Washington The senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee and many other members of the party opposed a provision in a large defense policy package that passed the House on Wednesday that forbids gender-affirming care for servicemembers’ children.
It was approved 281-140. 124 Democrats and 16 Republicans voted against it, while 200 Republicans and 81 Democrats supported it.
The National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, is a comprehensive law that must be passed in order to allow expenditures for the Defense Department and establish defense policy prior to their expiration at the end of the year. It now goes to the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, and needs President Joe Biden’s signature to become law.
Senior members of the House and Senate negotiated the bill. However, because the NDAA forbids gender-affirming care, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the former chairman of the Armed Services and current ranking member of the panel, stated that he would oppose its passage.
Smith said in a statement on Tuesday that it is wrong to [blatantly] refuse health care to those in need based solely on a prejudice toward transgender persons. In addition to endangering children’s lives, the inclusion of this detrimental clause may compel thousands of service members to decide whether to stay in the military or leave in order to provide their children with the medical care they require.
Both in public and behind the scenes, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., had lobbied for the inclusion of the contentious clause in the package. Johnson claimed that the NDAA refocuses “the Pentagon on military lethality, not radical woke ideology” in a statement following the vote. This law combats antisemitism, abolishes the DEI bureaucracy, forbids critical race theory at military academies, and permanently outlaws transgender treatment for minors.
In his statement, Smith charged that Johnson was pushing for the ban to please conservatives in his conference before the vote on January 3 to extend his term as speaker for a another two years.
“In an effort to keep his speakership, he decided to appease the most radical members of his party rather than follow that [bipartisan] route and make sure service members and military families receive the assistance they require and deserve,” Smith said.
The NDAA usually receives large, bipartisan support in Congress. Prior to the vote, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., assured reporters that his team was not pressuring or swaying ordinary Democratic members to support or against the bill. Additionally, Jeffries, Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., and Vice Chair Ted Lieu, D-Calif., voted in favor of the defense bill, while Assistant Democratic Leader Joe Neguse, D-Colo., and Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., voted against it.
The clause in question would forbid medical care for military dependents under the age of 18 who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and it explicitly pertains to Tricare, the military’s health care program.
Republicans think that their 2024 campaign attacks on transgender rights contributed to their win. They are now intensifying that approach. Rep.-elect Sarah McBride, D-Del., the first openly transgender person elected to Congress, was specifically targeted by Johnson’s new policy, which was established after the election and prohibited transgender women from using women’s restrooms in the House.
Johnson was also involved in the battle over a clause that would have extended Tricare’s coverage to encompass treatments for in vitro fertilization. According to a Senate aide with knowledge of the negotiations, the speaker made abandoning it a red line demand.
However, according to the speaker’s office, the dispute was more complex. Separate NDAAs with provisions facilitating military families’ access to IVF therapy had been approved by the House and Senate Armed Services committees. Negotiators in the House and Senate, however, were unable to agree on “sufficient pro-life protections,” according to the speaker’s office.
“The Speaker remains pro-IVF and has encouraged states to take up the issue responsibly and ethically,” a spokesperson for Johnson stated.
Representative Sara Jacobs was one of the Democrats who voted against the NDAA, even though she represents a wide range of military families in San Diego.
Referring to the prohibition on gender-affirming care, Jacobs told NBC News, “Unfortunately, I am forced to vote against a bill that I would otherwise happily have supported because Speaker Johnson added these poison pills.”
According to Jacobs, the proposal would affect thousands of families. “I receive a lot of calls from service members who are concerned about their housing situation, their inability to find childcare, and their need to visit the food bank,” Jacobs continued.
She claimed that the calls were regarding cultural war matters, such as whether drag events would be held.
Across the chamber and across the aisle, the progressive Democrat and leadership member also fought to include language in the package that would have expanded service members’ access to coverage for fertility procedures, including IVF.
According to Jacobs, Johnson removed the clause from the bill because some members of his caucus found it offensive.
“Recruiting and retention are issues for the military,” she added. Furthermore, it seems absurd to me that we would deny them access to IVF, which will soon be a common practice among federal employees.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!