New VA policy sparks outrage as doctors may refuse treatment to Democrats and unmarried veterans alike
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.
What exactly changed in the VA policy?
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.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder
War Thunder
Play Now
Undo
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.
Live Events
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.
ALSO READ:
Juneteenth 2025 events near me: Is Juneteenth a Federal holiday in the U.S? What day is Juneteenth?
Has the VA responded to the backlash?
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.
What did the experts say about the policy?
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.
Who could lose access to care under these rules?
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.
FAQs
Can VA doctors now refuse to treat some veterans?
Yes, under the new rules, VA doctors can refuse care based on factors such as political affiliation or being unmarried.
Who is most affected by the changes?
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
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trade talks: US, Pakistan agree to fast-track reciprocal tariff deal, technical roadmap discussions to follow
Pakistan and the United States have agreed to intensify negotiations on reciprocal tariffs with the aim of finalising a bilateral trade deal through continued technical engagement, according to Radio Pakistan. The agreement was reached during a virtual meeting on Monday between Pakistan's Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb and US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, where the two sides discussed deepening trade and investment ties and strengthening the broader economic relationship, PTI reported. 'Both sides also agreed that further technical-level discussions would take place in the coming days, following a mutually agreed roadmap,' Radio Pakistan reported on Tuesday. The renewed push comes amid concerns in Islamabad over the 29% tariff that the US may impose on Pakistani exports. In April, President Donald Trump announced the measure as part of a broader plan to reduce America's trade deficit with various partners. Currently, Pakistan enjoys a $3 billion trade surplus with the US. Speaking at an event in Islamabad on Tuesday, Aurangzeb confirmed that momentum in the bilateral dialogue was building. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Why Walgreens Hides This Cheap 87¢ Generic Cialis Health Alliance by Friday Plans Undo 'Both countries are moving in the right direction,' he said. He added that the government was committed to staying on course with structural reforms. 'We have also carried out tariff reforms to move towards a competitive economy,' the minister said, highlighting efforts in taxation, energy, and other sectors. Aurangzeb described his latest exchange with the US Commerce Secretary as 'constructive and positive,' and said both sides were aligned on enhancing strategic economic cooperation.
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Judge halts Trump's foreign student ban as Harvard accuses White House of political retaliation
A federal judge in Boston has extended a block on President Donald Trump's executive order barring foreign students from entering the United States to study at Harvard University, calling into question the administration's motives and its authority to interfere with academic institutions. At the center of the legal clash is a larger battle over autonomy, academic freedom, and the rights of international students caught in the crossfire of political agendas. Harvard accuses Trump of weaponizing immigration policy During a hearing on Monday, Harvard's legal counsel delivered a scathing indictment of the Trump administration's conduct, accusing the president of using Harvard's international students as 'pawns' in a political game aimed at punishing the university for its ideological independence. 'I think there is no finding that Harvard is dangerous,' said Ian Gershengorn, attorney for Harvard. 'The administration has overstepped its legal bounds and is retaliating against Harvard for not yielding to its political demands.' The lawsuit follows Trump's controversial proclamation earlier this month, citing 'national security concerns' as justification for blocking foreign students from entering the US to attend Harvard. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Get Matched with a Licensed Therapist Today Affordable Online Counseling | Search Ads Learn More Undo The executive action came on the heels of repeated federal attempts to revoke the university's authority to host international students under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). Judge extends restraining order, raises questions over motives US District Judge Allison Burroughs extended a temporary restraining order on the proclamation until June 23, buying more time to consider Harvard's request for a preliminary injunction. The order, first issued on June 5, temporarily halts enforcement of Trump's directive and his administration's move to strip Harvard of its SEVP certification. Judge Burroughs, who presided over Monday's hearing, expressed concern over the government's approach and appeared skeptical of its justification. The disparity in legal representation, Harvard's six attorneys versus a single Justice Department lawyer, Tiberius Davis, was noted by the judge herself. 'Not only do you have this case, but you have it alone,' Burroughs remarked to Davis, hinting at the uneven legal weight being applied. Harvard's standing is threatened on the Global stage The stakes are high for Harvard. The school's legal filing argues that without its international students, its identity as a premier global institution is fundamentally compromised. 'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the lawsuit states, noting the reputational damage and competitive disadvantage the school now faces. Graduate programmes that rely heavily on international talent would be upended by the ban. In response to the uncertainty, foreign universities, including some in Hong Kong, have already extended invitations to affected students, threatening a potential exodus of global academic talent. Federal ultimatums and accusations of bias The clash follows months of escalating tension between Harvard and the Trump administration. After the university resisted federal directives targeting alleged liberal bias and antisemitism on campus, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded extensive records related to international students. Although Harvard complied, Noem found the response inadequate and revoked the university's SEVP certification on May 22. Trump's broader campaign against the university has included cutting over $2.6 billion in research grants, revoking federal contracts, and threatening to end its tax-exempt status. Harvard President Alan Garber responded by affirming the university's commitment to its legal and institutional values. 'Harvard will not stray from its core, legally-protected principles,' Garber said. Government's defense: 'Other universities might be better' While Harvard argues it is being unfairly targeted, the Trump administration insists it has scrutinised multiple universities and that Harvard alone is not being singled out. DOJ attorney Tiberius Davis said the federal government views 'other universities might be better' suited to host foreign students under the new policy framework. 'The power is within Harvard to fix this,' Davis claimed, implying that Harvard's institutional culture and perceived resistance to federal oversight contributed to its treatment. But legal observers and academic leaders have questioned the transparency and fairness of that assessment, suggesting that the administration's actions represent an attempt to silence dissent and impose ideological conformity. Looking ahead: A precedent-setting case As Judge Burroughs prepares to issue a ruling on the preliminary injunction, the case may set an important precedent for how much influence a presidential administration can exert over private academic institutions. The decision could also have sweeping implications for the rights of foreign students in the United States and the future of American higher education's global reputation. For now, the legal shield remains in place, but the battle over borders, academic freedom, and federal overreach is far from over. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Pakistan diplomat's sudden exit: Islamabad recalls Dhaka envoy; Imran Haidar named successor
Syed Ahmed Maroof Pakistan has withdrawn its high commissioner in Dhaka, Syed Ahmed Maroof, and appointed a new envoy to succeed him, weeks after his abrupt leave triggered widespread speculation, reported news agency PTI on Tuesday, citing Bangladesh's Prothom Alo newspaper. Citing several senior officials, the report said, "Pakistan's high commissioner in Dhaka Syed Ahmed Maroof is not returning to Bangladesh." Islamabad has now selected Imran Haidar, currently serving as Pakistan's ambassador to Myanmar, to take over Maroof's position, the paper added. Maroof had come under the spotlight shortly after Muhammad Yunus assumed charge of Bangladesh's interim government. His rise came just three days after Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina 's Awami League was ousted on August 5, 2024, following a wave of student-led violent protests. During his tenure, Maroof actively worked to strengthen diplomatic ties between Dhaka and Islamabad, including facilitating a visit by Pakistan's foreign secretary to Bangladesh. However, his sudden departure from Dhaka last month ignited social media chatter, with rumours swirling about his alleged involvement with two Bangladeshi women. Maroof left the country on May 11, approximately 18 months after his appointment. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Аkinеk fáj a térdе és a csíрőízülеte, ne fеlеdje! Magyarország vezető reumatológusa Olvass tovább Undo Pakistan's high commission officially notified Bangladesh's Foreign Ministry of his exit, stating that the deputy high commissioner would temporarily assume the role of acting high commissioner. In the past nine months, Maroof travelled extensively throughout Bangladesh, with his latest known visit to the coastal town of Cox's Bazar. Social media buzzed over the timing of this trip, which reportedly overlapped with the visit of the two Bangladeshi women to the same destination.
