Amendment on House Floor Would Block Pentagon Funds From Paying Gender Transition Expenses

Sanity, how we’ve missed you.

A move has been made to stop Pentagon funding from facilitating the whims of those in the military who may be in the throes of dire mental illness.


The Rules Committee have voted to send an amendment to the House floor that would stop those funds from paying for the medical expenses incurred by indulging in transgenderism.

The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was filed by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.). It would make it so “funds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to provide medical treatment (other than mental health treatment) related to gender transition to a person entitled to medical care.”

And if they need mental health treatment (which they do, more than anything else), they shouldn’t be enlisted. They should be somewhere getting their mental and emotional health in order. The high stress duties of the military are probably the last thing those afflicted with gender dysphoria need to go through.

And our national security is too important to use our military as a lab of social justice experimentation.

Transgenders got the green light to openly indulge in their alternate lifestyle on the government dime, thanks to the Obama administration’s push to destabilize American might.

Surgery, hormones, and whatever it takes to accommodate this new version of “reality” have been a thing since last year.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) attempted to stop Hatzler’s amendment from making it to the House floor for a vote, but the Rules Committee voted 2 – 8 to allow it to pass.

“What Ms. Hartzler is trying to do would reduce military readiness,” said Polis, co-chair of Congress’ LGBT Equality Caucus. “It would have a negative impact on morale, a negative impact on retention and move us away from the merit-based system which we now have, where we have one set of rules applied to everybody.”


And how does catering to the LGBT circus with tax dollars aid military readiness?

I get the notion Polis probably doesn’t quite get what that term means.

And speaking of costs, how much would taxpayers be on the hook for?

Hartzler claimed during the last Armed Services markup that she and her staff did their own research and came up with a figure of $1.35 billion over the next 10 years. The RAND Corporation determined costs would be somewhere between $2.4 million to $8.4 million per year.

Either way, the Pentagon shouldn’t be paying for it.

Hartzler agrees.

“Military service is a privilege, not a right,” she said last month. “It is predicated on winning wars and defeating the enemy. All decisions on personnel and funding should be made with this in mind.”

And she’s right, of course.

The LGBT groups, however, are in the expected state of outrage over having the benefits associated with being a professional grievance group taken away.

“To be clear, this vile amendment is a vicious attack on service members who are sacrificing so much and putting their lives on the line for our country,” Ashley Broadway-Mack, president of the American Military Partner Association, said in a statement. “As if that’s not outrageous enough, it would also rip away the medically necessary health care of transgender family members.”

Added Matt Thorn, executive director of OutServe-SLDN: “This amendment is a mean-spirited, unconstitutional attempt to impede the recruitment of openly transgender individuals who want to serve their country. Transgender service members have been serving, openly and authentically, since October 2016 with no impact on readiness.”


So Thorn thinks 9 months is enough time to definitively decide the impact on readiness these insane policies might have?

And if not getting freebies on the government dime is enough to “impede recruitment” of openly transgender individuals, then they were entering for the wrong reasons and it’s wise to remove anything that would encourage people with a classified mental illness and poor motives from attempting to join.

Am I being too harsh, here?

I certainly don’t have that intent. I feel for anyone who is so steeped in mental and emotional confusion that they think mutilation of their bodies will make them happy. I just don’t think the military is the place to work through those issues.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos