Military’s Trans-formation Draws Nigh
Another judge rules in favor of Obama’s social engineering in the military. It’s a bad idea.
Back in July, President Donald Trump reversed one of Barack Obama’s most odious military policy decisions — opening the doors for transgender individuals to serve openly in the military. In seeking to undo the damage, Trump rightly said, “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
Then the judges stepped in, ordering the commander in chief to allow transgenders anyway, and to do so by Jan. 1. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Bill Clinton appointee, denied the Trump administration’s request to delay that order. Kollar-Kotelly had initially ruled that Trump’s order violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees. Moreover, back in November, U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis, a George H.W. Bush nominee, ruled that the administration can’t stop taxpayer funding for sex-reassignment surgery for these military members.
The Pentagon announced Monday it will comply with all the court rulings. However, Maj. David Eastburn, a DOD spokesman, told the Associated Press “that the new guidelines mean the Pentagon can disqualify potential recruits with gender dysphoria, a history of medical treatments associated with gender transition and those who underwent reconstruction. But such recruits are allowed in if a medical provider certifies they’ve been clinically stable in their preferred sex for 18 months and are free of significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas.”
The whole point of this debate is that transgendered individuals are by definition not clinically stable or free of significant distress. Indeed, gender dysphoria is still classified as a mental disorder according to the World Health Organization. And as we’ve discussed before when it comes to traitor Bradley Manning, transgendered people are at a drastically higher risk of suicide attempts than the general population. How does that serve military readiness? How does outfitting mentally ill people with military weaponry uphold constitutional equal protection? This is why wearing a black robe in a courtroom does not qualify one to set military standards.
Start a conversation using these share links: