Latest news with #UCLASchoolofLaw
Malay Mail
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Muslims in Singapore know that Islam is not about ‘qabaliyyah' (tribalism) but a ‘millah' (faith) that is about justice, morality, and goodness — Hafiz Hassan
MAY 1 — A mustafti is the term for a person who seeks a fatwa, or a religious opinion or ruling from a mufti who is a qualified Islamic scholar. In simple words, a mustafti is the one who poses a question to a mufti who provides the answer. The answer is called a fatwa, which is a legal opinion or ruling that is non-binding. Sometime in March 2017, the mustafti was an Indonesian student majoring in International Relations. The mufti was Dr Khaled Abou Al-Fadl, one of the world's leading authorities on the Shariah (Islamic law) and Islam, and a prominent scholar in the field of human rights. He is the Omar and Azmeralda Alfi Distinguished Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law where he teaches International Human Rights; Islamic Jurisprudence; Political Asylum and Refugee Law; The Trafficking of Human Beings: Law and Policy; Political Crimes and Legal Systems; and Muslims, Race and Law. The question was: Does Islam allow a Muslim to vote for a non-Muslim to be in the position of governor, in a Muslim-majority country? The mustafti explained the context of his question as follows: Asked if a Muslim should vote for a fellow Muslim with no track record or a non-Muslim failed as the better candidate, Professor of Law at UCLA Khaled Abou Al-Fadl replied that he will choose the candidate who best serves justice as he ultimately has to answer to Allah. — Picture from X/usuliinstitute 'In the capital city of Indonesia, there is currently an election going on. And for the first time in the country's relatively young democracy, we are faced with a dilemma that we have never faced before. 'We have to choose between a candidate for a governor who is a non-Muslim and has been hailed as one of the finest (but far from perfect) candidates, and another candidate who is Muslim and has no proven record yet, but shows great potential to become a good leader. 'This situation has never happened before, that a non-Muslim candidate can be a serious challenger for the governorship of the country's capital province – the country being a Muslim majority country.' The mustafti further explained: 'Muslims in my country are split along three lines: (1) those who feel that democracy is un-Islamic, with Islam forbidding participating in the voting process; (2) those who believes that the Quranic verse (Surah Al-Maidah: 51) forbids Muslims from voting for non-Muslims, when there are Muslim alternatives, especially in a Muslim majority country, and (3) those who are in favour of the principle of 'the greater good', believing that the Quranic verse is only applicable when it comes to war, but not when it comes to democratic processes, especially when the elected would not have the authority to intervene in the religious matters. 'So how should I position myself in this matter?' asked the mustafti. The mufti responded to the question as follows: 'If I understand the situation correctly, the question is whether, in a democratic system in which there are Muslim candidates and non-Muslim candidates, it is permissible for a Muslim citizen to vote for or otherwise help elect the non-Muslim candidate in preference to the Muslim candidate? 'And further, I understand that your question is based on the situation in Indonesia where there is a Muslim candidate and a non-Muslim candidate for elections, and you feel that the non-Muslim candidate is more qualified or otherwise preferable to the Muslim candidate. 'I refer you to my book Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law (Cambridge University Press 2001), especially to the portions discussing whether Muslims owe an obligation to support the just, regardless of their faith or religious affiliation, or whether they should always support a Muslim, even if the Muslim is less just or unjust. 'My position is best reflected in the treatise of the Hanafi jurist Zayn al-Din al-Malibari titled Tuhfat al-Mujahidin, where it is argued that Muslims have an affirmative duty to support what is just and what is right, and if there is a non-Muslim who is just versus a Muslim who is unjust, and similarly if there is a non-Muslim who is not corrupt versus a Muslim who is corrupt, then in my view, it is an affirmative sin to support an unjust Muslim over a just non-Muslim. 'Islam is not about qabaliyyah (tribalism). Islam is a millah (faith), a faith that is about justice, morality, and goodness. 'I must say that there are normative demands created by the nature of democratic aspiration. If Indonesians wish to live in a democratic order, then their ethical commitment must be to civic virtues; in other words, to principles of justice, equity and goodness, and not to narrow principles of tribalism, superficial identity politics and nepotism. 'Anyone [who] dares to participate in a democratic system must be honest. Either they reject democracy altogether and then they should not participate in elections and should not run as candidates because to do so while not believing in democracy is sheer hypocrisy and dissimulation, which is of course haram. 'But if they do run for elections or vote, then they implicitly accept the principles of democracy. For a democracy to work, people must commit to, as I said, civic virtues, not identity politics. 'So, when someone comes to me and says: vote for a Muslim who is unjust, corrupt or otherwise unethical, I tell them: you want me to pick loyalty to a fellow Muslim over my loyalty to Allah? 'I cannot do so in good faith as a Muslim. Even more, I believe I would ultimately have to answer directly to Allah in the Hereafter if I do so. Dr Khaled concluded his fatwa with an advice: 'My advice to you and to all Indonesians who believe in a democratic order is to vote for the person who will best serve justice. For this person is the person who truly embodies the principles of Islam whether that person calls himself/herself a Muslim or not.' The above fatwa and advice should guide Muslims everywhere, whether in countries where Muslims are the majority or in countries where Muslims are the minority. Like the Muslims in Singapore. The island republic holds a parliamentary election on May 3, the first big test for new prime minister Lawrence Wong. I reckon that Muslims in Singapore know that Islam is not about qabaliyyah (tribalism) but a millah (faith) that is about justice, morality, and goodness. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Biggest Burger Chain Lawsuits Of All Time
Grabbing a burger is supposed to be a satisfying experience. Unfortunately, patrons sometimes bite more than they bargained for, which leads them down the legal pipeline. Because in America, suing for damages is as patriotic as eating a hamburger. We've seen it in the news repeatedly -- customers suing fast food chains for one reason or another. Tommy Tobin, an associate attorney at Perkins Coie and a UCLA School of Law lecturer, told CNN that "food litigation is a fast-growing area of law." Data collected in 2023 from Perkins Coie showed that in that same year, 101 lawsuits were filed, a stark contrast to just 19 in 2008. However, Pooja Nair, a partner of the California-based firm Ervin Cohen and Jessup, claims it's not a rise in plaintiffs wanting to file but rather firms seeing success and subsequently pouring more resources into more lawsuits, resulting in big paychecks. Nair's take is true, but in the biggest burger chain cases, the plaintiffs seemingly jumped out of the booth and into the courtroom. Whether the customers were sick, offended, or straight-up lying, some of the lawsuits were necessary, but just as many were outrageous. Read more: Fast Food French Fries Ranked From Worst To Best Size matters and Burger King knows that. The burger chain is no stranger to controversy, causing chaos when it opened in the 1950s and again in 2023 because of its famous mega-burger, the Whopper. Back then, the issue was the inflated price that came of the big, juicy burger. The recent drama was just the opposite. In March 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed against Burger King, claiming its famous Whopper contained 35% less meat than advertised. The chain snapped back, not only stressing that the allegations were false but also defending their right to not deliver food exactly like the pictures. They also never promised the percentage of meat their Whoppers include. Louis Tompros, an intellectual property expert, stated in an interview with Harvard Law Today that it's a situation where "the advertisement is somewhere between a clear factual claim and pure puffery, where you find some of the most interesting cases." He compared it to when Red Bull was sued for claiming its beverage would give you wings. If you don't remember, the energy drink company ended up settling the case for a significant amount of money, despite the absurdity of it all. Ultimately, the judge let the jury decide "what reasonable people think" (via CBC). With the final verdict still in the works, stuck somewhere in the balance between common sense and common courtesy. There's a trend in the burger world-- and that's lying about how big your meat is. One customer who felt duped by Wendy's and McDonald's decided to take legal action against the big-name burger chains. Lumping both brands together, plaintiff Justin Chimienti in the class action complaint accused the restaurants of "unfair and deceptive trade practices" selling burgers that didn't appear as appetizing as on the billboards back in 2022. Specifically, he declared that "fully cooked burgers tend to shrink and look less appetizing," insinuating that the burger chains therefore advertised undercooked burgers and posed a threat to the health of their customers. On judgment day in the courtroom, the plaintiff displayed a series of "expectation vs. reality" photos, first of beefed-up, picture-perfect ads like the Wendy's Bourbon Bacon Cheeseburger and the McDonald's Big Mac, followed by deflated and dilapidated real-life pictures of the meals. However, despite the accusations, U.S. District Judge Hector Gonzalez concluded there was no factual evidence that McDonald's nor Wendy's falsely advertised. He even doubled down, highlighting the lack of proof that Chimienti had even seen their ads before buying the burgers. Everyone knows that fast food will harm their health in the long run. They don't, however, expect to experience adverse effects right after eating it. But that's what happened to handfuls of unlucky customers who ate Quarter Pounders linked to an E. coli outbreak in 2024. The damage was widespread, affecting people in 12 different states and leading to 27 hospitalizations and one death. However, the actual number of people affected is likely much higher than what documents show, or so said the CDC. Sick and angry McDonald's patrons took to their lawyers to sue for damages. Florida man Michael Kraft and Chicago woman Amy McCray, who both suffered negative health symptoms after eating the contaminated cheeseburgers, filed a class action lawsuit against Mickey D's for $5 million for customers who visited the designated restaurant locations from September 27 to October 30. They claimed that the burger chain should have disclosed the contamination risk but failed to do so. Some people, like Eric Stelly of Illinois and Clarissa DeBock of Nebraska, decided to take the independent road to justice, filing individual lawsuits and requesting customized compensation after being diagnosed with E. coli. In Stelly's statement, he claimed, "Never did I expect to suffer like this after eating a burger" (via USA Today). The restaurant is still doing damage control and isn't expected to fully bounce back until the second quarter of 2025. Youtuber Mr. Beast boasts one of the most popular chocolate bars on the market. The same can't be said for his burgers, which were so bad that lawyers had to get involved. It all started in 2020 when Mr. Beast launched Mr. Beast Burger using a ghost kitchen concept to cook and deliver his burgers from existing restaurants. Naturally, different kitchens feature different cooks and cleanliness protocols, resulting in inconsistent results. And that was reflected in the sentiment of his food. While the burgers were a mixed bag, Mr. Beast wanted out of the deal in 2022. He took to his company, Donaldson's Beast Investments, to file a suit against his contractual partner Virtual Dining Concepts, where he accused VDC of harming the Mr. Beast brand and reputation by focusing on growth over quality. In the lawsuit transcript were statements of unsatisfied customers calling the burgers "disgusting," "revolting," and "inedible." Mr. Beast also claimed he earned VDC millions of dollars, of which he was never paid. Virtual Dining Concepts responded to the YouTube star by countersuing Donaldson's Beast Investments. They seek $100 million in damages for his nonfactual statements and for not fulfilling his end of the contract. Along with causing VDC financial distress, a representative of the business stated, "This case is about a social media celebrity who believes that his fame means that his word does not matter, that the facts do not matter." The lawsuits still remain unresolved. McNuggets are meant to be crispy, warm, and easily dippable (that's why they're shaped for maximum dunkability), resulting in a joyful and delicious experience. But one Florida girl's McNugget-containing Happy Meal quickly turned sour when she dropped a burning-hot piece of fried chicken on her leg, resulting in second-degree burns. In 2019, four-year-old Olivia Caraballo was handed her drive-thru order in the car by her mother, Philana Holmes, unaware of the fiery fate that hid inside the Happy Meal bag. She shortly after dropped the "unreasonably and dangerously" hot nugget onto her lap, causing her thigh to be "disfigured and scarred" as a result of the burns, according to the initial lawsuit. The suit was brought to court by Olivia's parents, stating clear warning instructions should have been included on the packaging to prevent the risk of injuries. The jury ended up awarding her $400,000 for her pain, suffering, and mental anguish, along with another $400,000 to cover any potential future suffering from the injury. Despite drawing parallels to a past lawsuit where a woman spilled a scalding coffee onto her lap, critics argued that it's not common knowledge for a McNugget, especially one included in a children's meal, to be of such high heat caliber. A Canadian father sued McDonald's for advertising junk food to minors in 2018. But it's not the first time McDonald's has faced backlash after angry parents accused the fast food chain of enticing their children with unhealthy food. In 2010, activist group the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) turned to their lawyers for justice in what they believed was unlawful marketing. "Dangling a toy in front of a kid to try to get them in your restaurant is unfair and deceptive," asserted the Executive Director of CSPI in an interview with ABC News. He elaborated that young children don't understand the concept of advertising and that the technique of luring them in was just as bad as the high-fat, low-nutrient meal itself. The Vice President of McDonald's clapped back in a private email to ABC, assuring Happy Meals are appropriately sized for children and contain balanced meals that "include Apple Dippers, low-fat caramel dip, and one percent low-fat white milk." Publicly, CSPI was under fire for accusing parents who believe the responsibility falls to the adults to not let their children eat fast food every day rather than to the companies making kids' meal ads. But the group is no stranger to lawsuits, having won a 2006 claim against Kellogg that resulted in a boost in nutritional ingredients in the foods it markets to children. But this time around, the judge dismissed the claim. A McDonald's spokesperson wrapped up the case, saying they're proud of their Happy Meals and will "vigorously defend" the brand, reputation, and food. And considering the various similar lawsuits that have followed over the past years, they've been doing just that. Smashburger's day in court wasn't due to a riled-up customer but rather a business-on-business crime. The popular burger chain that boasts high-quality chicken launched a new logo in 2024 in line with a "refreshed brand identity that infuses the company with vibrant new energy and a modern look," as stated in a Smashburger press release. The problem? That sleek orange S shape seemed all too similar to that of an underdog Atlanta-based burger chain called Smalls. Smalls took immediate action against Smashburger, proclaiming they've been using the eerily similar logo design since 2019 and even have it trademarked. They had just as much issue with Smashburger using their signature "smorange" color as they did with the font. Smashburger claims in a statement that they take the allegations seriously, and though their legal team is currently working on the matter, they are "committed to protecting their brand and stakeholders" (via Restaurant Business Magazine). In the meantime, Smalls insists on protecting their own brand as well as their intellectual property. The case will likely settle, but if it does end up in court, the result could swing either way. When eating chili, you'll taste ground beef, beans, tomatoes ... and a finger? It's not normal to consume human remains in a bowl of chili, but that's exactly what happened to a Las Vegas woman in 2005. Or so she claimed. Anna Aayala, with the help of her husband, Jaime Plascencia, sued a San Jose Wendy's after reporting she had chomped on a human finger while dining on her meal. The story quickly made headlines for its absurdity and lack of believability. In fact, during the trial, forensics proved the finger was uncooked and never bitten into, which proved both Wendy's hadn't cooked it and she hadn't eaten it. It was later discovered that Plascencia had purchased the severed finger from his co-worker for $100 and that the couple had traveled to the Bay Area from their hometown, targeting that particular Wendy's to plant the finger before accusingly pointing the finger. Despite its falsity, Wendy's lost about $1.2 million in revenue due to the incident. Ayala, in turn, was sentenced to nine years in prison but was released five years early for good behavior. Aayala stated, "Let this be an example ... all those young people, learn from this" (via ABC News). We can only hope most young people won't need to (fingers crossed). Carl's Jr. was the butt of a joke-- and weren't very happy about it. In an advertising campaign for their sirloin burgers, their competitor Jack in the Box insinuated the Angus meat came from a cow's anus. In one ad, Jack in the Box's upside-down ice cream cone-headed mascot was asked to point to the "Angus area" of a cow, to which he shyly replied, "I'd rather not." Another ad showed Jack in the Box employees laughing at the thought of Carl's Jr.'s Angus burgers. Carl's Jr. and Hardee's parent company, CKE Restaurants Inc., promptly sued Jack in the Box Inc. for unspecified damages, asking that the burger chain run "corrective advertising" and accusing them of cooking burgers with "frozen sirloin butt meat." The company claimed that a high percentage of its customers believed Angus beef came from cows' bottoms as a direct result of the ads. The Carl's Jr. and Jack in the Box feud went down in 2007 and ended in the plaintiff's defeat, with the court stating that CKE Restaurants didn't have enough evidence to prove their claims. To that, Jack in the Box's then-VP announced in a written statement, "We're glad that common sense prevailed" (via Convenience Store News). Five Guys has its fair share of secrets, from rewriting its history (it's actually six guys, not five) to insider menu hacks and free extra cheese. But a darker secret in 2016 revealed that 2,206 non-exempt California employees did not receive their lunch or rest breaks as was their right according to state law. Jeremey Lusk, a manager-in-training at one of the burger chain's California locations, rang the alarm on Five Guys' illegal practices. Other strict state labor laws were violated, including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse gas costs while on the job, and forcing workers to complete duties off the clock. If you've ever worked in the restaurant industry, you'll know how grueling long shifts on your feet prepping and serving food can be. Still, it took five agreements to settle this Five Guys lawsuit. On the fifth and final try, the judge gave the green light on a $1.2 million payout to the workers involved. You'd think that ordering a value meal from a restaurant means that you're saving money, right? Actually, that's wrong, at least when ordering McDonald's. On two occasions, customers brought the burger chain to court to argue against meals that promised value but brought deceit. In 2018, Kelly Killeen of Chicago filed against the Golden Arches after she purchased an Extra Value Meal for $5.08. The problem was, had she ordered the two sausage burritos, hash browns, and coffee that came with the meal separately, she would have only paid $4.97. Likewise, James Gertie of Des Plaines took legal action in 2016 after realizing the contents of his $5.90 value meal cost him 41 more cents than if purchased individually. According to Money, he argued in the lawsuit that it was a case of principle over pennies, stating the meal was "no 'value' at all, let alone an 'extra value,'" accusing McDonald's of consumer fraud and deceptive practices. The results? Kelly's judge dismissed the case, claiming while the "value" name was misleading, it wasn't deceptive, either, because there was enough information available to make a price comparison. Meanwhile, the conclusion of James' lawsuit is unknown. The biggest lesson from this is to pull out your calculators before ordering your next combo. Read the original article on Chowhound.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Transgender patients and their health providers fear worsening discrimination
Kelly Houske was walking her dogs one morning when she developed stabbing pain in her back that brought her to her knees. Houske, who had survived her first heart attack only a year earlier, was worried she was experiencing a second. When Houske arrived at a local emergency room by ambulance, she hoped for compassionate treatment. Instead, her doctor appeared cold and kept his distance, standing in the doorway without ever entering her room, Houske said. An imaging technician ignored how much pain she was suffering and shouted at her, Houske said. Rather than help her out of the scanner, the technician barked at her to climb out of the machine herself. 'I was in so much pain I could hardly move,' said Houske, 67, whose back pain was later found to be caused by kidney stones. The technician 'kept saying, 'Come on, come on, come on,'' she recalled. 'He didn't offer to help.' When Houske tried to stand on her own, she crumpled to the ground. The tech stood over her impatiently, Houske said, but didn't help her off the floor. 'Eventually, someone else came into the room and helped me get up,' she said. The 2017 encounter at a Tennessee hospital was one of many instances in which Houske, who is transgender, said she has been mistreated by a health care provider. Surveys show that mistreatment of trans patients is common — including verbal harassment or refusal of care — sometimes leading them to delay or avoid seeking care. Many advocates for transgender people say they fear treatment of trans patients will suffer further under President Donald Trump, who has issued a slew of executive orders in recent weeks restricting transgender rights, including several that seek to limit access to transition-related health care. In a report published in Psychiatric News last month, physicians who work with transgender patients said the executive orders have led to widespread distress among their trans patients. And according to a report released last month from the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute, an LGBTQ think tank, almost three-quarters of trans patients surveyed after the presidential election said they are concerned that the quality of their health care will decline under Trump. About 80% of respondents, who were surveyed before Trump took office, said they planned to make changes to their behavior, appearance or speech to downplay visibility as transgender people. One-third said they were socially isolating and avoiding public places and activities. Shawn Reilly, a transgender community organizer in Nashville, Tennessee, said he is concerned that Trump will roll back protections for trans patients established by the Obama and Biden administrations. Reilly said they fear health providers will be allowed to withhold care from trans patients. 'Stripping transgender people and all sexual and gender minorities of protections while they are trying to access a basic human right — health care — is inhumane and unjust,' said Reilly, a former coordinator of the 'trans buddy' program at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, which provides trained advocates to accompany transgender patients on medical visits. Neither the Department of Health and Human Services nor the White House responded to requests for comment about the concerns of transgender people, along with their health care providers and advocates, about their treatment in health care settings. During his first term in office, Trump issued a policy that reversed an Obama-era nondiscrimination rule for transgender patients. Although Trump hasn't yet issued a new rule on health care discrimination, a web page created by the Biden administration, which explained legal protections for transgender patients, is now blank. Trump's actions in the first months of his second term have raised alarms, Reilly said. In one of his first acts after he was inaugurated, Trump issued an executive order that denies legal recognition to transgender people. The order says that 'it is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable.' The word 'transgender' has disappeared from government websites, although some deleted web pages have been restored because of a court order. Trump has also canceled research grants for projects related to transgender health. As part of the effort to fight what Trump calls 'gender ideology,' the Department of Veterans Affairs said last month that it will phase out coverage of gender transition care for veterans. Through additional executive orders, Trump has tried to restrict access to gender-affirming care for transgender people under age 19, ban trans people from serving openly in the military, ban trans athletes from women's sports, require incarcerated trans women to be held in men's prisons and eliminate protections for trans students in elementary and secondary schools, such as allowing them to use the bathrooms of their choice. Advocacy groups have challenged many of Trump's executive orders in court. Federal judges have issued temporary restraining orders on the gender-affirming care ban, the prison order and his ban on trans people enlisting or serving in the military. Legal protections for transgender patients are grounded in the Affordable Care Act, which bans discrimination in medical settings and health insurance based on race, color, national origin, age, disability and sex. People who have faced illegal discrimination can file complaints with the Department of Health and Human Services, which can withhold federal funds from institutions found to have violated the law. Every president has interpreted the law differently, however. While Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden issued rules stating that the ban on sex discrimination also prohibits mistreatment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, Trump's first administration interpreted sex discrimination as applying only to 'the plain meaning of the word 'sex' as male or female and as determined by biology.' Groups that disagree with those various interpretations have sued, leading judges to place sex discrimination rules issued by Obama, Biden and the first Trump administration on hold. Anti-discrimination policies still exert powerful effects, said Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute. The Obama and Biden administrations' policies helped institute 'cultural norms requiring health providers to consider the needs of trans patients, even in places where state-level protections were not in existence yet,' Redfield said. Transgender people are about 1% of the U.S. population. Yet they're a political lightning rod. Fact-checking Trump's anti-transgender comments in his address to Congress VA will no longer provide transgender care for some veterans Trump could also cause harm by rolling back legal protections for transgender patients, Redfield said, because health care providers might feel emboldened to deny them care. 'If the federal government permits, or even condones, discrimination, it is likely that would galvanize those who already don't want to treat trans people,' Redfield said. Without a federal rule protecting their rights, transgender patients could lose the ability to file complaints against health care providers with the Department of Health and Human Services. They could still sue health care providers or insurance companies in court, but that process is 'much more burdensome' than filing complaints with the federal health agency, Redfield said. A small number of transgender patients have successfully sued health care providers for discrimination based on the language in the ACA, said David Stacy, vice president of government affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for LGBTQ rights. 'It is crucial that we continue to protect transgender patients, who already face immense obstacles when accessing care,' Stacy said. 'Our leaders should be committed to ensuring that everyone can get the health care they need safely and without the fear of being mistreated.' Some states, such as California, have their own laws protecting transgender patients from discrimination, Redfield said. But others are already following Trump's example in restricting or trying to restrict the general rights of transgender people. In late February, Iowa struck gender identity from the state's civil rights law, making it the first state to remove civil rights from a previously protected class. About 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender, according to the Pew Research Center. Transgender patients suffer from worse physical and mental health than other patients and are less likely to have health insurance. Houske said she can understand why some trans patients delay or avoid care. 'It's a lot of work emotionally' to see a doctor, Houske said. 'If you're doubting yourself at all, it's really hard. It's going to cause you not to seek the care you really need.' Houske said she sometimes tries to break the ice with new doctors by asking whether she is the first transgender person they have treated. 'I just try to address the elephant in the room,' said Houske, who now lives in Ohio. Dr. Alison Haddock, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said health professionals should 'deliver maximally compassionate care' to all patients, including those who are transgender. 'It is absolutely foundational to emergency medicine that our door is open to anyone,' Haddock said. 'We need to make sure that we are always delivering care that is consistent with that ethos.' Some medical schools and professional societies, such as the American College of Emergency Physicians, offer training in the health needs of LGBTQ patients, Haddock said. 'I can attest to this being a much stronger part of the curriculum than when I was in medical school,' said Haddock, who is also a dean at Washington State University's medical school. Yet critics say medical schools aren't adequately educating the next generation of doctors to care for LGBTQ patients. Many practicing doctors say they have had little training in transgender health issues and feel unprepared to treat trans patients.. Of all the state-level medical boards in the country, only the District of Columbia's requires doctors to receive continuing education in treating LGBTQ patients, according to the Federation of State Medical Boards. And while the American Medical Association and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management offer educational courses about LGBTQ health and reducing bias, some health care leaders say other efforts could be throttled by Trump's campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. Many universities and private companies, for example, are ending DEI programs for fear of losing funding or contracts. 'The political environment is making it really difficult' to include sexual orientation and gender identity in medical school courses, said Dr. Atul Grover, executive director of the Association of American Medical College's Research and Action Institute. 'We have lawmakers at the state and federal level who are convinced that incorporating the concepts of inclusion, health equity and diversity is taking away from the scientific content of what we're teaching,' Grover said. 'But it does not. These concepts aren't mutually exclusive.' This article was originally published on
NBC News
01-04-2025
- Health
- NBC News
Transgender patients and their health providers fear worsening discrimination
Kelly Houske was walking her dogs one morning when she developed stabbing pain in her back that brought her to her knees. Houske, who had survived her first heart attack only a year earlier, was worried she was experiencing a second. When Houske arrived at a local emergency room by ambulance, she hoped for compassionate treatment. Instead, her doctor appeared cold and kept his distance, standing in the doorway without ever entering her room, Houske said. An imaging technician ignored how much pain she was suffering and shouted at her, Houske said. Rather than help her out of the scanner, the technician barked at her to climb out of the machine herself. 'I was in so much pain I could hardly move,' said Houske, 67, whose back pain was later found to be caused by kidney stones. The technician 'kept saying, 'Come on, come on, come on,'' she recalled. 'He didn't offer to help.' When Houske tried to stand on her own, she crumpled to the ground. The tech stood over her impatiently, Houske said, but didn't help her off the floor. 'Eventually, someone else came into the room and helped me get up,' she said. The 2017 encounter at a Tennessee hospital was one of many instances in which Houske, who is transgender, said she has been mistreated by a health care provider. Surveys show that mistreatment of trans patients is common — including verbal harassment or refusal of care — sometimes leading them to delay or avoid seeking care. Many advocates for transgender people say they fear treatment of trans patients will suffer further under President Donald Trump, who has issued a slew of executive orders in recent weeks restricting transgender rights, including several that seek to limit access to transition-related health care. In a report published in Psychiatric News last month, physicians who work with transgender patients said the executive orders have led to widespread distress among their trans patients. And according to a report released last month from the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute, an LGBTQ think tank, almost three-quarters of trans patients surveyed after the presidential election said they are concerned that the quality of their health care will decline under Trump. About 80% of respondents, who were surveyed before Trump took office, said they planned to make changes to their behavior, appearance or speech to downplay visibility as transgender people. One-third said they were socially isolating and avoiding public places and activities. Shawn Reilly, a transgender community organizer in Nashville, Tennessee, said he is concerned that Trump will roll back protections for trans patients established by the Obama and Biden administrations. Reilly said they fear health providers will be allowed to withhold care from trans patients. 'Stripping transgender people and all sexual and gender minorities of protections while they are trying to access a basic human right — health care — is inhumane and unjust,' said Reilly, a former coordinator of the 'trans buddy' program at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, which provides trained advocates to accompany transgender patients on medical visits. Neither the Department of Health and Human Services nor the White House responded to requests for comment about the concerns of transgender people, along with their health care providers and advocates, about their treatment in health care settings. Targeting transgender people During his first term in office, Trump issued a policy that reversed an Obama-era nondiscrimination rule for transgender patients. Although Trump hasn't yet issued a new rule on health care discrimination, a web page created by the Biden administration, which explained legal protections for transgender patients, is now blank. Trump's actions in the first months of his second term have raised alarms, Reilly said. In one of his first acts after he was inaugurated, Trump issued an executive order that denies legal recognition to transgender people. The order says that 'it is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable.' The word 'transgender' has disappeared from government websites, although some deleted web pages have been restored because of a court order. Trump has also canceled research grants for projects related to transgender health. As part of the effort to fight what Trump calls 'gender ideology,' the Department of Veterans Affairs said last month that it will phase out coverage of gender transition care for veterans. Through additional executive orders, Trump has tried to restrict access to gender-affirming care for transgender people under age 19, ban trans people from serving openly in the military, ban trans athletes from women's sports, require incarcerated trans women to be held in men's prisons and eliminate protections for trans students in elementary and secondary schools, such as allowing them to use the bathrooms of their choice. Advocacy groups have challenged many of Trump's executive orders in court. Federal judges have issued temporary restraining orders on the gender-affirming care ban, the prison order and his ban on trans people enlisting or serving in the military. Legal protections in flux Legal protections for transgender patients are grounded in the Affordable Care Act, which bans discrimination in medical settings and health insurance based on race, color, national origin, age, disability and sex. People who have faced illegal discrimination can file complaints with the Department of Health and Human Services, which can withhold federal funds from institutions found to have violated the law. Every president has interpreted the law differently, however. While Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden issued rules stating that the ban on sex discrimination also prohibits mistreatment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, Trump's first administration interpreted sex discrimination as applying only to 'the plain meaning of the word 'sex' as male or female and as determined by biology.' Groups that disagree with those various interpretations have sued, leading judges to place sex discrimination rules issued by Obama, Biden and the first Trump administration on hold. Anti-discrimination policies still exert powerful effects, said Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute. The Obama and Biden administrations' policies helped institute 'cultural norms requiring health providers to consider the needs of trans patients, even in places where state-level protections were not in existence yet,' Redfield said. Trump could also cause harm by rolling back legal protections for transgender patients, Redfield said, because health care providers might feel emboldened to deny them care. 'If the federal government permits, or even condones, discrimination, it is likely that would galvanize those who already don't want to treat trans people,' Redfield said. Without a federal rule protecting their rights, transgender patients could lose the ability to file complaints against health care providers with the Department of Health and Human Services. They could still sue health care providers or insurance companies in court, but that process is 'much more burdensome' than filing complaints with the federal health agency, Redfield said. A small number of transgender patients have successfully sued health care providers for discrimination based on the language in the ACA, said David Stacy, vice president of government affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for LGBTQ rights. 'It is crucial that we continue to protect transgender patients, who already face immense obstacles when accessing care,' Stacy said. 'Our leaders should be committed to ensuring that everyone can get the health care they need safely and without the fear of being mistreated.' Some states, such as California, have their own laws protecting transgender patients from discrimination, Redfield said. But others are already following Trump's example in restricting or trying to restrict the general rights of transgender people. In late February, Iowa struck gender identity from the state's civil rights law, making it the first state to remove civil rights from a previously protected class. About 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender, according to the Pew Research Center. Transgender patients suffer from worse physical and mental health than other patients and are less likely to have health insurance. Houske said she can understand why some trans patients delay or avoid care. 'It's a lot of work emotionally' to see a doctor, Houske said. 'If you're doubting yourself at all, it's really hard. It's going to cause you not to seek the care you really need.' Threats to educational efforts at hospitals Houske said she sometimes tries to break the ice with new doctors by asking whether she is the first transgender person they have treated. 'I just try to address the elephant in the room,' said Houske, who now lives in Ohio. Dr. Alison Haddock, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said health professionals should 'deliver maximally compassionate care' to all patients, including those who are transgender. 'It is absolutely foundational to emergency medicine that our door is open to anyone,' Haddock said. 'We need to make sure that we are always delivering care that is consistent with that ethos.' Some medical schools and professional societies, such as the American College of Emergency Physicians, offer training in the health needs of LGBTQ patients, Haddock said. 'I can attest to this being a much stronger part of the curriculum than when I was in medical school,' said Haddock, who is also a dean at Washington State University's medical school. Yet critics say medical schools aren't adequately educating the next generation of doctors to care for LGBTQ patients. Many practicing doctors say they have had little training in transgender health issues and feel unprepared to treat trans patients.. Of all the state-level medical boards in the country, only the District of Columbia's requires doctors to receive continuing education in treating LGBTQ patients, according to the Federation of State Medical Boards. And while the American Medical Association and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management offer educational courses about LGBTQ health and reducing bias, some health care leaders say other efforts could be throttled by Trump's campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. Many universities and private companies, for example, are ending DEI programs for fear of losing funding or contracts. 'The political environment is making it really difficult' to include sexual orientation and gender identity in medical school courses, said Dr. Atul Grover, executive director of the Association of American Medical College's Research and Action Institute. 'We have lawmakers at the state and federal level who are convinced that incorporating the concepts of inclusion, health equity and diversity is taking away from the scientific content of what we're teaching,' Grover said. 'But it does not. These concepts aren't mutually exclusive.'
Washington Post
26-03-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
See all the tariffs Trump has enacted, threatened and canceled
March 26, 2025 at 6:15 a.m. EDT Today at 6:15 a.m. EDT Example of cases of tariffs proposed, delayed, applied and canceled President Donald Trump began proposing new tariffs within hours of being sworn into office. Sixty days later, his whirlwind of on-again, off-again tariffs shows no sign of slowing down. Having trouble following the deluge? Scroll on for a day-by-day look at how Trump's trade war has unfolded and where it stands now. Tariffs have been enacted on roughly $800 billion of goods as of March 21. A much bigger wave of trade taxes are slated to begin April 2, impacting trillions of dollars of trade. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Here's where Trump's tariffs stand now, and what's coming next: Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Tariffs laid down by the Trump administration are meant to boost some domestic industries and extract concessions from other countries. But economists say that the new taxes may drive up consumer prices and threaten key American industries. Retaliatory tariffs from targeted countries like Canada and China could impact millions of jobs in the U.S. The atmosphere of uncertainty created by rapid proposals and reversals could create a drag on the economy. Without knowing what tariffs may go into effect — or when — businesses may struggle to make big decisions, such as whether to build a plant or move supply chains, said Kimberly Clausing, an economist at UCLA School of Law. 'Trump has introduced a level of economic uncertainty in a deliberate and truly unnecessary fashion,' Clausing said. 'There's nothing parallel in my lifetime in the United States.'
