Fact Check: Erin Reed is Lying About the Risk of Trans Healthcare Being Cut at Federal Level

There is currently no risk to trans healthcare in the resolution, and the subject has not come up in negotiations.

By Jane Migliara Brigham

This morning, Erin Reed published an update on the negotiations to reopen the Federal Government. In this update, she claims that keeping the government open might- now or in the future- rely on a ban of federal funds going to facilities which provide trans healthcare.

If that were to happen, it would effectively prevent all trans people in the United States from getting transition medicine through legal channels. However, Erin Reed’s claim is unsourced and untrue.

This claim is false.  There is currently no risk of trans healthcare for adults being used as a chip for reopening the Federal Government.

Shutdown Deal Reached As 8 Democrats Cross The Aisle- GOP Axes Healthcare, Trans Rights Status-Quo Remains

No version of this CR would’ve banned trans healthcare or directly targeted trans rights- the standing issue was whether the ACA subsidies would be ended.

The Needle - NewsArtemis T. Douglas

This is a pattern for her.  Last month, when the government shutdown began, Reed posted that a similar rule was at risk of being made law in exchange for keeping the government open, but had only been stopped by people calling in to make their opposition to the law known to their representatives.

Once again, there was no threat of this becoming law. 

The Needle reviewed all three versions of the Continuing Resolution prior to the current shutdown deal, as well as the version which was voted on once Democrats made a deal to re-open the government.  No version would have had any effect on transition medicine.

The prior versions can be viewed here, here, and here.

In other words, she had trans people calling their representatives about an imminent threat which was never real.

Erin Reed claimed that the risk came from an appropriations bill out of the House, in which the aforementioned HRT-Hyde-Amendment is attached as a rider.

What she failed to mention then, and continues to ignore today, is that this bill has no chance of becoming law, and that it never came up as a serious issue in negotiations to reopen the government.

The current government shutdown is a result of negotiations having been deadlocked in the Senate.  

As such, the only bills which could end that deadlock are those which can be agreed upon by a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, or 60% of the membership of the Senate.  

Since no such de facto HRT ban was ever in serious consideration in the Senate, there was never a risk of this becoming law.

The reporting from Erin in the Morning on this was based on the false premise that a bill out of the house would be taken up by the Senate, for which there was no evidence given, and which there is no evidence as of the time of writing.  

Former congressional reporters, such as Jael Holzman of Heatmap, were quick to point this out.  

However, the rhetoric coming out of Erin in the Morning about an imminent threat to HRT at the federal level has not changed, even though Senate Democrats have already agreed on the language they will use to end the current shutdown.  

It is not accurate to say that there never will be a threat to trans healthcare.  There are plenty of Republicans who would love nothing more than to take away HRT for adults.  

However, reporting on a threat that doesn’t exist without evidence is a disservice to any journalist’s audience.

The legitimate threat to HRT access is the rules which the HHS is deliberating on. These rules, as reported by NPR and The Needle, would remove federal funding from any healthcare facility that provides transition coverage to people 19 and under. 

Those rules are not yet up for public comment, but they are eligible for EO meetings- as The Needle previously reported.

It is important to be clear about where that threat is actually coming from, and how pressing that threat actually is.

Jael Holzman, a reporter with experience on reporting within Congress, and who was at one time the only out trans reporter in Congress, stated; 

“There are threats to funding for our care. She is routinely leaving out crucial facts that would educate her readers about the odds of those threats turning to lasting restrictions. 

If or when people in Congress decide to actually try and make trans care the red line in exchange for funding the government, her flagrant disregard for the tenets of journalism will have turned her cries into "crying wolf," putting us all at greater risk in the end regardless.”

The tone of Reed’s reporting does nothing to explain where the threat is coming from, and is therefore leading to panic among her trans readers.

Over the last few weeks of the shutdown, I have seen people I care about stockpiling their hormones, panicking about the reopening of the government leading to the end of their access to HRT.  

People I care about are staying awake at night, worrying about a threat that was never there, all on the word of someone who didn’t bother to understand the sources she was using as evidence. 

We deserve better than alarmism.