Can someone tell me what "not providing gender affirming care" at Catholic hospitals means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

That’s quite a thing to say. Is this actually happening? Catholic hospitals won’t give menopausal women HRT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If being misgendered would be troubling to you or your child, I would familiarize yourself with the route to a different hospital.

Presumably in a true life-or-death, minutes count sort of emergency, misgendering or missed doses of the pill would not be a concern.

Yes. This should be your last concern if there is a true emergency. Otherwise go to the hospital you prefer.

I find it troubling to force religious people to accommodate beliefs they find untrue, so I guess we are even.

A church congregation should not be forced to no. But a hospital providing health care to the public is not the same thing. Hospitals can’t pick and choose what service they provide based on their interpretation of a book written by men translated many many times into many many languages.
Signed, a Christian

No hospital is required to provide elective surgery or medication. This is where the actual discussion should be focused: is is elective or not?

Also, mocking the Bible won't get you far with Catholics as they are not bible literalists and are the least likely to even know a verse. Read the actual source of the theology so you can understand it and perhaps effectively argue against it intelligently.
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2024/04/08/240408c.html

If you don't bother reading it, you may be surprised that their teaching on this is not absolutely against all forms of what can be included in gender affirming care and actually seems pretty narrowly drafted to address elective procedures (which no hospital is requried to provide):

"This is not to exclude the possibility that a person with genital abnormalities that are already evident at birth or that develop later may choose to receive the assistance of healthcare professionals to resolve these abnormalities. However, in this case, such a medical procedure would not constitute a sex change in the sense intended here."
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2024/04/08/240408c.html

Presently some Catholic Hospitals have Gender Affirming Care Clinics. As for the US Bishops' recent ethical guidelines, they also have said that each Bishop has the autonomy to decide whether or not to make it "law" in their diocese. And many are making room for the argument that these procedures are not elective for trans people to live a fully dignified life.

Also, at any Catholic hospital, whether they have a clinic or not, it absolutely does not mean trans people should not be loved and accepted with human dignity, nor does it mean they will not be care for and treated in Catholic hospitals.

"Catholic providers will continue to welcome those who seek medical care from us and identify as transgender. We will continue to treat these individuals with dignity and respect, which is consistent with Catholic social teaching and our moral obligation to serve everyone, particularly those who are marginalized."
https://www.npr.org/2025/11/12/g-s1-97651/gender-affirming-care-ban-catholic-hospitals

The guidelines seem narrowly focused on addressing nonmedically necessary procedures on individuals who physically, genetically are one gender and seek medical measures to try to elminate the essence of that gender and to look like another gender physically. The dioceses that make this guidance law would not prevent you from taking your medications that were prescribed elsewhere while you are in the hospital for some other reason (unless of course there was an intervening medical problem related to that), but they won't prescribe your refill andthey won't do the elective surgery. It should be noted that there is similar guidance on many forms of purely elective surgery, like some types of non-medically necessary plastic surgery. In spite of the ethical guidance, some Catholic hospitals still do these surgeries as well.

The crux of debate should be focused on whether some forms of gender affirming care are not just elective surgery, but are medically necessary to treat a condition or address significant physical or psychological harm. Medical doctors will have a varieity of opinions about this in many cases, and those in some (but not all) Catholic hospitals will be harder to convince and will more likely classify it as elective. But if it is medically necessary, the ethical debate ends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

That’s quite a thing to say. Is this actually happening? Catholic hospitals won’t give menopausal women HRT?

No. And some Catholic Hospitals have Gender Affirming Care Clinics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see this announcement from the Catholic church, and am wondering how it impacts my young teenage trans kid.

The closest hospital to my house, the one we'd naturally use for something like an accident or a sudden illness, and where the ambulance would take him in an emergency, is Catholic. We haven't used them, or even considered them for anything related to gender. He goes to other providers, specifically chosen because of their expertise in trans health, for anything that is remotely related to gender, such as therapy, his pediatrician, a gynecologist for continuous birth control to stop periods. Some of the providers we use are at Children's, and my guess is if he ever needed a planned admission (e.g. for a planned surgery) we'd go there.

Right now, he's on an SSRI that helps him with gender dysphoria, and on birth control so he doesn't hav a period. He's not on hormone blockers, or cross-sex hormones. His medical team also "affirms" his gender by using his preferred name, and pronouns when talking to him.

If he were to be hospitalized through an ER admission would they continue his birth control, and use his name and pronouns? Or are those considered gender affirming? Or are they just publicly stating that they aren't doing things that, as I understand it, they haven't ever done, such as prescribing blockers or hormones for outpatients, or doing surgery?

Note: I find this announcement troubling, but just trying to figure out how it impacts him if we need to make a decision in the moment?

For those hospitals in diocesses that adopt the conference ethical guidelines as law (not all will), it only means they will not do the elective surgery or prescribe the drugs themselves.

[Anonymous]

It’s worth noting that nearly all hospitals across the country have shuttered their pediatric gender clinics as a result of cruel and hostile decisions by the Trump administration. On Trump’s first day in office, he issued an executive order forbidding any hospital offering gender affirming care to those under 19 from receiving federal research grants. His administration then issued several dozen subpoenas of pediatric gender clinics seeking, among other things, the names, addresses, social security numbers, and medical records of all patients. Coming down the pike are additional executive orders and regulations that block hospitals providing pediatric gender affirming care from accepting Medicare and Medicaid and making anyone who works for a hospital offering this care ineligible for public service loan forgiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental provider of healthcare across the world. They provide the greatest amount of pro bono care in the world, even in places that are not predominantly Catholic. The fact that they will bow to the beliefs of some people does not negate the benefit they provide.

They do this in hopes of converting people to their religion. Christians want LGBT people to not engage in who we are. Those that actually acknowledge that we even exist. I know when I was a kid they were calling being queer a choice. Now they claim the choice is whether to engage in the “sin” - or at least those that aren’t still living in 1980’s homophobia do.

Catholic hospitals are not converting people. That is not a Catholic thing. At all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental provider of healthcare across the world. They provide the greatest amount of pro bono care in the world, even in places that are not predominantly Catholic. The fact that they will bow to the beliefs of some people does not negate the benefit they provide.

They do this in hopes of converting people to their religion. Christians want LGBT people to not engage in who we are. Those that actually acknowledge that we even exist. I know when I was a kid they were calling being queer a choice. Now they claim the choice is whether to engage in the “sin” - or at least those that aren’t still living in 1980’s homophobia do.

You're clearly not Catholic. It's actually against Church policy to do what you're describing. Do your research before spouting off your nonsense.

[Anonymous]

I had my second youngest at a Catholic hospital and thinking we wouldn't want any more kids asked about having my tubes tied. They told me they wouldn't/couldn't do it. I didn't curse them or bash their religion or damn them to hell because it was their right to decline to do elective surgery. No one forced me to choose their hospital to have my baby.

I ended up having another kid at another hospital lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In some red states they can refuse service to queer people even if it kills them. Avoid FL.

https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/gov-desantis-signs-slate-of-extreme-anti-lgbtq-bills-enacting-a-record-shattering-number-of-discriminatory-measures-into-law

That tracks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

You completely made this up.

HRT and testosterone are gender affirming care.

DP. Show me one shred of evidence that menopausal women are not getting HRT somewhere because it is “gender affirming care”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

You completely made this up.

HRT and testosterone are gender affirming care.

DP. Show me one shred of evidence that menopausal women are not getting HRT somewhere because it is “gender affirming care”.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am lawyer tracking the discrimination cases closely. One key argument is that treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy are being provided to cisgender patients but not transgender patients which is discrimination on the basis of both gender identity and disability (the medical diagnosis) in violation of state and federal laws. In that case, hospitals have two choices to comply with the law. They could a) provide the transgender people with the treatment given to cisgender people or b) deny those treatments to everyone. Both are ways to stop discriminating.

While I'd love to believe option b would never happen, we have to remember that Virginia literally shut down all of its public schools to avoid complying with Brown v. Board. The possibility is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

You completely made this up.

HRT and testosterone are gender affirming care.

DP. Show me one shred of evidence that menopausal women are not getting HRT somewhere because it is “gender affirming care”.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am lawyer tracking the discrimination cases closely. One key argument is that treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy are being provided to cisgender patients but not transgender patients which is discrimination on the basis of both gender identity and disability (the medical diagnosis) in violation of state and federal laws. In that case, hospitals have two choices to comply with the law. They could a) provide the transgender people with the treatment given to cisgender people or b) deny those treatments to everyone. Both are ways to stop discriminating.

While I'd love to believe option b would never happen, we have to remember that Virginia literally shut down all of its public schools to avoid complying with Brown v. Board. The possibility is real.

Are you a doctor?
There are many medical treatments that are different for males vs. females. That does not mean there is discrimination.

Gender identity =/= sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

You completely made this up.

HRT and testosterone are gender affirming care.

DP. Show me one shred of evidence that menopausal women are not getting HRT somewhere because it is “gender affirming care”.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am lawyer tracking the discrimination cases closely. One key argument is that treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy are being provided to cisgender patients but not transgender patients which is discrimination on the basis of both gender identity and disability (the medical diagnosis) in violation of state and federal laws. In that case, hospitals have two choices to comply with the law. They could a) provide the transgender people with the treatment given to cisgender people or b) deny those treatments to everyone. Both are ways to stop discriminating.

While I'd love to believe option b would never happen, we have to remember that Virginia literally shut down all of its public schools to avoid complying with Brown v. Board. The possibility is real.

Are you a doctor?
There are many medical treatments that are different for males vs. females. That does not mean there is discrimination.

Gender identity =/= sex.

I’m a lawyer working with expert witness physicians.

Your analogy doesn’t quite work here. Here, for example, cisgender kids can have their precocious puberty delayed to protect their mental health, even though there is nothing physiologically wrong with me (ask me how I know—I was that kid). Transgender kids whose physicians have recommended puberty suppression for the same reason have their treatment denied. The treatments are the same, provide the same effect, and are medically indicated. Only the transgender child can’t get it. That’s where the discrimination lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

You completely made this up.

HRT and testosterone are gender affirming care.

DP. Show me one shred of evidence that menopausal women are not getting HRT somewhere because it is “gender affirming care”.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am lawyer tracking the discrimination cases closely. One key argument is that treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy are being provided to cisgender patients but not transgender patients which is discrimination on the basis of both gender identity and disability (the medical diagnosis) in violation of state and federal laws. In that case, hospitals have two choices to comply with the law. They could a) provide the transgender people with the treatment given to cisgender people or b) deny those treatments to everyone. Both are ways to stop discriminating.

While I'd love to believe option b would never happen, we have to remember that Virginia literally shut down all of its public schools to avoid complying with Brown v. Board. The possibility is real.

Are you a doctor?
There are many medical treatments that are different for males vs. females. That does not mean there is discrimination.

Gender identity =/= sex.

I’m a lawyer working with expert witness physicians.

Your analogy doesn’t quite work here. Here, for example, cisgender kids can have their precocious puberty delayed to protect their mental health, even though there is nothing physiologically wrong with me (ask me how I know—I was that kid). Transgender kids whose physicians have recommended puberty suppression for the same reason have their treatment denied. The treatments are the same, provide the same effect, and are medically indicated. Only the transgender child can’t get it. That’s where the discrimination lies.

There are more risks to precocious puberty than just mental health. At least be honest.