logo
Democrats wrestle over chance to kill the ban on transgender care in Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill'

Democrats wrestle over chance to kill the ban on transgender care in Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill'

Yahooa day ago

Despite being in the minority, Democrats have a chance to remove a provision from President Donald Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' that would prevent Medicaid dollars from being used to cover gender-affirming care.'
The question is, will they?
The issue emerges more than eight months after a 2024 election from which Democrats are still digging out and also working out their messaging about how to defend the rights of transgender people without being painted as too radical by Republicans.
In the presidential race, Trump and his associated super PACS hit Kamala Harris in ads for supporting taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for inmates, ending the ad by saying 'Kamala is for They/Them. President Trump is for you.'
Republicans also hit Democrats in down-ballot races specifically on the subject of allowing transgender athletes to compete in women's sports.
That might be why when The Independent asked some top Democratic senators about whether they would try to strike the language from Republicans' bill, even some of the most liberal voices said they did not know .
'I don't know,' Sen. Chris Murphy told The Independent last week when asked if it could the strict criteria the Senate Parliamentarian would subject the bill to.
Sen. Patty Murray, the vice chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, simply told The Independent, 'I haven't seen the language.'
Murray later clarified on Bluesky that she opposed the ban in Medicaid.
'I had not seen the language but let me be clear: I support stripping out as much from the bill as Democrats can, including this ban.'
But even liberal Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren dodged the question.
'I haven't seen it, ' she told The Independent last week when asked if she would raise a point of order on it. When asked if she was worried about it, she repeated, 'I haven't seen it.'
The avoidance shows how Democrats are in the position of being on the defensive on an issue where Republicans think they can win against Democrats, while at the same time defending a vulnerable population the party has long said it would support.
Some Democrats have said they would support efforts to challenge the language. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, who is the first openly gay person elected to the Senate, told The Independent earlier this month that she assumed Democrats would but that she had not seen the details of the legislation
'What I would say substantively is that, this is, again, talking about taking away people's health care, and taking parents' ability to decide what kind of health care their children need,' she said.
The Republican bill in the House that passed through the House Energy & Commerce Committee banned Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance dollars from being used to provide gender-affirming care for minors. In a last-minute addition before the bill went to a vote on the floor, an amendment struck the term 'for minors' from the legislation, meaning it would put in place a blanket ban on gender-affirming care for all transgender people.
The legislation would also prohibit coverage of gender transition care as an 'essential health benefit' offered by health care exchanges created in the 2010 Affordable Care Act signed by former president Barack Obama. The Senate Finance Committee released the health care part of its version that is almost identical to the House version except it does not include the 'essential health benefit' provision.
'I obviously think these issues are private and personal,' Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee which is in charge of health care, told The Independent.
Republicans, who have only 53 seats in the Senate, plan to pass the bill through the process of budget reconciliation. That would allow them to pass the bill with a simple majority and avoid a filibuster as long as the legislation relates to the budget and federal spending.
As part of the process, the legislation goes through the 'Byrd Bath,' named for late Senator Robert Byrd, where the Senate Parliamentarian determines whether parts of the legislation relate directly to the budget or are 'merely incidental.'
Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas, who sponsored the amendment, told The Independent that he believes it will comply with the rules because it saves taxpayer dollars.
But if the the Senate parliamentarian rules that part of the legislation does not comply with reconciliation rules, the majority party can still bring the amendment on the floor, but the minority party can raise a point of order. If Republicans want to waive the point of order, it would require three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 votes, vote to waive it.
Sen Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said that he thought Democrats would likely challenge it.
'Well, we're certainly taking a look at all of the pieces of policy that don't belong in this type of bill,' he told The Independent. 'You don't put policy in there. That sure sounds like policy to me.'
It also comes after when Republicans regularly criticized Democrats in campaign advertisements about allowing transgender athletes in women's sports.
Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, who recently told The Dispatch that he opposes allowing transgender athletes in some women's sports, told The Independent he thought that Democrats would challenge the Medicaid ban.
'I think it's outside the boundaries of reconciliation,' Gallego told The Independent.
Mady Castigan, independent journalist and advocate who has published updates on the bill and urged people to call their lawmakers about it, has been pushing for people to make calls to lawmakers to oppose the bill.
'I really doubt there's a ton of people calling and asking their senators to vote for this specific provision,' she said. 'But I guarantee you, there's a ton more calling in to oppose it, and whenever something like that happens, you know, it definitely swings the political calculations.'
But as of right now, much of the future of the legislation is unclear because Senate Republicans have yet to release the tax and health care aspects of their bill.
'I would assume so, but I haven't seen the details of it,' Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota, who is retiring, told The Independent about whether Democrats would challenge the ban.
But other Democrats avoided the question.
'There's a whole list of stuff that's being scrubbed there. Both in the privilege scrub now and in the later point of order challenges, and I can't say any more than that,' Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island told The Independent.
This would not be the first time that Democrats and supporters of transgender rights pushed back on anti-transgender legislation. Earlier this year, Senate Democrats blocked legislation that would have banned transgender athletes from women's sports.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate Republicans' tax cuts now projected to cost $4.45T
Senate Republicans' tax cuts now projected to cost $4.45T

Politico

time24 minutes ago

  • Politico

Senate Republicans' tax cuts now projected to cost $4.45T

Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. 'We are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar. It's that serious,' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded on X early Saturday. 'We need a bunch of new power on the grid, and nothing is as available as solar. Everything else takes a while. Meantime, expect shortages and high prices. Stupid.' The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain an abrupt cut to the tax incentive supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny certain wind and solar leasing arrangements from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits, but, in a notable change, removed earlier language specifically disallowing rooftop solar. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029. Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, a clean energy policy consulting group, said the new draft is going to 'screw' ratepayers, kill jobs and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. 'All just to give fossil fuel executives more profits,' he said. 'Or to own the libs. Insanity.' Josh Siegel contributed to this report.

Trump says he wants interest rate cut to 1%, would 'love' if Powell resigned
Trump says he wants interest rate cut to 1%, would 'love' if Powell resigned

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump says he wants interest rate cut to 1%, would 'love' if Powell resigned

By Trevor Hunnicutt and Kanishka Singh WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he would "love" if Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell were to resign, and the president also said he wanted interest rates cut to 1%. KEY QUOTES "I'd love him to resign if he wanted to, he's done a lousy job," Trump said, also labeling the Fed chair as "stupid." "I think we should be paying 1% right now, and we're paying more because we have a guy who suffers from, I think, Trump Derangement Syndrome," Trump added. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT Trump has long attacked the Federal Reserve chair over interest rates that the U.S. president wants lowered. Fed chairs have long been seen as insulated from presidential dismissal for reasons other than malfeasance or misconduct, but Trump has threatened to test that legal premise with frequent threats to fire Powell. Powell's term ends in May 2026, and Trump is expected to nominate a successor in the coming months. CONTEXT Trump said he will name as successor to Powell someone who will lower rates. Last week, the Fed decided to leave short-term borrowing costs in the 4.25%-4.50% range.

Senate's ‘big, beautiful bill' faces serious headwinds in the House
Senate's ‘big, beautiful bill' faces serious headwinds in the House

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Senate's ‘big, beautiful bill' faces serious headwinds in the House

The Senate's version of the 'big, beautiful bill' is facing serious headwinds in the House with The Hill learning that at least six House Republicans are currently a 'no' on the framework, a daunting sign for GOP leadership as the Senate races towards a vote. Those six House Republicans, some of whom requested anonymity, are enough opposition to tank the package, as GOP leaders grapple with a razor-thin majority. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who was one of two GOP lawmakers to oppose the House version of the bill last month, is also likely to oppose the Senate's edition, deepening the pocket of resistance in the lower chamber. Republicans can only afford to lose three votes and still clear the legislation, assuming full attendance and united Democratic opposition. 'I support the reasonable provisions in H.R. 1 that protect Medicaid's long-term viability and ensure the program continues to serve our most vulnerable, but I will not support a final bill that eliminates vital funding streams our hospitals rely on, including provider taxes and state directed payments, or any provisions that punish expansion states,' Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) wrote in a statement on Saturday. 'President Trump was clear when he said to root out our waste, fraud, and abuse without cutting Medicaid and I wholeheartedly agree,' he continued. 'I urge my Senate colleagues to stick to the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1 — otherwise I will vote no.' Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) told The Hill that he is also opposed to the bill because of the Medicaid provider tax provision. Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) is currently a 'no' on the measure because of the Medicaid language, rollback of solar energy credits and public lands provisions, a source familiar with the matter told The Hill. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), meanwhile, told The Hill that he is against the current version of the package because of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap proposal. The legislation would increase the currently $10,000 SALT cap to $40,000 for individuals making $500,000 or less for five years, then snap back to the original number. 'While I support the President's broader agenda, how could I support the same unfair $10k SALT cap I've spent years criticizing?' LaLota said. 'A permanent $40k deduction cap with income thresholds of $225k for single filers and $450k for joint filers would earn my vote.' It is not, however, just moderates who are signaling issues with the Senate bill: Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, posted an ominous message on X that suggested he was not pleased with the package. 'I will not negotiate via X. But it's important to know that jamming us with a bill before we've had any chance to review the implications of major changes & re-writes, fluid scores, a high likelihood of violating the house framework (deficits) , & tons of swamp buy-offs is bad,' he wrote. The opposition is rising to the surface as Senate Republicans inch closer to holding an initial vote on the 'big, beautiful bill,' which would officially kick off the consideration process and eventually tee up a final vote in the House. It remains unclear, however, if Senate GOP leaders have the votes to move forward. If the motion to proceed passes by a simple majority, the chamber would hold a series of unlimited amendment votes called a vote-a-rama, which could result in changes to the measure. Senate GOP leaders are also still talking to holdouts and could make changes to the bill as written. In the meantime, House Republicans — beginning to review the revised Senate text unveiled overnight — are expressing resistance to the measure, prompting serious questions about whether top GOP lawmakers will be able to enact the legislation by their self-imposed July 4 deadline. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) convened a call with the House Republican Conference Saturday afternoon and urged lawmakers to keep their concerns with the Senate bill private, and instead speak directly with their senators and the White House, two sources told The Hill. Senate Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told members that it is unlikely they will have to return to Washington on Monday, the sources said. Tuesday or Wednesday is more realistic, he told lawmakers. One source told The Hill that the call was brief and leadership did not take questions. The main qualm among House Republicans appears to be the Medicaid language in the bill. The Senate's legislation includes a proposal that would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The decrease was initially supposed to begin in 2027, with a 0.5 percent phase down annually, but Senate Republicans overnight changed the text to delay the implementation to 2028. The upper chamber also inserted a provision to create a $25 billion rural hospital relief fund that would be distributed over five years to assuage those concerns. The changes, however, do not seem to be solving all of the GOP's problems, with House Republicans still voicing opposition to the language. Aside from Medicaid, the Senate bill's rollback of green-energy tax credits is an issue for some House Republicans. The revised legislation for the upper chamber slashes tax incentives for wind and solar energy and adds a new tax on future wind and solar projects. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) would not say how he plans to vote on the bill, but signaled that he is not happy with the Medicaid provisions and green-energy tax credit language. 'Instead of improving the Medicaid and energy portions of [the] House bill it appears the Senate went backwards,' he told The Hill. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store