V A Lawsuit

[Bulldog1948]

From reading posts in another forum, some of you are disgrunteled because a federal inmate, Vanessa Adams, won a major lawsuit against the FBP [ Federal Bureau of Prisons]. But, you should not feel that was, as this case is huge, as it can also pertain to the legal fight for all honorably discharged veterns to win a lawsuit against the VA.

What one must consider is that DADT is dead , Adams won her suit and the VA Directive states that federal funding { Shoud Not] be used for SRS. The key is - should not; it does not say that it "can not". This where an attorney from the National Center for Lesbian Rights [ NCLR] could come into play. They can take the repeal of DADT, the Adams case and the VA ' should not" and make one heck of a federal lawsuit against the VA. The case is winable, if it's presented correctly.

But, now comes the most important part. Which MTF or FTM is willing to have thewir name on a lawsuit against the VA? Any volunteers there? It has to be someone who has a clean military and civilian record. Also, someone who will be an important spokesperson for the TS community.

Whoever this someone turns out to be, needs to go to the NCLR website and checkout their attorneys, as they have some excellant ones on board. All you have to do is go to search and type in National Center for Lesbian Rights and you're on your way.

I thought long and hard before writing this. And, yes, I am extrememly happy that Adams won her case because it can now be used by other TSs in both the federal and state levels. And, beleive me there are quite a few incarcerated TSs in this country that are litterally dying because they are being denied their basic Constitutional medical rights.

Mike

[MackenzieB]

From reading posts in another forum, some of you are disgrunteled because a federal inmate, Vanessa Adams, won a major lawsuit against the FBP [ Federal Bureau of Prisons]. But, you should not feel that was, as this case is huge, as it can also pertain to the legal fight for all honorably discharged veterns to win a lawsuit against the VA.

What one must consider is that DADT is dead , Adams won her suit and the VA Directive states that federal funding { Shoud Not] be used for SRS. The key is - should not; it does not say that it "can not". This where an attorney from the National Center for Lesbian Rights [ NCLR] could come into play. They can take the repeal of DADT, the Adams case and the VA ' should not" and make one heck of a federal lawsuit against the VA. The case is winable, if it's presented correctly.

But, now comes the most important part. Which MTF or FTM is willing to have thewir name on a lawsuit against the VA? Any volunteers there? It has to be someone who has a clean military and civilian record. Also, someone who will be an important spokesperson for the TS community.

Whoever this someone turns out to be, needs to go to the NCLR website and checkout their attorneys, as they have some excellant ones on board. All you have to do is go to search and type in National Center for Lesbian Rights and you're on your way.

I thought long and hard before writing this. And, yes, I am extrememly happy that Adams won her case because it can now be used by other TSs in both the federal and state levels. And, beleive me there are quite a few incarcerated TSs in this country that are litterally dying because they are being denied their basic Constitutional medical rights.

Mike

To clarify, The directive doesn't state "should not". The directive states "will not". The following sections are from the directive...

3. POLICY: It is VHA policy that medically necessary care is provided to enrolled or

otherwise eligible intersex and transgender Veterans, including hormonal therapy, mental health

care, preoperative evaluation, and medically necessary post-operative and long-term care

following sex reassignment surgery. Sex reassignment surgery cannot be performed or funded

by VHA or VA.

© Sex reassignment surgery, as defined in subparagraph 2b(4), will not be provided or funded.

It isn't up to the VHA. It's a federal law.

A link to the directive: http://thinkprogress...publication.pdf

[Bulldog1948]

From reading posts in another forum, some of you are disgrunteled because a federal inmate, Vanessa Adams, won a major lawsuit against the FBP [ Federal Bureau of Prisons]. But, you should not feel that was, as this case is huge, as it can also pertain to the legal fight for all honorably discharged veterns to win a lawsuit against the VA.

What one must consider is that DADT is dead , Adams won her suit and the VA Directive states that federal funding { Shoud Not] be used for SRS. The key is - should not; it does not say that it "can not". This where an attorney from the National Center for Lesbian Rights [ NCLR] could come into play. They can take the repeal of DADT, the Adams case and the VA ' should not" and make one heck of a federal lawsuit against the VA. The case is winable, if it's presented correctly.

But, now comes the most important part. Which MTF or FTM is willing to have thewir name on a lawsuit against the VA? Any volunteers there? It has to be someone who has a clean military and civilian record. Also, someone who will be an important spokesperson for the TS community.

Whoever this someone turns out to be, needs to go to the NCLR website and checkout their attorneys, as they have some excellant ones on board. All you have to do is go to search and type in National Center for Lesbian Rights and you're on your way.

I thought long and hard before writing this. And, yes, I am extrememly happy that Adams won her case because it can now be used by other TSs in both the federal and state levels. And, beleive me there are quite a few incarcerated TSs in this country that are litterally dying because they are being denied their basic Constitutional medical rights.

Mike

To clarify, The directive doesn't state "should not". The directive states "will not". The following sections are from the directive...

3. POLICY: It is VHA policy that medically necessary care is provided to enrolled or

otherwise eligible intersex and transgender Veterans, including hormonal therapy, mental health

care, preoperative evaluation, and medically necessary post-operative and long-term care

following sex reassignment surgery. Sex reassignment surgery cannot be performed or funded

by VHA or VA.

© Sex reassignment surgery, as defined in subparagraph 2b(4), will not be provided or funded.

It isn't up to the VHA. It's a federal law.

A link to the directive: http://thinkprogress...publication.pdf

Please allow me to clarify my statement.

The "should not" is in referance to the Adams case which is at the moment federal case law. And, the first of its kind that affects a federal govt. agency, the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Thus, anything contained within the Adams decision can be used in other state and or federal lawsuits. That's how cases are decided, by useing notations and such from other already decided cases.

Cases can be affirmed, reversed,remanded or affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded in part. The remanded means it goes back to the orginial court of jurisdiction.

Now, since the VHA Directive subparagraph 2b[4] states that SRS will not be provided or funded. Well, to get around that rule, you use 2" reconstructive surgery for strictly cosmetic purposes". You use this section and argue that SRS is not cosmetic surgery but a medical necesity for paitents that are undergoing all the WAPTH rules and recomendations. That it would be inhuman/ cruel and unusal punishment to medically treat a GID client and then deny them their final stage of treatment much akin to denying any paitent open heart surgery of cancer treatments that could save an individuals life.

In essence, all that I am saying, is that the door has a big crack in it and with the proper legal team that door can be opened all the way to never be closed again.

Mike

[Guest Maggie_O]

Bulldog1948, I like the last entry; your "clarification". As a part of my official duties, I used to write official documents for the government: contracts, statements of work, MOA's and MOU's, specifications (MILSPECS), Military Standards, military policy documents and military regulations. From my experience, your take on it is on the money. The crack in the door is big enough to drive a bus through it.

If the decision was mine, I'd pick an FTM as the plaintiff in such a case. There is still far more sympathy for them than for male gays or MTF's. Then, once they win against the VA, they can go after the military.

The bottom line is, and should remain, that SRS is literally a lifesaving necessity. Withholding it IS torture for all the wrong reasons.

[Guest Emily Ray]

Sources of information I have are of the opinion that the VA policy is on the cusp of changing. It however, is not going to change before November's election. It will either happen under a lame duck president Obama, or during his second term in office. One of my providers is on a national weekly telemeeting that discusses ways the VA can better improve its care of trans Vets. What the directive doesn't say is that Orchiectomies are not allowed and we should all be pushing for at least those from our various VA's. The VA does them all the time for patients with testicular cancer and prostate cancer and it doesn't change anyones gender. They may try and say that they can't remove healthy tissues, but in the case of prostate cancer that is exactly what they are doing! There is no legal reason or policy that forbids these operations on MTFs and the same is true for FTM's and their surgeries.

It doesn't just need to be one veteran MTF or FTM. We are a class and as such a Class action is appropriate. Sueing the federal Government for a tort isn't the way to go. Sueing them for an arbitrary and capricious decision in writing the CFR is the best route. It could even be done anonimously. We as a group meet the Supreme Courts Test of a suspect classification and as such any law or CFR must meet Strict Scrutiny and not the lower level of reasonable cause.

The case law exist, the VA's own multiple definitions of what is gender is vague. The problem is nobody wants to take the case!!! Servicmen's Legal Defense Network is only interested in defending Gays against discharges and upgrading discharges of veterans. The other groups too are uninterested. We need to form a group to work with these other groups to form a coalition to support the Lawsuit. We need to pick the best district in which to file, I think Minneapolis is a good one, but I am sure there are others. No one vet can do this. It needs a group who are willing to put in the time to call all the legal defense groups out ther and get them to see we can win and show them that getting the VA to change its position will give more trans SRS than any one company or state medicaid plan will do. It will also raise the standard for private insurance to include trans care as a benefit.

Who wants to work on this with me?

Huggs

Emily