March 14, 2006
Government-funded sex-change operations are saved!
The Democrat-controlled legislature reversed itself and restored government funding for sex-change operations.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 14, 2006
10:33 AM | Email This
1. The amendment was nixed "for the children".
Supposedly, this is because of the overwhelming number of babies born with male and female sex organs that are also on Medicaid programs. The law would have made it so that these babies could not receive the medical attention they need.
Why didn't they just change the amendment to help these kids and then pass it?
2. Wonder which legislator will be the first to step up and get, uh, snipped?
3. Oh, thank heaven! I didn't think I'd EVER get any sleep again if this stuff wasn't paid for by hardworking taxpayers who don't commit crimes. (/sarcasm)
4. The reason they didn't add an amendment for children was probably because they were trying to get done a day early and because they didn't want extra attention drawn to the issue.
It's safe to say that sex change operations, now that it has been publicized, will no longer take place unless absolutely necessary.
I do expect some sort of amendment to take place next year, but only for political reasons and not any actual concern.
5. Oh, good.
It's so reassuring to know that She-who-must-be-obeyed isn't carelessly p__ing away our hard-earned tax dollars.
Are the dems trying to expand their base to the transgender community?
6. Democrats: No values, no principles, no priorities.
Enuf said. Vote Republican!
7. STUCK ON STUPID!!!!!!!
As I have mentioned before we are foster parents. The driver that picks the boys up for visits with the biological parents just left for better work (visit drivers get min. wage and no mileage). There is NO FUNDING to arrange for the boys to get to the visits.
DSHS funds:
ELECTIVE PROCEDURES
but "can't" fund:
COURT ORDER AND REQUIRED BY LAW SERVICES.
Those in Olympia are complete and under dolts, morons and imbeciles.
No One currently in office merits re-elections.
Period.
None.
The republicans lack cojones to stand up.
The democrats are so out of it as to require mental evaluation.
I have written the Gov. and all my Reps. and not a single one has responded.
It's for the children is pure and utter bullcrap.
Anyone of those weasel b*st*rds in Olympia really considered the children they would ask why are children in the DSHS system hanging in limbo because of "lack of funds."
Instead those limp *&%$ save dicoectomies for the perverse and they hang children at risk out to dry.
I'll amend my first comment.
STUCK ON BRAIN DEAD!!!!
Can you tell I am POed?
8. Your argument holds no water, Gerald. They took
out the original line banning state funding of sex change operations. If they'd simply left the language in - as passed - we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And while I wholeheartedly support the Legislature spending as little time in Olympia as possible, failing to enact sound policy simply to 'get done a day early' doesn't cut it.
9. 1 The Legislature could have added an amendment for hermaphrodite children to allow surgical procedures in those cases with the parents' consent.
2 Given the limited funds available the State should be focused on basic care, vacinations, and preventive care.
3 I am not a physician and defer to them on when it's appropriate for "sex-change operation and ... penile implants."
4 State Medicaid Director Doug Porter is already in violation of State Policy and Procedures based upon Democratic State Auditor Brian Sontag's reports.
5 Kudos to US Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, for launching a federal inquiry into Washinton state's Medicaid expenditures.
6 Ken Eikenberry (who succeeded Slate Gorton 1969 to 1981) was Attorney General from 1982 to 1993
and cracked down on high pressure gym membership contracts, Cal Worthington, and other questionable auto dealors tactics. I really don't know what Gregoire accomplished in her 12 years as AG, but big penalities for the State. (She subbed the cigarette case out to Steve Berman, and the whole ruling 1s suspect since the State knew that cigarettes were cancer agents from the 1963 Surgeon General's report and continues to sell them)
10. Watchdog: While I'll never vote for a democrat, are the Republicans noticably better? If they were, wouldn't they win more elections locally? Both parties are tax and spend big government parties. What we need is the "NO" party, where the platform is "we say NO to government programs.
11. Good luck with that, Dan. The American people have decided that government exists to give them things. Pretty tough to compete with the "free lunch" appeal of socialism.
12. Steve_dog;
to answer your question...Bill Finkbiner
13. Jimg,
Actually you're right, and I'm wrong... It wasn't because of time constrants and it wasn't because they didn't want to touch the issue - it was already 'touched'.
There's always politics behind bills that I don't understand at all. This is one of them.
My best guess is the Dems really feel like these operations have some merit, but didn't want too much bad press. So they voted with the Republicans so it wouldn't look like they supported sex change operations - and then semi-quietly took it out.
14. Since the word insurance in this article really is a lie, lets talk about socialism....
that is, what insurance did somebody buy, and why did they buy it? Did they buy "don't give me 2 sex organs insurance?
Naw, this is gov't owned and socialized healthcare.
15. Well, apparently party changing operations are all the rage now that Two-term state Rep. Rodney Tom has decided to switch to the Democratic party to run for the state Senate.
Looks like the only ones who are gonna pay for that are the Republicans.
16. Do you mean Rhonda Tom? He is BI just like Finkbiner,can't make up his mind. Maybe these two should be Snap-on Tool representatives instead of State representatives.
17. I predict the change for Rodney Tom will help Republicans. He wants to challenge Luke Esser.
18. "It's for the children"
You mean the "children" that the Democrats so vehemently want to abort?
And just how does a man changing into a woman have ANYTHING to do with children? It's pretty much a counter-reproductive operation.
The Dems are just so nasty and low....same as always...
19. This place is gone loony - way off the deep end. Wake up Republicans and use this as a campaign issue. I hope that the Feds come in & investigate and throw the book and hit the Governor for this irresponsible POS law. The legislators who passed this ought to be ashamed of themselves - that is if they have any shame. I'd like to see a listing of all of those who voted for this garbage !
Unbelievable !
20. I'd say this is great news for Goldstein. If you know what I mean.
21. springtime...and now I'm hating 'rainbows!'
this legislation is insane; a slap in the face to every needy veteran, elderly and disabled person; this is not a priority; voters sleeping at the wheel;
22. That's funny, I thought Christine was looking a little more manly lately...
23. oh no, no,no.....they waste my tax dollars........
24. My best guess is the Dems really feel like these operations have some merit, but didn't want too much bad press. So they voted with the Republicans so it wouldn't look like they supported sex change operations - and then semi-quietly took it out.
- gerald
So basically what you are saying Gerald is that democrats have no principles whatsoever. Thanks for explaining that to us. And that you wholeheartedly agree with them says something about you as well.
25. What about all you old white fatties who have your insurance pay for heart procedures and related surgeries due to poor eating habits and/or bad lifestyle choices?? Sounds pretty "elective" to me! The cost has been in the multi-millions, if not billions! Washington State has paid for a total of 3 sex-change surgeries EVER. It's hardly elective. And rest-assured, no surgeons that perform sex-change surgeries even take Medicaid coverage anymore.
26. Addition: the surgeons don't take the insurance for it anymore due to the reimbursement rate of only 45%, so they lose money. Maybe you should address another "sensational" issue like all the welfare mothers who have more children to get more money each month!
27. Addition: the surgeons don't take the insurance for it anymore due to the reimbursement rate of only 45%, so they lose money. Maybe you should address another "sensational" issue like all the welfare mothers who have more children to get more money each month!
28. Addition: the surgeons don't take the insurance for it anymore due to the reimbursement rate of only 45%, so they lose money. Maybe you should address another "sensational" issue like all the welfare mothers who have more children to get more money each month!