Advertisement
by The V O I D » Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:29 am
by Kowani » Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:07 pm
by Kowani » Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:46 pm
Nakena wrote:
Seems they don't have anything better to do.
Conservative Inc. literal last stand. When they have burned out through anything else, thats the Hill they choose to fight over. Pathetic.
by Auzkhia » Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:27 pm
by North Washington Republic » Mon Mar 15, 2021 8:52 pm
by Kowani » Tue Mar 16, 2021 12:56 am
Senate Bill 139 would require certain health insurance policies, including Medicaid, to cover “the treatment of conditions relating to gender dysphoria, gender incongruence and other disorders of sexual development.”
Procedures that affirm a person’s gender could range from “top surgery,” which includes breast reduction or removal, to voice therapy, depending on what a health care provider has deemed medically necessary for that person. While being praised by civil rights and LGBTQ groups, the legislation also received support from SilverSummit Health Plan, a state-based insurance plan.
The only opposition was from the Lyon County comptroller, who worried about the financial burden the legislation might place on smaller insurance plans.
The Nevada Association of Health Plans testified in “neutral,” saying it was working with the bill’s sponsors, Clark County Democratic state Sens. Melanie Scheible and Dallas Harris, to clarify some of the language.
If passed, Brooke Maylath, who presented the bill alongside Scheible, said Nevada would be “the first state to be able to have something this broadly mandated.”
[…]
In 2015 the Affordable Care Act prohibited insurance companies from refusing to cover procedures for transgender people. The Nevada Division of Insurance issued a bulletin shortly after to affirm its commitment to ensure procedures couldn’t be denied because of gender identity or expression.
Maylath said those laws and policies haven’t stopped trans people from being denied coverage nor have they stopped the bias that has led to some of those denials.
by Riviere Renard » Tue Mar 16, 2021 1:50 am
Kowani wrote:Nevada Bill would bar insurance from denying coverage of gender-affirmative proceduresSenate Bill 139 would require certain health insurance policies, including Medicaid, to cover “the treatment of conditions relating to gender dysphoria, gender incongruence and other disorders of sexual development.”
Procedures that affirm a person’s gender could range from “top surgery,” which includes breast reduction or removal, to voice therapy, depending on what a health care provider has deemed medically necessary for that person. While being praised by civil rights and LGBTQ groups, the legislation also received support from SilverSummit Health Plan, a state-based insurance plan.
The only opposition was from the Lyon County comptroller, who worried about the financial burden the legislation might place on smaller insurance plans.
The Nevada Association of Health Plans testified in “neutral,” saying it was working with the bill’s sponsors, Clark County Democratic state Sens. Melanie Scheible and Dallas Harris, to clarify some of the language.
If passed, Brooke Maylath, who presented the bill alongside Scheible, said Nevada would be “the first state to be able to have something this broadly mandated.”
[…]
In 2015 the Affordable Care Act prohibited insurance companies from refusing to cover procedures for transgender people. The Nevada Division of Insurance issued a bulletin shortly after to affirm its commitment to ensure procedures couldn’t be denied because of gender identity or expression.
Maylath said those laws and policies haven’t stopped trans people from being denied coverage nor have they stopped the bias that has led to some of those denials.
Billtext here
by The Reformed American Republic » Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:45 am
Nakena wrote:
Seems they don't have anything better to do.
Conservative Inc. literal last stand. When they have burned out through anything else, thats the Hill they choose to fight over. Pathetic.
by Grenartia » Tue Mar 16, 2021 1:46 pm
Riviere Renard wrote:Kowani wrote:Nevada Bill would bar insurance from denying coverage of gender-affirmative proceduresSenate Bill 139 would require certain health insurance policies, including Medicaid, to cover “the treatment of conditions relating to gender dysphoria, gender incongruence and other disorders of sexual development.”
Procedures that affirm a person’s gender could range from “top surgery,” which includes breast reduction or removal, to voice therapy, depending on what a health care provider has deemed medically necessary for that person. While being praised by civil rights and LGBTQ groups, the legislation also received support from SilverSummit Health Plan, a state-based insurance plan.
The only opposition was from the Lyon County comptroller, who worried about the financial burden the legislation might place on smaller insurance plans.
The Nevada Association of Health Plans testified in “neutral,” saying it was working with the bill’s sponsors, Clark County Democratic state Sens. Melanie Scheible and Dallas Harris, to clarify some of the language.
If passed, Brooke Maylath, who presented the bill alongside Scheible, said Nevada would be “the first state to be able to have something this broadly mandated.”
[…]
In 2015 the Affordable Care Act prohibited insurance companies from refusing to cover procedures for transgender people. The Nevada Division of Insurance issued a bulletin shortly after to affirm its commitment to ensure procedures couldn’t be denied because of gender identity or expression.
Maylath said those laws and policies haven’t stopped trans people from being denied coverage nor have they stopped the bias that has led to some of those denials.
Billtext here
Good new? Really? I'm in shock.
by Kowani » Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:31 pm
by The New California Republic » Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:49 pm
by Punished UMN » Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:02 pm
The New California Republic wrote:So much eyeroll @ the various news items on this page so far, where the legislature is shitting on trans people in various ways. Don't these lawmakers have anything better to do?
by The Solan Autonomy » Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:06 pm
The New California Republic wrote:So much eyeroll @ the various news items on this page so far, where the legislature is shitting on trans people in various ways. Don't these lawmakers have anything better to do?
More Enochian Ruins Discovered on Arachne - Strange Signal From Alpha Chi Recieved; Possible Sign of Non-Extinct Alien Life? - General Secretariat Fa'Diego: "Just Say No to Mining Garden Worlds" - High Priest Ewald of the Sanguan Dominion Dies at Age 148
by Hediacrana » Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:51 pm
by Kowani » Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:55 pm
A hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, March 16, dealt with House Bill 1298, which would prevent athletes under age 18 from participating in sports under any sex other than the one listed on their birth certificate.
It would also ban publicly owned facilities from hosting events in which transgender athletes might participate.
However, prior to the hearing, bill sponsor Rep. Ben Koppelman, (R), offered up amendments that would permit a facility to be rented or leased for such events and allow sponsorship of them by local destination marketing organizations, like the Fargo-Moorhead Convention and Visitors Bureau.
The committee took no action on the bill before adjourning after two hours of testimony.
[…]
In their support of the bill, several invoked Title IX, the federal civil rights law passed in 1972 prohibiting sex-based discrimination in any school or other education program that receives federal money.
Koppelman said if the bill doesn’t pass, opportunities for women will be greatly reduced, as society tries to replace biological sex references with the social construct of self-identification.
“We will, in essence, be allowing the panels of the glass ceiling to be reconstructed and installed over the heads of our women in the name of feelings, rather than science,” Koppelman said.
Rep. Kathy Skroch, (R), said the bill is about keeping a level playing field for girls.
Her youngest daughter got a free ride in college by competing in track, she said.
“If she competed against boys, she would have never gotten a scholarship because of the biological difference,” Skroch said.
Rep. Scott Louser, (R), said the debate is happening because an “ultra minority” of people have “demanded to be accommodated.”
When others try to put in place practical solutions, he said, they’re criticized as being out of touch, insensitive, bigoted, homophobic or even racist.
“That’s something society is just falling back on now,” Louser said.
Beth Stelzer, a Minnesota powerlifter and founder of the nonpartisan coalition Save Women’s Sports, said male participation in female sports is a growing problem across the world.
“We should not wait idly until a female in North Dakota is seriously injured or until all of their records are gone, to do something,” Stelzer said.
by Ayytaly » Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:53 pm
Kowani wrote:North Dakota has entered the frayA hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, March 16, dealt with House Bill 1298, which would prevent athletes under age 18 from participating in sports under any sex other than the one listed on their birth certificate.
It would also ban publicly owned facilities from hosting events in which transgender athletes might participate.
However, prior to the hearing, bill sponsor Rep. Ben Koppelman, (R), offered up amendments that would permit a facility to be rented or leased for such events and allow sponsorship of them by local destination marketing organizations, like the Fargo-Moorhead Convention and Visitors Bureau.
The committee took no action on the bill before adjourning after two hours of testimony.
[…]
In their support of the bill, several invoked Title IX, the federal civil rights law passed in 1972 prohibiting sex-based discrimination in any school or other education program that receives federal money.
Koppelman said if the bill doesn’t pass, opportunities for women will be greatly reduced, as society tries to replace biological sex references with the social construct of self-identification.
“We will, in essence, be allowing the panels of the glass ceiling to be reconstructed and installed over the heads of our women in the name of feelings, rather than science,” Koppelman said.
Rep. Kathy Skroch, (R), said the bill is about keeping a level playing field for girls.
Her youngest daughter got a free ride in college by competing in track, she said.
“If she competed against boys, she would have never gotten a scholarship because of the biological difference,” Skroch said.
Rep. Scott Louser, (R), said the debate is happening because an “ultra minority” of people have “demanded to be accommodated.”
When others try to put in place practical solutions, he said, they’re criticized as being out of touch, insensitive, bigoted, homophobic or even racist.
“That’s something society is just falling back on now,” Louser said.
Beth Stelzer, a Minnesota powerlifter and founder of the nonpartisan coalition Save Women’s Sports, said male participation in female sports is a growing problem across the world.
“We should not wait idly until a female in North Dakota is seriously injured or until all of their records are gone, to do something,” Stelzer said.
by The New California Republic » Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:51 am
by Neutraligon » Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:37 am
Ayytaly wrote:Kowani wrote:North Dakota has entered the frayA hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, March 16, dealt with House Bill 1298, which would prevent athletes under age 18 from participating in sports under any sex other than the one listed on their birth certificate.
It would also ban publicly owned facilities from hosting events in which transgender athletes might participate.
However, prior to the hearing, bill sponsor Rep. Ben Koppelman, (R), offered up amendments that would permit a facility to be rented or leased for such events and allow sponsorship of them by local destination marketing organizations, like the Fargo-Moorhead Convention and Visitors Bureau.
The committee took no action on the bill before adjourning after two hours of testimony.
[…]
In their support of the bill, several invoked Title IX, the federal civil rights law passed in 1972 prohibiting sex-based discrimination in any school or other education program that receives federal money.
Koppelman said if the bill doesn’t pass, opportunities for women will be greatly reduced, as society tries to replace biological sex references with the social construct of self-identification.
“We will, in essence, be allowing the panels of the glass ceiling to be reconstructed and installed over the heads of our women in the name of feelings, rather than science,” Koppelman said.
Rep. Kathy Skroch, (R), said the bill is about keeping a level playing field for girls.
Her youngest daughter got a free ride in college by competing in track, she said.
“If she competed against boys, she would have never gotten a scholarship because of the biological difference,” Skroch said.
Rep. Scott Louser, (R), said the debate is happening because an “ultra minority” of people have “demanded to be accommodated.”
When others try to put in place practical solutions, he said, they’re criticized as being out of touch, insensitive, bigoted, homophobic or even racist.
“That’s something society is just falling back on now,” Louser said.
Beth Stelzer, a Minnesota powerlifter and founder of the nonpartisan coalition Save Women’s Sports, said male participation in female sports is a growing problem across the world.
“We should not wait idly until a female in North Dakota is seriously injured or until all of their records are gone, to do something,” Stelzer said.
So much for March being International Women's Month.
Legit question to those who now identify as female: Do you believe native women have a rational basis to feel that their struggle to succeed in a physical field historically dominated exclusively by men is being hindered and encroached by trans athletes and those pushing for the abolition of biological sex classification in favor of gender identity?
(Native means born, btw. Not in indigenous context at all.)
by Vassenor » Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:44 am
by Zul-ar » Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:48 am
Disgraces wrote:What's up with the strasserism
Headlines: Female Tourist Released to Nation of Origin After Arrest for Indecent Exposure | Records From Season 5 of Radio Show "The Pious Man" Now For Sale | Actor Terrijorr From Hit Radio Show "The Pious Man" is Released, All Charges Dropped | New Sanitary Laws Go Into Effect | Mor-Leaf Prices Rise By .03%
by Zul-ar » Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:56 am
Vassenor wrote:So the BBC decided that the only groups it needed to interview about the government's plans to outlaw conversion therapy were the Evangelical Alliance, which argues that banning people from torturing others into pretending they're Cishet is a violation of religious freedom, and the LGB Alliance, which is pretty much accepted to be a right-wing false flag attempt to use trans rights to split the LGBT community in general.
[thonking]
Peter Lynas, UK director of the alliance wrote:He said the Evangelical Alliance opposed "abusive practices" and said extreme forms of conversion therapy, such as electric shock treatment, were "clearly wrong".
But he said such practises should already be illegal under existing laws and that a further ban risks preventing gay Christians who want to remain celibate from seeking support
....
"It would place ministry leaders at risk of arrest for encouraging young people to maintain chastity until marriage. And it would criminalise a member of a church who prays with another member when they ask for prayer to resist temptation as they are attracted to someone of the same sex but do not wish to act on it."
Headlines: Female Tourist Released to Nation of Origin After Arrest for Indecent Exposure | Records From Season 5 of Radio Show "The Pious Man" Now For Sale | Actor Terrijorr From Hit Radio Show "The Pious Man" is Released, All Charges Dropped | New Sanitary Laws Go Into Effect | Mor-Leaf Prices Rise By .03%
by Auzkhia » Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:01 am
Ayytaly wrote:Kowani wrote:North Dakota has entered the frayA hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, March 16, dealt with House Bill 1298, which would prevent athletes under age 18 from participating in sports under any sex other than the one listed on their birth certificate.
It would also ban publicly owned facilities from hosting events in which transgender athletes might participate.
However, prior to the hearing, bill sponsor Rep. Ben Koppelman, (R), offered up amendments that would permit a facility to be rented or leased for such events and allow sponsorship of them by local destination marketing organizations, like the Fargo-Moorhead Convention and Visitors Bureau.
The committee took no action on the bill before adjourning after two hours of testimony.
[…]
In their support of the bill, several invoked Title IX, the federal civil rights law passed in 1972 prohibiting sex-based discrimination in any school or other education program that receives federal money.
Koppelman said if the bill doesn’t pass, opportunities for women will be greatly reduced, as society tries to replace biological sex references with the social construct of self-identification.
“We will, in essence, be allowing the panels of the glass ceiling to be reconstructed and installed over the heads of our women in the name of feelings, rather than science,” Koppelman said.
Rep. Kathy Skroch, (R), said the bill is about keeping a level playing field for girls.
Her youngest daughter got a free ride in college by competing in track, she said.
“If she competed against boys, she would have never gotten a scholarship because of the biological difference,” Skroch said.
Rep. Scott Louser, (R), said the debate is happening because an “ultra minority” of people have “demanded to be accommodated.”
When others try to put in place practical solutions, he said, they’re criticized as being out of touch, insensitive, bigoted, homophobic or even racist.
“That’s something society is just falling back on now,” Louser said.
Beth Stelzer, a Minnesota powerlifter and founder of the nonpartisan coalition Save Women’s Sports, said male participation in female sports is a growing problem across the world.
“We should not wait idly until a female in North Dakota is seriously injured or until all of their records are gone, to do something,” Stelzer said.
So much for March being International Women's Month.
Legit question to those who now identify as female: Do you believe native women have a rational basis to feel that their struggle to succeed in a physical field historically dominated exclusively by men is being hindered and encroached by trans athletes and those pushing for the abolition of biological sex classification in favor of gender identity?
(Native means born, btw. Not in indigenous context at all.)
by Vassenor » Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:10 am
Zul-ar wrote:Vassenor wrote:So the BBC decided that the only groups it needed to interview about the government's plans to outlaw conversion therapy were the Evangelical Alliance, which argues that banning people from torturing others into pretending they're Cishet is a violation of religious freedom, and the LGB Alliance, which is pretty much accepted to be a right-wing false flag attempt to use trans rights to split the LGBT community in general.
[thonking]
I'm not sure about torturingPeter Lynas, UK director of the alliance wrote:He said the Evangelical Alliance opposed "abusive practices" and said extreme forms of conversion therapy, such as electric shock treatment, were "clearly wrong".
But he said such practises should already be illegal under existing laws and that a further ban risks preventing gay Christians who want to remain celibate from seeking support
....
"It would place ministry leaders at risk of arrest for encouraging young people to maintain chastity until marriage. And it would criminalise a member of a church who prays with another member when they ask for prayer to resist temptation as they are attracted to someone of the same sex but do not wish to act on it."
Their reasoning has nothing to do with torture or electric shock therapy, but about being allowed to discourage gay people in their church from doing gay things.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Singaporen Empire
Advertisement