an even faultier line of legal reasoning: Biden’s decision to redefine “sex” in Title IX to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."
Kacsmaryk cut to the core of this argument, pointing out that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has accepted this redefinition of sex. In Bostock v. Clayton County, which the administration tried to use to justify its overreach, Kacsmaryk notes that the court specified that its decision to expand anti-discrimination protections to sexual orientation and gender identity only applied to matters of employment. Likewise, the Affordable Care Act makes no mention of “gender identity,” Kacsmaryk said.
“When adopting [the Affordable Care Act], Congress could have included ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ in the statutory text. Congress chose not to do so. Instead, Congress limited [the ACA’s] protections to those afforded by other federal statutes — including Title IX,” he wrote . “Because Title IX does not protect ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity’ status, neither does [the ACA].”
Title IX itself contains language making it clear that it refers only to biological sex and not only “allows sex distinctions,” but “sometimes even requires them to promote equal opportunity,” Kacsmaryk noted:
For instance, although not at issue here, Section 1686 states: ‘nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit any educational institution receiving funds under this Act, from maintaining separate living facilities for the different sexes.’ The implementing regulations clarify educational institutions "may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex."
The implementing regulation highlights the sex binary by referencing "the other sex"—which speaks directly to biological sex. ("f such activities are provided for students of one sex, opportunities for reasonably comparable activities shall be provided for students of the other sex." (emphasis added)). "[T]here is no canon against using common sense in construing laws as saying what they obviously mean." If "on the basis of sex" included "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," as defendants envision, Title IX and its regulations would be nonsensical.
Biden’s redefinition of sex has far-reaching implications that go well beyond the medical community, as Kacsmaryk noted. It would strip doctors of their right to ethical judgment, force prisons and homeless shelters to put inmates and those in need at risk by opening up their rooms to members of the opposite sex, and destroy female athletes' right to fair competition by allowing physically advantaged males to compete against them.
“Defendants' reinterpretation of Title IX … imperils the very opportunities for women Title IX was designed to promote and protect — categorically forcing biological women to compete against biological men,” he wrote. “Title IX says nothing about ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity. And why would it? Title IX's protections center on differences between the two biological sexes.”
This is a robust defense of biological sex and an important rebuke of Biden’s efforts to redefine it. Biden does not have the authority to rewrite the law via executive fiat, nor does he have the right to force the Left’s distortion of reality onto the public. Men are men and women are women, and denying that fact will only open both sexes up to harm, both physically and emotionally.
