Bil Browning

House health care bill includes "sexual orientation" and "gender identity"

Filed By Bil Browning | November 08, 2009 2:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Living
Tags: gender identity, health care reform, House of Representatives, sexual orientation

When the House of Representatives passed their version of health care reform last night, sexual orientation and gender identity were defined [pdf] as groups likely to "experience significant gaps in disease, health outcomes, or access to health care." Hat tip to Jill for pointing it out.

''Subtitle G--General Provisions
16 ''SEC. 3171. DEFINITIONS.
17 ''In this title:
18 ''(1) The term 'core public health infrastruc
19ture' includes workforce capacity and competency;
20 laboratory systems; health information, health infor
21 mation systems, and health information analysis;
22 communications; financing; other relevant compo
23 nents of organizational capacity; and other related
24 activities.

1 ''(2) The terms 'Department' and 'depart
2 mental' refer to the Department of Health and
3 Human Services.
4 ''(3) The term 'health disparities' includes
5 health and health care disparities and means popu
6 lation-specific differences in the presence of disease,
7 health outcomes, or access to health care. For pur
8 poses of the preceding sentence, a population may be
9 delineated by race, ethnicity, primary language, sex,
10 sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, socio
11 economic status, or rural, urban, or other geographic
12 setting, and any other population or subpopulation
13 determined by the Secretary to experience significant
14 gaps in disease, health outcomes, or access to health
15 care.

HRC has a list of areas where LGBT people will be helped by the reform bill.

Recent Entries Filed under Living:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Well that's really good. Too bad the bill doesn't include people with a uternus.

I would have thought that "sex" would cover that. Well, in wording, at least...we all know that in practice, there will always be some bigoted providers carrying on as if the bill changes nothing.

I think what hysperia was referring to is that the bill, or rather an amendment to it, prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion services and imposes tight restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies. This would severely restrict people's access to abortions.

Ah...I didn't make that connection, thanks for pointing it out to me. That is indeed a very large flaw in the bill!

David Castillo David Castillo | November 9, 2009 1:46 AM

It's a huge flaw and definitely one of the worst parts about this weekend's news. Women were exploited during the floor debate and the proposed law would further inhibit the rights of women, mostly the poorest, from accessing a safe and legal service.

I'm hopeful for health care reform, but the Stupak amendment is a dark stain on a moment that will be hailed as one of this country's most historic.

This is nice news, but considering how easily women, as a constituency that's a whole lot larger and more powerful than lgbt people, were thrown under the bus, it doesn't give me much hope in the system.

the problem isn't just stupak, but the fact that the bill was one compromise after another for the left. There are a few modest reforms in there because the current system isn't sustainable. But the most it would do is turn back the clock a few years when it comes to how terrible health care is.