HRC Article:

WASHINGTON — Last night, President Biden signed the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, which includes a provision inserted by Speaker Mike Johnson blocking healthcare for the transgender children of military servicemembers. This provision, the first anti-LGBTQ+ federal law enacted since the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, will rip medically necessary care from the transgender children of thousands of military families – families who make incredible sacrifices in defense of the country each and every day. The last anti-LGBTQ+ federal law that explicitly targeted military servicemembers was Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which went into effect in 1994.

Biden's press release:

No service member should have to decide between their family’s health care access and their call to serve our Nation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 37 points 2 years ago (24 children)

I guess if there was any doubt before, it's gone now. Neither party is suitable. Time to really vote progressive. We need a new party that isn't deeply entrenched with whatever made hime sign that.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] [S] 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • Voting systems are extremely hard to change in most states. But progressive candidates usually support voting changes too. So two birds with one stone. It will be a painful few cycles with the Republicans winning. But they have shown they will turn on each other rather fast. And once we show we just aren't going to vote democrat or republican, momentum will build. Things can't get much worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (17 children)

    Out of curiosity if I made you choose between:

    • 0% of military troops' families getting salaries and healthcare

    • 100% of military troops' families getting salaries and healthcare with the sole exception of trans care

    What would you choose?

    Although, honestly, since we're in hypotheticals and foresight, Biden could have let them go without pay and possibly triggered a Bonus Army type scenario where the military protests.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (6 children)

    What, do you think Congress would just not pass a NDAA?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children)

    If they hadn't, then it likely would have led to a Bonus Army scenario. If you're not sure what that means, in 1932 tens of thousands of military servicemen and veterans gathered to protest congress and essentially force them to pay out bonds to soldiers.

    We've had Government shutdowns before and this would be no different. Plus, the actual fund distribution wouldn't happen until the Appropriations bill comes later, anyways. In fact, theres a non-zero chance that Republicans rip this bill up and replace it after they gain majority and before the Appropriations bill comes.

    The 118th congress is coming to an end, and changes to this bill have been in the news since June.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Oh no, a protest followed shortly thereafter by a bill that passes presidential veto. And that the Republicans have the power to do whatever they want in January is exactly why this should have been vetoed. They can do whatever evils they want, but at least then it's on them rather than further eroding the idea that Democrats will stick up for their constituent minority groups.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I didn't say the protest was bad, just answering your question about hypothetical outcomes.

    I don't really follow your logic about vetoing this now because of the changing congress, you're saying not passing the bipartisan bill and waiting for a more conservative bill that harms more people would be your ideal?

    So you're just a Republican?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    The "bipartisan bill" doesn't protect us on anything. There's nothing stopping them from passing any measure we avoided by accepting the "imperfect" bill, so they don't need to surrender to Republican priorities when they only control 1/3rd of the current legislative process. They're going to do the "more harms" regardless of what Democrats do here. Nothing has been averted with this complicity.

    Plus my expectation is that a vetoed NDAA doesn't result in a month with no NDAA until the new Congress. It's a "must pass" bill. Cancel recess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Oh, actually, this is after they talked down a ton of other Republican amendments including stripping reproductive care, denying refugees, banning CRT in military academies, etc.

    But hey, the "must pass" part gives Biden the authority to sign it without Republican approval, because Republicans could actually try to drag it out to add in all of their amendments like they have been doing for many months, it doesn't literally force the congress to pass something before the time limit because there are no consequences for not doing so aside from the military going unfunded: which Republicans have demonstrated they would absolutely do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    Oh ok, they got some of the terrible stuff out, I guess good job, call it a day! /s

    WTF is wrong with you people. He doesn't need to be a king to not just roll over and accept their poison pills. "They're crazy, they'll do anything" is clearly wrong, as they back down from government shutdowns all the time. It's just a convenient excuse for people like you that, despite failure after failure after failure, think the Democrats are always on the top of their game and just lost because there were no other options.

    And if Republicans refuse to write a "clean" bill... OK. If Congress can't get it together to pass something that is acceptable that just funds the military (a thing the Republicans desperately care about), then it's the same blame game that occurs every time a shutdown is imminent. A game the Republicans usually lose.

    He passed the bill not because he had too, but because he didn't care enough not to. It's the same lack of courage and triangulating that plays out time and again with centrists and civil rights for minorities. In 20 years we'll all look back at the 2020s centrist triangulation and see it as shameful while the centrists will have moved on to throwing a new vulnerable group under the bus for just not being practical to defend while they don't even try to.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (9 children)

    I expect the party that ran on protecting trans kids to take a stand. But I am done supporting the democrats now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (8 children)

    So you choose 0%, wow thats sick anon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Anything else is just the illusion of choice. They control the options. So they can always come up with something worse to set next to the option it wants. The only influence you have as a chooser is to call thier bluff. If you don't you might as well just let have whatever they want.

    In this case, I hate to ask more of our service members. But I know I can count on them to fight back. Choosing zero is calling them to service once more to protect the freedom of our nation. Specifically thier freedom to use the benefit they were promised when they enlisted. And I have faith that they will rise to the occasion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (6 children)

    They literally didn't choose the 0% yet you claim the thing they did actually choose is an illusion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    Got it, you think yes is no and up is down, lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Well more like you think signing the bill is a victory, and I am saying it is capitulation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Signing it is a defeat, and its our fault for voting in a conservative 119th Congress after voting in a split 118th Congress. Blaming Biden and blaming Democrats exasperates the problem that caused this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments