Democrats wrestle over chance to kill the ban on transgender care in Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill'
Despite being in the minority, Democrats have a chance to remove a provision from President Donald Trump's ' One Big, Beautiful Bill ' that would prevent Medicaid dollars from being used to cover gender-affirming care.'
The questions is, will they?
The issue emerges more than eight months after a 2024 election from which Democrats are still digging out and also working out their messaging about how to defend the rights of transgender people without being painted as too radical by Republicans.
In the presidential race, Trump and his associated super PACS hit Kamala Harris in ads for supporting taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for inmates, ending the ad by saying 'Kamala is for They/Them. President Trump is for you.'
Republicans also hit Democrats in down-ballot races specifically on the subject of allowing transgender athletes to compete in women's sports.
That might be why when The Independent asked some top Democratic senators about whether they would try to strike the language from Republicans' bill, even some of the most liberal voices said they did not know .
'I don't know,' Sen. Chris Murphy told The Independent last week when asked if it could the strict criteria the Senate Parliamentarian would subject the bill to.
Sen. Patty Murray, the vice chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, simply told The Independent, 'I haven't seen the language.'
Murray later clarified on Bluesky that she opposed the ban in Medicaid.
'I had not seen the language but let me be clear: I support stripping out as much from the bill as Democrats can, including this ban.'
But even liberal Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren dodged the question.
'I haven't seen it, ' she told The Independent last week when asked if she would raise a point of order on it. When asked if she was worried about it, she repeated, 'I haven't seen it.'
The avoidance shows how Democrats are in the position of being on the defensive on an issue where Republicans think they can win against Democrats, while at the same time defending a vulnerable population the party has long said it would support.
Some Democrats have said they would support efforts to challenge the language. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, who is the first openly gay person elected to the Senate, told The Independent earlier this month that she assumed Democrats would but that she had not seen the details of the legislation
'What I would say substantively is that, this is, again, talking about taking away people's health care, and taking parents' ability to decide what kind of health care their children need,' she said.
The Republican bill in the House that passed through the House Energy & Commerce Committee banned Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance dollars from being used to provide gender-affirming care for minors. In a last-minute addition before the bill went to a vote on the floor, an amendment struck the term 'for minors' from the legislation, meaning it would put in place a blanket ban on gender-affirming care for all transgender people.
The legislation would also prohibit coverage of gender transition care as an 'essential health benefit' offered by health care exchanges created in the 2010 Affordable Care Act signed by former president Barack Obama. The Senate Finance Committee released the health care part of its version that is almost identical to the House version except it does not include the 'essential health benefit' provision.
'I obviously think these issues are private and personal,' Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee which is in charge of health care, told The Independent.
Republicans, who have only 53 seats in the Senate, plan to pass the bill through the process of budget reconciliation. That would allow them to pass the bill with a simple majority and avoid a filibuster as long as the legislation relates to the budget and federal spending.
As part of the process, the legislation goes through the 'Byrd Bath,' named for late Senator Robert Byrd, where the Senate Parliamentarian determines whether parts of the legislation relate directly to the budget or are 'merely incidental.'
Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas, who sponsored the amendment, told The Independent that he believes it will comply with the rules because it saves taxpayer dollars.
But if the the Senate parliamentarian rules that part of the legislation does not comply with reconciliation rules, the majority party can still bring the amendment on the floor, but the minority party can raise a point of order. If Republicans want to waive the point of order, it would require three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 votes, vote to waive it.
Sen Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said that he thought Democrats would likely challenge it.
'Well, we're certainly taking a look at all of the pieces of policy that don't belong in this type of bill,' he told The Independent. 'You don't put policy in there. That sure sounds like policy to me.'
It also comes after when Republicans regularly criticized Democrats in campaign advertisements about allowing transgender athletes in women's sports.
Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, who recently told The Dispatch that he opposes allowing transgender athletes in some women's sports, told The Independent he thought that Democrats would challenge the Medicaid ban.
'I think it's outside the boundaries of reconciliation,' Gallego told The Independent.
Mady Castigan, independent journalist and advocate who has published updates on the bill and urged people to call their lawmakers about it, has been pushing for people to make calls to lawmakers to oppose the bill.
'I really doubt there's a ton of people calling and asking their senators to vote for this specific provision,' she said. 'But I guarantee you, there's a ton more calling in to oppose it, and whenever something like that happens, you know, it definitely swings the political calculations.'
But as of right now, much of the future of the legislation is unclear because Senate Republicans have yet to release the tax and health care aspects of their bill.
'I would assume so, but I haven't seen the details of it,' Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota, who is retiring, told The Independent about whether Democrats would challenge the ban.
But other Democrats avoided the question.
'There's a whole list of stuff that's being scrubbed there. Both in the privilege scrub now and in the later point of order challenges, and I can't say any more than that,' Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island told The Independent.
This would not be the first time that Democrats and supporters of transgender rights pushed back on anti-transgender legislation. Earlier this year, Senate Democrats blocked legislation that would have banned transgender athletes from women's sports.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
Emmett Till memorial in Mississippi could be removed as part of DOGE-recommended $1 billion cuts to national parks
Moves made by Donald Trump 's administration could pave the way for the removal of a national monument honoring Emmett Till, an icon of the civil rights movement, risking a public outcry. Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), formerly led by tech boss Elon Musk, has recommended slashing the budget of the National Park Service by nearly $1 billion. Meanwhile, a Justice Department opinion released earlier this month grants presidents the right to revoke the status of national monuments for the first time since the 1930s. Together, the two steps could mean the demise of the Till memorial as part of Trump's drive to eradicate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) values from public institutions, a culture war that has seen him attack the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C., for promoting 'improper, divisive or anti-American ideology' and attempt to remould the Kennedy Center according to his own tastes, among other targets. 'We are seeing this effort to erase and reverse history and historic preservation,' historian Alan Spears, senior director of cultural resources and government affairs for the National Parks Conservation Association, told CBS News. 'This is turning quickly into a dream deferred.' Till, a Black Chicagoan, was just 14 when he was kidnapped in Mississippi on the night of August 28, 1955, by two white men who accused him of behaving disrespectfully towards a white woman, Carolyn Bryant, in her grocery store earlier in the day as he visited family in the town of Money. The assailants were Bryant's husband, Roy, and his half-brother, John W Milam, who beat, tortured, and eventually murdered Till, dumping his body in the Tallahatchie River, from which it was recovered three days later. He was buried in Chicago, with his mother, Mamie, insisting on an open casket funeral while his killers went on to be acquitted by an all-white jury. Remembered as a martyr to racial prejudice in America by the civil rights marchers of the 1960s and immortalised in song by Bob Dylan, Till was finally awarded a monument dedicated to his memory and that of his mother by Joe Biden in 2023. The Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monument covers three sites: Graball Landing in Mississippi, where Emmett's body was found; Sumner in the same state, where Bryant and Miliam were tried in the local courthouse; and Chicago's Roberts Temple Church of God in Christ in Illinois, where the boy's funeral service was held. Spears and his colleagues were influential voices in seeking federal protection for those sites, which was granted by Biden and could now be stripped away by Trump. 'Let's make sure it doesn't happen to anybody else's son ever again,' the historian said in appealing for their upkeep. He likened the proposed DOGE cuts to the National Parks Service to 'amputating an arm for a hangnail.' Former National Park Service director Chuck Sams, who left his role earlier this year, said the loss of the Till memorial would be 'very sad and egregious.' 'People don't like to look at their past when it shows a negative light of who we are, and I can understand that nobody likes to look at their own personal past that may have a negative light, but we also know that in order to learn from our own history, we also have to learn from our past mistakes,' Sams said. 'And we, as Americans, have never been actually scared to do so, and I don't think we should be now. We look at our past, and we know that from our past mistakes that we have become stronger.' Other sites reportedly being considered for removal include the Chuckwalla and Sattitla Highlands national monuments in California, and the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument in Arizona, the latter due to its reputed uranium resources. White House spokesperson Anne Kelly responded to the threat to the monuments in a statement in which she said: 'Under President Trump's leadership, [Interior] Secretary [Doug] Burgum is keeping our parks ready for peak season, ensuring they are in pristine condition for visitors, and restoring truth and sanity to depictions of American history in line with the president's executive order. 'The president is simultaneously following through on his promise to 'Drill, Baby, Drill' and restore American energy dominance.'
Sky News
41 minutes ago
- Sky News
From accidental to absolute leader - who is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?
👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈 Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's often reclusive Supreme Leader, surfaced this week to hit back at Donald Trump's demands for an unconditional surrender. Khamenei first came to power as Iranian president in 1981, and he was a surprise choice for Supreme Leader eight years later. But since then, with the help of the Revolutionary Guard, he has had almost complete control of Iran and its anti-Israel and anti-American foreign policy agenda. Tom Cheshire speaks to Alex Vatanka, founding director of the Iran programme at the Middle East Institute in Washington DC, about how Khamenei is viewed inside Iran and how his policies contributed to the current crisis
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
JD Vance flies off to review the troops ... deployed by Trump to LA over ICE raid protests
Vice President JD Vance will travel to Los Angeles to tour facilities established for Trump administration's mass deportation efforts and the crackdown on protests against those efforts using National Guard soldiers and active duty Marines. Vance's office said he will fly to the country's second-largest city on Friday to 'tour a multi-agency Federal Joint Operations Center, a Federal Mobile Command Center, meet with leadership and Marines, and deliver brief remarks.' The announcement of his visit to California was made on Friday morning, and Vance's office did not release any information on the exact timing of his departure from Washington nor that of his planned arrival in California or the venue for his remarks. Although theWhite House traditionally makes the president's and vice president's schedule public during travel within the United States, a source familiar with the administration's plans said the last-minute nature of the announcements and the lack of information about the trip was due to what they described as safety concerns. Vance's visit to the country's second-largest city comes less than a day after the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sided with the Trump administration by allowing President Donald Trump to maintain control over 4,000 National Guard soldiers called into federal service as a result of mass protests against the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts. California Governor Gavin Newsom had filed a lawsuit seeking to return the Guard to state control, arguing that Trump was bound to issue orders through him as the state's chief executive. But the judges said Trump could maintain control while the case moves forward, citing a federal law allowing the federalization of the Guard when 'the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' They wrote that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth notifying the Adjutant General of the California National Guard, 'likely satisfied the statute's procedural requirement that federalization orders be issued 'through' the Governor.'
