On Friday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by a federal judge in North Dakota who said that the federal government can not force a group of Catholic doctors and hospitals to perform “gender transition” surgeries. While the government will likely take this to the Supreme Court at some point, this case may offer a tentative first step toward curbing the transgender madness currently engulfing the nation’s healthcare system. The basis for the ruling is a bit odd, at least as I see it, but you take your victories where you can get them. This ruling also renews a standing debate over certain provisions in Obamacare that have been wildly twisted in recent years to redefine “sex” and “gender” to suit progressive activists. (Reuters)

The Biden administration cannot force a group of Catholic healthcare providers and professionals to perform gender transition surgeries under an Obama-era regulation barring sex discrimination in healthcare, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a North Dakota federal judge who said the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) rule infringes on the religious freedoms of the plaintiffs, including a group of nuns who run health clinics for the poor and an association of Catholic healthcare professionals.

The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit came to the same conclusion in August in a case brought by Christian medical groups.

The courts have thus far ruled in this case based on an assumed violation of the religious freedom of the plaintiffs. That struck me as rather odd, as I suggested above. I’ve never claimed to be a biblical scholar, but I don’t recall reading anything in the Good Book about gender transition. And fighting battles like this one on a religious basis will only polarize the topic further in my opinion.

What this debate should really focus on is basic science, and thankfully there was some of that included in the ruling as well. An attorney for the plaintiffs issued a statement saying that the ruling will “protect patients and ensure doctors can follow their oath to do no harm.”

That’s an important aspect of the debate. This isn’t simply a matter of the unscientific belief that a person who was clearly born as one gender can somehow “transition” and become the opposite gender. Genital mutilation surgeries, particularly for the male-to-female variety, literally create an open wound on the patient’s body that will need to be tended to for the rest of their lives. That’s one reason a director from Boston Children’s Hospital said in a now-deleted video that these “treatments” can create lucrative opportunities to ensure return business for decades to come. Creating such a wound flies directly in the face of the “first do no harm” credo.

If the plaintiffs succeed in this case, they will also call into question some provisions from the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) where the government expanded the definition of “sex discrimination” to allow for the inclusion of “gender identity.” I would call all of this junk science if it wouldn’t be such an insult to actual junk science. There’s nothing scientific about any of this. And the government has no business trying to force any medical professionals regardless of their views on religion to engage in such practices.