HRC Article:
WASHINGTON — Last night, President Biden signed the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, which includes a provision inserted by Speaker Mike Johnson blocking healthcare for the transgender children of military servicemembers. This provision, the first anti-LGBTQ+ federal law enacted since the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, will rip medically necessary care from the transgender children of thousands of military families – families who make incredible sacrifices in defense of the country each and every day. The last anti-LGBTQ+ federal law that explicitly targeted military servicemembers was Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which went into effect in 1994.
Biden’s press release:
No service member should have to decide between their family’s health care access and their call to serve our Nation.
Out of curiosity if I made you choose between:
0% of military troops’ families getting salaries and healthcare
100% of military troops’ families getting salaries and healthcare with the sole exception of trans care
What would you choose?
Although, honestly, since we’re in hypotheticals and foresight, Biden could have let them go without pay and possibly triggered a Bonus Army type scenario where the military protests.
What, do you think Congress would just not pass a NDAA?
If they hadn’t, then it likely would have led to a Bonus Army scenario. If you’re not sure what that means, in 1932 tens of thousands of military servicemen and veterans gathered to protest congress and essentially force them to pay out bonds to soldiers.
We’ve had Government shutdowns before and this would be no different. Plus, the actual fund distribution wouldn’t happen until the Appropriations bill comes later, anyways. In fact, theres a non-zero chance that Republicans rip this bill up and replace it after they gain majority and before the Appropriations bill comes.
The 118th congress is coming to an end, and changes to this bill have been in the news since June.
Oh no, a protest followed shortly thereafter by a bill that passes presidential veto. And that the Republicans have the power to do whatever they want in January is exactly why this should have been vetoed. They can do whatever evils they want, but at least then it’s on them rather than further eroding the idea that Democrats will stick up for their constituent minority groups.
I didn’t say the protest was bad, just answering your question about hypothetical outcomes.
I don’t really follow your logic about vetoing this now because of the changing congress, you’re saying not passing the bipartisan bill and waiting for a more conservative bill that harms more people would be your ideal?
So you’re just a Republican?
The “bipartisan bill” doesn’t protect us on anything. There’s nothing stopping them from passing any measure we avoided by accepting the “imperfect” bill, so they don’t need to surrender to Republican priorities when they only control 1/3rd of the current legislative process. They’re going to do the “more harms” regardless of what Democrats do here. Nothing has been averted with this complicity.
Plus my expectation is that a vetoed NDAA doesn’t result in a month with no NDAA until the new Congress. It’s a “must pass” bill. Cancel recess.
Oh, actually, this is after they talked down a ton of other Republican amendments including stripping reproductive care, denying refugees, banning CRT in military academies, etc.
But hey, the “must pass” part gives Biden the authority to sign it without Republican approval, because Republicans could actually try to drag it out to add in all of their amendments like they have been doing for many months, it doesn’t literally force the congress to pass something before the time limit because there are no consequences for not doing so aside from the military going unfunded: which Republicans have demonstrated they would absolutely do.
I expect the party that ran on protecting trans kids to take a stand. But I am done supporting the democrats now.
So you choose 0%, wow thats sick anon.
Anything else is just the illusion of choice. They control the options. So they can always come up with something worse to set next to the option it wants. The only influence you have as a chooser is to call thier bluff. If you don’t you might as well just let have whatever they want.
In this case, I hate to ask more of our service members. But I know I can count on them to fight back. Choosing zero is calling them to service once more to protect the freedom of our nation. Specifically thier freedom to use the benefit they were promised when they enlisted. And I have faith that they will rise to the occasion.