Justin Amash on the Hartzler Amendment to NDAA

Featured Image -- 32733Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) writes:

“There’s an astonishing level of misinformation and disinformation about a certain amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018, so I want to provide some clarity.”

On July 13, the House voted on an amendment offered by Rep. Hartzler. The amendment says that “[f]unds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to provide medical treatment (other than mental health treatment) related to gender transition to a person entitled to medical care” under the military health system.

My staff and I carefully reviewed this amendment, as well as the facts and circumstances surrounding it, and I concluded that the right thing to do was to vote no. Consider the following:

1. The NDAA says nothing about transgender persons or their medical treatment. These subjects are not addressed in the bill. Voting no on an amendment cannot add these subjects to the bill. Most Republicans were happy to vote for the bill before they knew the Hartzler Amendment existed, and they were happy to vote for the bill after the Hartzler Amendment was rejected.

2. The Department of Defense (DoD) adopted a policy in 2016 regarding medical treatment for transgender persons. This policy allows treatment only when it’s “medically necessary,” and the Trump administration has continued the policy. Sec. of Defense Mattis delayed until January 1, 2018, a portion of the policy—related to the further enlistment of transgender persons—that had not yet gone into effect when Pres. Trump took office.

3. Sec. Mattis and the White House contacted Congress to urge us not to adopt the Hartzler Amendment to the NDAA. They are reviewing the entire policy and want an opportunity to present a new policy before Congress weighs in. As a retired general, Sec. Mattis knows a lot more than most members of Congress about how to build a strong and ready force.

4. The NDAA is an authorization bill for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins on October 1, 2017. Sec. Mattis is expected to present a new policy, if at all, by January 1, 2018. In other words, the Trump administration is asking for only three additional months under the current policy.

So, let’s summarize: The NDAA says nothing about transgender persons. The Trump administration can keep or change the current policy at its discretion. Sec. Mattis and the White House urged us not to adopt the Hartzler Amendment. And all the administration wants is three months to review everything.

Given the facts, circumstances, and eminently reasonable request from the Trump administration, it was not a difficult decision to vote no on this amendment. After Sec. Mattis announces the DoD’s finalized policy, we can discuss the policy with him, evaluate it, and seek changes if necessary.

Those who serve in our Armed Forces deserve the best medical care. One question we must ask and answer, with the aid of the medical community, is which treatments are medically necessary and which are simply elective. With respect to transgender persons, we should focus on the best science, not the political or philosophical opinions of partisans.

Finally, service in all aspects of our Armed Forces cannot be guaranteed to everyone. The job of our Armed Forces is to defend our country, and the DoD should be given more leeway than other parts of the executive branch with respect to personnel decisions.

Rep. Amash and Rep. Reed both voted NO. Unlike Rep. Amash, Rep. Reed seldom explains his votes. Rep. Amash’s explanation omits the obvious fact that defeating the Hartzler Amendment was vital for passage of the NDAA bill which required support from Democrats.

About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in 2018, Congress, Political, Reed's Views and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Justin Amash on the Hartzler Amendment to NDAA

  1. Arthur Ahrens says:

    Thank you for the information.


  2. Dawn Cordes says:

    I agree with the fact that our military personnel should get the best medical care possible. I do not agree that we, the tax payers, should have to pay for transgender reassignment surgery because it would behoove their mental stability within the scope of their duties as an officer. When I read a report from the Time that the military has employed thousands of transgender military personnel, [“The Williams Institute estimates that there are roughly 8,800 thousand active duty military members who are transgender.”] and that it’s not causing problems within their units, did not mention however, that these active personnel were going through gender reassignment at the time. I believe that not letting this amendment pass would be opening up a Pandora’s box if we allow funding for this sort of surgery. And who is to say that a transgender won’t enlist for the minimum time served just so they can have their elective surgery provided for free. So what would be next, a servicewoman who feels incompetent to do her duties unless her breasts were larger and because they’re not it imposes a mental strain on her and her duties as an officer until she has breast implants on the taxpayers dime? As you can see this is going to become a problem not just now but in the future as well.


  3. whungerford says:

    Do you agree with Rep. Amash in part or not at all?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.