So as we all know the Federal Judge Reed O'Connor from the Northern District of Texas ruled to allow a nationwide injunction of the implementation of this section of the law. He did so as a Preliminary Injunction which means the court had not heard any of the merits of the lawsuit. There are normally very specific requirements to allow such a preliminary injection to take place. One of which would be the plaintiff would have to demonstrate a great risk of financial loss by allowing the law to take effect before the case could be heard. The plaintiff claimed they would loose money by being forced to provide abortions and transgender surgeries.
According to many legal scholars these were not only unfounded but completely fabricated claims. Justice O'Connor wrote that the law was not ambiguous and therefore it was not the job of the Dept of Health and Human Services to clarify their rules, but by being unambiguous it was within his power to rule on it. It has become clear that this judge ruled on the injunction when not only should he not have but that he himself used mistruths in his justification for such a ruling.
The common misconception is that GCS would be forced upon insurance companies by this section of the law. This was incorrect just as forcing abortion coverage is. In truth the rules very clearly define its purpose and give examples of its application. Specifically it simply said that insurance companies could not deny "normal" procedures because of a gender identity. For example, they could not deny treatment of ovarian cancer in a legally transitioned trans-man because his ID says male now. However this would not force all insurance to provide that trans-man with a historectomy for transitional reasons.
Two other things have occurred. Other outside grassroots groups filed to be added as defendants but were not allowed to do so by this same Judge O'Connor leaving the local US Attorney the only representation for the government. Second, the trump administration has ordered the Justice Department not to challenge the injunction. Normally the US Justice Dept would by normal course of action challenge the ruling so as to move the case further up the court system. Trump's masters are instead trying to simply let the injunction sit and stagnate any further legal progress to resolving this issue.
So here we are today with a law that a single low level judge has stopped, without hearing any merits of the lawsuit that stopped it, and a government happy to not take up the discourse normally needed in a democratic society. This is quite literally the definition of how fascism starts.
Here's one nice opinion piece.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/01/02/aca-pregnancy-termination-gender-identity-protections-blocked-wellness-program-incentives-survive/ ACA/BY Timothy Jost 01/03/2017
