BEHIND DOOR NO. 1--
Doctors For America, The Political, "Non-Political" 501(c)3 Just Trying To Ensure A Little Health Equity
Once upon a time which is the way every good story should begin unless, of course, “It was a dark and stormy night….” is thought to be more fitting. But I digress.
Once upon a time this was the banner graphic for the CDC Division of Adolescent and School Health, (DASH) on the CDC website:
But just about the time that Donald Trump was elected that graphic disappeared. Then all content the for DASH disappeared as did Kathleen Ethier its former Director. Why? Because President Trump vowed during his campaign that he would end DEI promotion by the federal government and on the day that he was inaugurated he did precisely that.
It took a week before CDC got around to figuring out how to comply with the president's order but eventually the behemoth “public health” agency complied and DASH was gone. No more direct links to LGBTQ+ chat rooms accessible to children without parental knowledge or consent and no more links to the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, (GLSEN), the source of the “Rainbow Library” that was free to schools across the nation and the source of outrage by parents everywhere.
But then along came Doctors for America with its Mission Statement complete with a set of guiding principles:
“Doctors for America mobilizes doctors and medical students to be leaders in putting patients over politics on the pressing issues of the day to improve the health of our patients, communities, and nation. (emphasis added)
OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES
We believe:
Every person in America has a fundamental right to equitable, high-quality, and affordable health care.
Everyone should have the opportunity to lead a healthy life.
Every part of society should value and promote healthy families and communities.
Doctors should take a leadership role in improving health care and ending health disparities.” (emphasis added, again)
Based on their Mission Statement and Guiding Principles the Doctors of America sued:
The Office Of Personnel Management, the Centers For Disease Control And Prevention, the Food And Drug Administration, and the Department Of Health & Human Services.
But for some reason they didn’t sue the President of the United States who ordered those agencies to remove all DEI content from the OPM, CDC, FDA, and DHHS web sites. Perhaps one of you can explain to me why the agencies under the executive control of the President of the United States were held liable for the content or lack thereof of their website and not the President who issued the Executive Order which directed them to do so. That is actually a bit of a rhetorical musing. As I explain below. Had they sued the President it is likely that Judge John Bates wouldn’t have been able to find a way to keep this suit alive.
And so as result of the DFA suit United States District Judge John D. Bates ordered that the DEI content of the websites of the agencies listed above must be restored and it has been — sort of. Instead of the gender confusing graphic heading the CDC page this now appears:
The government in my view responded oddly. The first argument that the government lawyers put forth was that DFA didn’t have standing. But the judge in this matter disagreed stating that if one member of the organization was “harmed” then the organization itself was harmed. Whatever.
The issue of standing raised by the defendants aside there are two other points at issue. First, the websites as they were pre-Trump’s Executive Order provided valuable information that doctors rely on to treat children. Second, by removing the content with out a public hearing the agencies in question violated the Office of Management Budget’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The purpose of the APA is to ensure that the People have a say in any administrative rule made by an administrative agency.
First things being first, the notion that the CDC website provided valuable information that Doctors rely on every day is deeply flawed simply because false information (i.e. that more than two genders exist) is inherently not valuable or useful. As I have noted before CDC admitted that they have no data supporting the idea that there are more than two genders. That admission in and of itself refutes the claim that the CDC website offers “valuable” information on LGBTQ+ ideology.
On to second things. The Administrative Procedures Act is intended to rein in unrestrained rulemaking ability wielded by ADMINISTRATIVE agencies that have been authorized by Congress to make administrative rules in place of Congressional law making. Neither CDC or the other administrative agencies named in the DFA suit decided on their own to remove the DEI content on their websites. The content in question was removed by order of the President of the United States, the head of the Executive Branch. Further, the content that was removed was not a “rule”. CDC has very limited ability to issue administrative rules. Changing content on a website does not require administrative rule making. The content of the CDC website constantly changes. Agencies are free to add and delete content at will or upon order of the President of the United States.
As a bonus to the President this law suit allowed him to state his case clearly at the top of the page:
“Any information on this page promoting gender ideology is extremely inaccurate and disconnected from the immutable biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female.”
This ruling will not prevail on appeal.
Union, Kentucky
18 February 2025