The Rules Committee has voted in favor of sending an amendment to the House floor that would prohibit Pentagon funding from being used for medical care related to gender transition.
The committee's decision sets up a Thursday fight on the House floor over transgender rights in the military and, possibly, more broadly.
The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was filed by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.). It would make it so "funds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to provide medical treatment (other than mental health treatment) related to gender transition to a person entitled to medical care."Transgender troops currently in the military have been able to serve openly since last year. The policy also allows them to receive any treatment deemed medically necessary, including surgery and hormone therapy.
The Rules Committee late Wednesday voted 2-8 on party lines against an effort from Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) to block Hartler's amendment from coming to the House floor.
"What Ms. Hartzler is trying to do would reduce military readiness," said Polis, co-chair of Congress' LGBT Equality Caucus. "It would have a negative impact on morale, a negative impact on retention and move us away from the merit-based system which we now have, where we have one set of rules applied to everybody."
Hartzler did not come to the Rules Committee on Wednesday to argue for her amendment. But she previously spoke about medical costs and her opposition to open service when the Armed Services Committee debated the bill last month.
During last Armed Services markup, Hartzler claimed that the cost of surgeries alone could reach to $1.35 billion over the next 10 years.
It's unclear where Hartzler's figure originates. In an interview with USA Today, she suggested she and her staff did their own research on the issue.
The RAND Corporation estimated all medical costs for transgender service member would be about $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually.Still, Hartzler argued the transgender policy harms readiness.
"Military service is a privilege, not a right," she said last month. "It is predicated on winning wars and defeating the enemy. All decisions on personnel and funding should be made with this in mind."
LGBT military groups expressed outrage at the amendment even in advanced of the Rules Committee giving it the green light.
"To be clear, this vile amendment is a vicious attack on service members who are sacrificing so much and putting their lives on the line for our country," Ashley Broadway-Mack, president of the American Military Partner Association, said in a statement. "As if that's not outrageous enough, it would also rip away the medically necessary health care of transgender family members."
Added Matt Thorn, executive director of OutServe-SLDN: "This amendment is a mean-spirited, unconstitutional attempt to impede the recruitment of openly transgender individuals who want to serve their country. Transgender service members have been serving, openly and authentically, since October 2016 with no impact on readiness."
U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler says that allowing transgender soldiers to serve costs taxpayers too much money.
The Obama administration issued a directive in its final year that enabled transgender troops to undergo gender reassignment surgery and continue to serve rather than face an automatic discharge.
Hartzler, a Republican whose district covers central and western Missouri, wants to reverse that policy and pointed to the cost of the surgery as the reason.
"The Obama transgender policy, which was implemented without input from members of Congress, is ill-conceived and contrary to our goals of increasing troop readiness and investing defense dollars into addressing budget shortfalls of the past," Hartzler said in a statement.
"By recruiting and allowing transgender individuals to serve in our military we are subjecting taxpayers to high medical costs including up to $130,000 per transition surgery, lifetime hormone treatments, and additional surgeries to address the high percentage of individuals who experience complications."
But LGBT advocates in Missouri say that Hartzler is using this financial argument to mask her opposition to transgender rights.
A RAND Corporation study last year found that the cost of surgeries and hormone treatments could lead to a .13 percent increase in health care costs for the military. The study also found that Australia, Canada, Israel and the United Kingdom saw no impact to operational effectiveness from allowing transgender soldiers to serve.
"Her stance on military readiness of trans folks is actually not about supporting the military...her stance has always been strictly anti-LGBT," said Steph Perkins, the executive director of PROMO, a Missouri organization that advocates for LGBT rights.
Perkins pointed out that Hartzler made similar arguments when she opposed the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell," a policy that prevented gay soldiers from being open about their sexual orientation.
Hartzler offered — and then withdrew — an amendment to block transgender troops during a House Armed Services committee meeting Thursday.
Hartzler said that she wants to give the Department of Defense a chance to address the issue internally, but she also hinted that she may revive the amendment in July
"Military service is a privilege — not a right — predicated on the singular goal of fighting and winning our nation's wars."
Bryan Lowry: 816-234-4077, @BryanLowry3
Read more here:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article159090809.html#storylink=cpy
