New VA policy sparks outrage as doctors may refuse treatment to Democrats and unmarried veterans alike
What exactly changed in the VA policy?
Live Events
Has the VA responded to the backlash?
What did the experts say about the policy?
Who could lose access to care under these rules?
FAQs
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
A new VA policy has sent shockwaves through both veteran communities and the medical community. The change, which follows a Trump-era executive order, has already raised serious ethical and legal concerns.A contentious policy change at the Department of Veterans Affairs allows VA doctors to refuse treatment to veterans based on their political beliefs or marital status. Critics describe it as discriminatory and dangerous.Psychologists, dentists, and a variety of other professions are also subject to the new regulations. The new regulations have already taken effect in certain VA medical facilities, as per a report by The Guardian.Executive order "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government" issued by the president on January 30 is cited by VA officials as the reason for the modifications.Regardless of race, colour, religion, or sex, medical personnel are still expected to treat veterans, and all veterans still have the right to care.However, since federal law does not specifically forbid it, individual employees are now free to refuse to provide patient care due to personal characteristics.VA hospitals have the authority to exclude physicians and other medical personnel on the basis of union activity, marital status, or political party affiliation. Impacted are certified clinical social workers, podiatrists, speech therapists, chiropractors, CNPs, and optometrists, as per a document, reported The Guardian.The executive order sought to deny the majority of government protections to transgender individuals. The VA no longer offers the majority of gender-affirming care and has prohibited the use of terms like "gender affirming" and "transgender" in clinical settings.The VA press secretary, Peter Kasperowicz, responded to inquiries via email, saying that all eligible veterans will always be welcome at the VA and will always receive the benefits and services they have earned under the law.However, he did not dispute that the new rules allowed doctors to refuse to treat veteran patients based on their beliefs or that doctors could be fired based on their political affiliation or marital status.The new regulations were described as "extremely disturbing and unethical" by Dr. Arthur Caplan, the original head of the medical ethics division at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine.On the surface, it appears to be an attempt to exercise political influence over the VA medical staff, he stated.Veterans are worried about how new policies will affect their healthcare, especially those who are female, LGBTQ+, or reside in rural areas.To see a doctor, some people might have to travel more than a hundred miles, which could have a cascading effect. Because these changes were implemented without consulting the doctors in the system, medical experts are also worried about the process.Yes, under the new rules, VA doctors can refuse care based on factors such as political affiliation or being unmarried.Female veterans, LGBTQ+ veterans, and those living in rural areas are expected to be disproportionately affected.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Federal judge slams Trump-era grant cancellations, citing racial bias and abuse of power
Washington, June 17 (IANS) A federal judge in US city of Boston ruled that the Trump's administration's decision to terminate funding for diversity-related research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was illegal, accusing the administration of discriminating against minority groups. A dramatic federal courtroom scene has reignited a national reckoning over science, equity, and political interference. In a landmark ruling on Monday, US District Judge William Young condemned the Trump administration's abrupt termination of hundreds of federally funded research grants, many centered on diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), and gender identity, as a breach of legal procedure and a veiled act of racial and LGBTQ+ discrimination. The verdict, delivered during a high-stakes hearing in Massachusetts, may reshape how governments are allowed to exercise discretion over scientific funding, and how far political ideology can intrude on public health research. A judicial blow to executive overreach Judge Young, appointed by President Ronald Reagan and widely respected for his legal gravitas, pulled no punches in his remarks. Describing the Trump administration's actions as 'arbitrary and capricious,' he rebuked federal officials for violating long-standing procedural norms in canceling research projects tied to DEI initiatives. 'It is palpably clear that what is behind this is racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community,' Young declared in court. 'After 40 years on the bench, I've never seen government racial discrimination like this. Have we no shame?' The ruling came in response to two lawsuits, now consolidated, filed earlier this year by 16 state attorneys general, advocacy groups, and several scientists whose research was defunded. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Order New Blinds Online & Get $199 Home Installation Learn More Undo These lawsuits allege that the government terminated projects not on scientific grounds but because they explored politically disfavored themes such as racial health disparities, sexual orientation, and social determinants of disease. The scope of the cancellations While Monday's ruling addresses only a subset of the cancelled grants, it sheds light on the breadth of the administration's actions. The terminated projects, many of them backed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), ranged from studies on Alzheimer's in Black communities and depression among LGBTQ+ youth to trials examining how medications respond differently in individuals from diverse genetic backgrounds. In court documents, plaintiffs argued that universities received impersonal, template-style termination notices that offered no detailed justification. Some of the research was already midstream, with patient data collected and lives potentially impacted by halted clinical trials. Government's defense meets judicial skepticism Despite mounting criticism, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the NIH, stood by the cuts. In a written statement, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said to Associated Press: 'HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people.' Yet during the hearing, government attorneys failed to provide a working definition of DEI—an omission Judge Young seized upon. He questioned how the NIH could justify grant cancellations on ideological grounds without articulating what exactly was objectionable. Justice Department lawyer Thomas Ports Jr. cited 13 minority health grants that were renewed or left intact to demonstrate the agency's commitment to diversity. He also claimed some cancellations were due to inadequate scientific value. However, Judge Young countered that such arguments masked a more troubling motive. Consequences and next steps Though Judge Young's remarks were forceful, the written order restoring the funding is pending and may still face appeals. The Trump administration has signaled it is 'exploring all legal options,' including asking for a stay or taking the case to a higher court. The implications are far-reaching. Legal scholars argue that this case may become a bellwether for how federal agencies define 'ideological' research and whether the government can be held accountable for politicizing science. It also raises deeper constitutional concerns over equal protection and viewpoint discrimination. Meanwhile, the ruling represents a partial but significant victory for scientists, public health advocates, and universities that have accused the federal government of undermining research in vulnerable populations. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Mint
42 minutes ago
- Mint
Israel claims Iran's military leadership ‘on the run'; strikes damage Tehran's underground nuclear site
Israel on Tuesday said that it had launched strikes on dozens of targets linked to the nuclear and ballistic missile programmes of Israel, which has resulted in Tehran's military leadership be 'on the run'. As per an Israeli military official quoted by Reuters, Tel Aviv has not yet targeted Iran's underground Fordow nuclear facility. However, that might still happen, the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said. He further revealed that Israel was taking precautions to ensure that a nuclear disaster does not get triggered. Iran has till now launched around 400 ballistic missiles and hundreds of drones at Israel that have targeted both military and civilian sites, the official was quoted as saying by Reuters. He said an overnight fall-off in the number of missiles fired showed that Israel had succeeded in damaging Iran's ability to launch missiles. The International Atomic Energy Agency said on Tuesday that it believes Israeli airstrikes have caused 'direct impacts' on Iran's Natanz nuclear site. The agency said that the facility's underground centrifuge halls were impacted due to the attack. 'Based on continued analysis of high-resolution satellite imagery collected after Friday's attacks, the IAEA has identified additional elements that indicate direct impacts on the underground enrichment halls at Natanz,' the agency said. This is the first time that the UN's nuclear watchdog has made an assessment of damage from the strikes in the underground parts of Natanz, which is the main enrichment facility of Iran's nuclear programme. IAEA said there was "no change to report" at Iran's two other major nuclear sites, Isfahan and Fordow. Israel continued to strike Iran on Tuesday, while US President Donald Trump posted an ominous message warning residents of Tehran. 'IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON,' Trump wrote Monday night before returning to Washington early from a Group of Seven summit in Canada. 'Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!' he added. Asked why he had urged for the evacuation of Tehran, he said: 'I just want people to be safe.' Before leaving the summit in Canada, Trump joined the other leaders in a joint statement saying Iran 'can never have a nuclear weapon' and calling for a 'de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza.'
India Today
43 minutes ago
- India Today
Aviation body calls urgent meeting with Air India, Air India Express officials
4:20 Global leaders are calling for de-escalation in the Iran-Israel crisis. Trump has rejected French President Macron's claim that the US offered to mediate a truce.
