Posted on 07/27/2017 7:09:27 AM PDT by servo1969
President Donald Trump's sudden ban of transgenders serving in the military may have been stratagem aimed at removing obstacles from defense spending bills, Politico reported Wednesday.
A fight between conservative and moderate Republicans over the government paying for gender reassignment surgeries threatened to derail the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), prompting Republicans to lobby the White House to intervene, according to Politico.
"Conservatives were telling [the] White House they didn't want money in a spending bill to go to transgender health services," an anonymous White House official told Politico.
Allowing taxpayer money to go towards transgender surgeries in the defense spending package might have weakened the bill's chances in an already difficult legislative environment.
It's unclear which members of Congress went around the Department of Defense to the White House, yet all but 24 Republican representatives voted for an amendment banning military funding of gender reassignment surgeries several weeks ago.
The amendment to the NDAA, sponsored by Missouri Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler, was blocked by a group of moderate Republicans, who voted with the entire Democratic caucus to not undo former President Barack Obama 2015 social policy changes to the armed forces. (RELATED: These Are The 24 Republicans Who Think The Pentagon Should Pay For Transgender Surgeries)
"Each dollar needs to be spent to address threats facing our nation," Hartzler said in a statement after Trump announced the ban. "The costs incurred by funding transgender surgeries and the required additional care it demands should not be the focus of our military resources."
Trump announced the ban in a series of three tweets Wednesday morning.
Hartzler and many House Republicans were pleased with Trump's ban. "Our military is the most effective, efficient and well-funded fighting force in the world, and as the president notes, we cannot burden our armed forces with the tremendous costs and disruptions that transgender in the military would entail," Hartzler said after Trump announced the ban. "With the challenges we are facing across the globe, we are asking the American people to invest their hard-earned money in national defense."
Jaime Gorelick and Ash Carter have littered DOD with progressive nutjobs. Well past time to clean house of ANYONE at the Pentagon still advocating for LGBT (or Muslim-loving) crap
In another word: Leadership.
Okay. sounds reasonable. So why not come out and say so when the announcement was made? Or is this a circle the wagons article.
It was the right call regardless of if it was for this reason or another.
Well, the info comes from Politico, so, there is that.
Most decisions have multiple reasons.
Sure hope POS congress isn’t feeling usurped or anything.
Hearing all the news accounts yesterday about the military transgender order, I wondered just what the costs might be for the military if the reassignment surgery were done by the government. I read that one desiring a reassignment surgery could expect to spend about $140K, depending on the extent of the surgery and the amount of plastic surgery.
I read that there were up to 6700 transgendered service people. $140K multiplied by 6700 is $938M in tax dollars. This does not include the required one year of hormone treatment prior to the surgery.
Not just a drop in the bucket.
He can be both polite & caring toward the willfully self-mutilated, and realistic about the objective consequences.
With the added benefit that the press will be all caterwauled-out when he finally gets around to firing Mueller.
Banning mentally ill people from serving in the military. What a novel concept. Why should this be controversial? Oh yeah, we live in bizarro land, that’s why.
Ironically, the liberals who are all gung ho on having these disturbed individuals carrying HIGH POWERED military weapons are the same ones that think normal civilians with different political beliefs are mentally ill & should be be banned from gun ownership.
As the Commander-In-Chief he makes decisions about events that could cost thousands, even millions of lives yet this decision is considered by the liberals as should be unavailable and unauthorized by the CIC. Those speaking against this do not understand the military and the chain of command. It’s not a social experiment eco-structure like Apple or Chrome.
I’m waiting with baited breath for CAIR to come out and approve the announcement - just to see how fast the MSM will change their ‘the sky is falling’ tune they’re singing today
two years hormones, plus psych care and narrowscope duty assignment (i.e., admin deskjockey), more than one year ‘recovery’ and permanent psych care, plus a possible political medical discharge with benefits for life which the government can’t grab back from their book deal on how they were so victimized and discriminated against in the military, poor thangs. The cost for the surgery is only a small part of the picture. Women soldiers who have children aren’t afforded a millionth of that ‘accommodation’.
One of the hundreds of issues was the hormone treatment. To reach some level of ‘completeness’....you have to stay on the hormone treatment. Some suggest that this is a permanent thing, that you really can’t ever stop the hormone treatment. So you can imagine....some grunt sent to some Afghan mountaintop for six months, and having carry a fair doseage of the stuff or have it delivered monthly.
The other attachment on this is that folks on the hormone treatment will likely experience mode-swings and depression. There is a higher rate of suicide for transgenders, and there is suggestion (not readily proven) that the whole hormone thing might be the basis for this higher rate.
One might also point out that once you agree to the operations/hormone treatment...women could come forward and ask why they can’t have a free boob job as well. So you could count thousands of active duty, dependent wives, and even dependent daughters.
Door after door was to be opened and the defense medical cost to the government would have doubled in a fairly short period of time.
I love my fellow Americans who happen to be gay as God has instructed. That doesn’t mean I have to bend over for them.
““[W]e will protect and defend and celebrate that,”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
said regarding a planned LGBT Pride Month Program
at the Justice Department.””
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/sessions-backs-lgbt-pride-month-event
What does this mean?
Maybe Chabad had an effect on Ivanka, and she told her dad to not allow them in the army. Not that Chabad would tell her that, but she’d certainly know they were sinners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.