The Pentagon’s implementation on Friday of a new policy restricting military service by those who identify as transgender continues to draw criticism. But the reality is most of the critics have made little effort to accurately understand it. This is true even of groups presenting themselves as experts — like the American Medical Association. The AMA was quoted last week criticizing the Pentagon document to implement the policy for using the word “deficiencies” in explaining when transgender service members may be separated from the military. AMA president Dr. Barbara L. McAneny told the Associated Press, “The only thing deficient is any medical science behind this decision.”

The problem is, the Pentagon did not apply the word “deficiencies” to any individual’s transgender status, or even to a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria.” The word referred quite explicitly to a “failure to adhere to … standards” — namely, “the standards associated with his or her biological sex.” In other words, it refers to “deficiencies” in a service member’s conduct, not their physical or psychological state.

People who simply identify with a gender different from their biological sex are not automatically excluded from the military under the Trump policy. However, “gender dysphoria” is a specific medical diagnosis, and it is associated with significant mental health problems, as the AMA should know. The Pentagon’s Report and Recommendations last year found, “Service members with gender dysphoria are eight times more likely to attempt suicide than Service members as a whole …” and “nine times more likely to have mental health encounters.”

Meanwhile, the medical procedures often associated with a “gender transition” — hormone treatments and gender reassignment surgery — threaten military readiness because they limit the deployability of the service member. The Pentagon found that “transitioning Service members in the Army and Air Force have averaged 167 and 159 days of limited duty, respectively, over a one-year period.” They also found that “the medical costs for Service members with gender dysphoria have increased nearly three times — or 300 percent — compared to Service member without gender dysphoria.”

In addition, within the military there are “sex-based standards … based on legitimate biological differences between males and females.” For example, allowing a biological male who still has male anatomy but identifies as female to use female “berthing, bathroom, and shower facilities” undermines the “reasonable expectations of privacy” of biological females. Allowing a biological male who identifies as female to meet female physical fitness standards and compete in athletics with biological females is unfair both to females and males. See FRC’s Issue Analysis for a more detailed summary of the policy’s justifications.

As a recent DoD summary made clear, it was actually the Obama policy that was “discriminatory” — because it exempted transgender persons from standards that apply to others with similar mental and physical conditions. President Trump deserves credit for taking a fresh look at this issue and returning to a rational policy based upon what is best for the military, rather than just accepting his predecessor’s unilateral, eleventh hour policy that was motivated not by military readiness, but political correctness.

Originally published here.

Tarheels Taking Strides for Life Legislation

While House Democrats are busy blocking sensible, humane legislation like the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (they have now refused to consider this measure 32 times), they are motivating states like North Carolina to counter their callousness by taking a stand and attempting to protect babies born alive after a failed abortion attempt.

This week, two born-alive protection bills are moving in the North Carolina General Assembly. In the state Senate, SB 359 was set for a floor vote last night, while HB 602 is currently before the House Rules Committee.

These two bills are identical and would require that babies who are born alive after a failed abortion receive the same level of care “as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age,” and that these babies be “immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.”

It is incredible to think that we have to clarify what should be understood as human decency, but unfortunately, now we do. We not only have to specify this type of decency, but we also need accountability for failing to comply with it. These two pro-life bills would accomplish exactly that; in other words, they have some teeth! As our friends at the North Carolina Family Policy Council explain, “[f]ailure to comply with the provisions above would subject the practitioner to possible criminal and civil penalties. Additionally, these bills would establish a new murder charge for any person who performs or attempts to perform ‘an overt act that kills a child born alive.’”

The N.C. Family Policy Council has been diligently working on this issue, and it is encouraging to see headway in the state of North Carolina despite the moral numbness Capitol Hill Democrats show toward protecting such babies. As the group’s president John Rustin said, “[w]e applaud the members of N.C. General Assembly who support these critical life saving measures…These bills are not about abortion, but are about recognizing, honoring and caring for the lives of newborn babies who are born alive. Suggesting anything less is barbaric, inhumane and indefensible!”

I agree. At nine months, on the day of a baby’s birth, here’s what should happen: the baby should be wrapped in a blanket and a warm, tiny hat placed on their head. This is what a newborn should be met with. Not death.

As North Carolina is racing to the finish line to secure protections for these babies, you can remind Nancy Pelosi what every baby deserves on their first day in the world by sending her a baby hat through our “End Birth Day Abortion” campaign. In return, you will receive a certificate that will remind you to pray for born alive babies who are facing the danger of being killed outside the womb, as well as for the U.S. Congress to take decisive action on this issue.

If this bill passes the General Assembly, it will then go to N.C. Governor Roy Cooper (D) and we will see if he will stand for life, or for his party.

So far twenty-nine states currently have some form of born-alive protection.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.