Of Pride and Prejudice: Biden Administration Combats State Discriminatory Actions

Fairly regularly, our CANN Blog tends to highlight impacts of various public health actions as they relate to LGBTQIA+ populations because these communities are disproportionately impacted by a variety of social determinants of health as found in the 2015 United States Transgender Survey, conducted and published by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). It’s important to note, NCTE will be launching data gathering efforts later this year to provide updated data. Public health programs have long been leveraged to either help or harm (often via neglect of data pointing toward broader protections and specific programming) trans and non-binary people, depending on the ideological lean of the administration issuing regulations and rules, both on the federal and state levels.

2022 has been particularly challenging for transgender youth. We’ve witnessed state legislatures and governors through administrative agencies have sought to limit access to gender-affirming care. There remains deep community concern, despite some governors vetoing sports and health care related bills, judges regularly ruling against these actions, a lack of clear political support, and commitments from the Biden Administration to defend the rights of transgender people. These actions, however, aren’t just limited to transgender youth. Florida, for example, is currently proposing a rule that would prohibit the state’s Medicaid program from covering gender-affirming care for anyone, again, despite similar rules and laws having been struck down as recently as November 2021. (Editor’s Note: Florida’s rule, by the way, is open to public comment through July 8th.) Advocates for equitable access to care in public health programs and concerned on issues of health equity should readily take the time to comment. Public comment on state and federal rulemaking is a key element for policy engagement and can sometimes be used to reflect bad faith efforts on the part of these regulatory agencies, as was seen when Kentucky’s Medicaid work requirement waiver was initially squashed for failing to adequately address concerns raised in public comments.

In response to these moves, the Biden Administration has issued new executive orders including directing various agencies to assess more appropriate data gathering of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data of people participating in federally funded programs. Additionally, Biden has directed federal agencies to review existing data for information on when LGBTQIA+ youth and parents are separated from their families in child welfare matters, and issue rules to both define discrimination and protect LGBTQIA+ people from discrimination in federally funded programs. Indeed, on June 23rd, the U.S. Department of Education released a proposed rule that would extend certain protections for transgender students and seeks to further protect sexual assault and harassment victims in educational settings. An additional rule is expected later this year which would provide guidance on integrating transgender youth into school sports. We’re also still awaiting – any day now – the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issue a new proposed rule regarding the Affordable Care Act’s non-discrimination provision known as Section 1557. The Trump Administration sought to narrowly define these protections in 2020, but it was blocked shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County when a federal judge ruled against the Trump Administration after noted health clinic Whitman Walker sued to stop the discriminatory rule from going into effect.

These state efforts are aimed at finding “carve outs” to the precedents and rules protecting transgender people from stigma, violence, and discrimination merely as a political tactic. But just because this population is being used as a political football, doesn’t mean there aren’t severe public health consequences, some which may reach beyond the issue of gender identity. “Trans health is the canary in the coal mine,” a long-time advocate, Riley Johnson, said to me when discussing Florida’s effort to limit access to gender affirming care in its Medicaid program. “Once they can redefine ‘medically necessary’ to mean whatever they want it to mean, despite standards of care, every legitimate medical association, and decades of data, who’s to say they don’t decide to re-define ‘medical necessity’ for people living with HIV or STIs or hepatitis C, and return us to the days of moralistic ‘you did this to yourself’ or ‘it’s a choice’.” Johnson continued, “It’s real easy to look at substance users and decide their care doesn’t matter when we’re looking for reasons to justify the cruelty of denying people life-saving care.”

Johnson is correct in highlighting how bias-driven rulemaking affecting public health programs turns into a slippery slope. Experienced advocates should be mindful of intersecting issues of public health and encourage those budding advocates to take advantage of these…interesting times to build their knowledge, engage in policy development and evaluation processes, and invest in strengthening the public health advocate pipeline.