Australian Insurance Company Restricting Cover for Doctors Performing Child Sex Changes By Mrs Vera West
I did not see anything about this in our woke Australian mainstream media. Australia has some of the most “progressive,” in the Leftist sense, gender legislation in the world, being a real testing ground. But, the course of true ideology never runs smooth. A medical indemnity insurer has issued an email to members stating that “in response to the high risk of claims arising from irreversible treatments provided to those who medically and surgically transition as children and adolescents,” it is “restricting cover for practitioners in private practice.” From July 1, 2023, the insurer will not cover, or make a payment, when the claim arises “in any way” out of a doctor’s assessment that a patient under the age of 18 years is suitable for a “gender transition.”
Well, that throws a pretty spanner in the works.
“A statement by an insurance company has indicated that it will restrict cover for Australian doctors in private practice who carry out “sex changes” on minors. The move has the potential to undermine aggressive efforts by Federal and State governments to silence any opposition to the “gender transitioning” of children.
According to Pat Byrne, former president of the National Civic Council (NCC) and author of the textbook Transgender: One Shade of Grey, Australia has some of the most oppressive gender legislation in the world, far worse than in the United States.
“This year seven new gender identity laws have been planned, adding to the already heavy matrix of laws restricting the freedom of those who hold to the biological worldview of sex and those who hold religious and traditional views about the nature of natural marriage and family,” he says.
The insurance industry, however, may subvert the aggressive legislation. According to Gender Clinic News, medical indemnity insurer MDA National has issued an email to members stating that “in response to the high risk of claims arising from irreversible treatments provided to those who medically and surgically transition as children and adolescents,” it is “restricting cover for practitioners in private practice.”
The email goes on to say that from July 1 MDA will not cover, or make a payment, when the claim arises “in any way” out of a doctor’s assessment that a patient under the age of 18 years is suitable for a “gender transition.”
“It is very significant,” says Byrne. “It remains to be seen if they will hold firm on this. I think it will depend on how much some of the concerned doctors, and people in the medical profession, support what they have done. And whether more detail emerges about the damaging effects of the medical treatments to minors under the age of 18.”
Byrne says insurance companies are nevertheless starting to fight back. “What they are doing may well undermine [the new laws on gender]. They have the freedom; I don’t see any of the laws preventing them acting to restrict cover. Unless someone wanted to take an anti-discrimination ruling against insurance companies, but I think that would be difficult. They don’t want to go to the courts anyway, because they know that the damaging effects of [‘gender transition’ treatments] are going to be enormous and they are going to lose.”
Byrne says impending class action in the United Kingdom against the now-closed Tavistock Institute, which may involve up to 1,000 families suing the National Health Service, will produce “a lot of detail” about the adverse effects of “gender transitioning” U.K. court decisions can have some weight in the Australian judicial system.
Court decisions in Australia are also raising doubts for insurers. In a recent case the Family Court moved to prevent any transgender hormonal treatments until the child is 16 years old. The court also issued an injunction that prohibits any change of the child’s name or gender in official records before age 16. “I don’t think they want it in the courts here,” says Byrne.
In prospect is a three-way battle between State and Federal governments, insurers, and the judiciary. “There is no consensus,” says Byrne. “The insurance industry is now coming in on it. They won’t cover surgery or cross-sex hormone treatment for people under 18. They will currently cover puberty blockers, but they are uncertain.”
“I think what the courts are simply going to go on is damages. Given the rapid rise in the number of children who are being medically transitioned in Australia, my guess is that [the insurers] are anticipating there will be damages claims,” he adds.
Doctors who apply transition therapy are especially vulnerable because of vaguely defined medical conditions. This will be disturbing to insurance companies. “There is no uniform opinion, on the whole nature of the treatment,” Byrne says.
“How much is gender dysphoria, how much is rapid onset gender incongruence, how much is social influence — it appears social influence is particularly having an effect on girls — and how much is caused by other comorbidities such as abuse, depression, psychiatric illnesses, dysfunctional families and so on?” he continues. “That is why (Britain’s) NHS and the Scandinavian countries are pulling back on it so strongly now. They want a multidisciplinary approach to figure out what is really happening. It may be a manifestation of other problems. Gender incongruence may go away in many cases.”
Byrne describes Australia’s gender laws as the “wild west,” believing they are probably the worst in the world. The rot set in when the Federal government amended the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013. “The definition of gender identity was essentially adapted from the United States’ Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It was then adopted in all Australian states and territories.”
Byrne says the gender legislation is coming from five directions: birth certificates, laws on transgender marriage, laws making gender identity a protected attribute under anti-discrimination laws, laws making it illegal for a person to counsel a gender incongruent person to identify with their birth sex (potentially punishable with a prison term), and anti-vilification and anti-hate speech laws. Australia, unlike the United States, does not have any constitutional protection for free speech.
Byrne says if he had launched his book in Tasmania, he could have been arrested. He adds that the NCC’s magazine, News Weekly, which is one of the few media outlets to cover the issue from a dissenting point of view, is also under threat. “If the Victorian and New South Wales governments brought in anti-vilification legislation I think News Weekly would have to cease talking about the issue.”
Byrne notes that in the U.K. and U.S. there is an intensifying debate about “gender transitions,” but in Australia no mainstream media has allowed people to advocate “for a sensible line or the sex-based rights of women.” In sport, schools, change rooms, people who object have no voice in the mainstream media. “Women, for example, are afraid to speak out for fear of being called homophobes, or transphobes, or bigots.””
Comments