House Democrats who voted yes on NDAA lament transgender restrictions
Although it remains unclear how many Democratic Senators will vote for the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, some House members in the party have explained why they voted yes, despite a controversial provision restricting military-funded transgender surgeries for minors.
The nearly $900 billion bill passed the House 281-140 Wednesday, with 200 Republicans and 81 Democrats voting in favor versus 124 Democrats and 16 Republicans voting against it.
Most of the NDAA consists of bipartisan agreements, such as pay raises for service members, strengthened ties with U.S. allies, and funding of new military technology.
But a critical point of contention is a Republican addition that would prohibit the military’s health program from covering any gender dysphoria treatments on minors that could “result in sterilization.”
The must-pass bill is so critical that nearly 40% of House Democrats voted in favor–but not without expressing their disappointment.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., condemned Republican colleagues who, she said, “chose to sully this bill with political culture wars;” nevertheless, she voted in favor.
“While it doesn’t address everything we asked for and consider important, including the full ability of parents to make their own decisions about healthcare for their children, it marks a rare moment of productive bipartisan agreement on what is arguably the most crucial legislation we take up as a body each year,” Houlahan said.
The bill’s provision does not forbid service members’ children from receiving transgender therapy. It forbids the military’s health insurance provider, TRICARE, from covering treatments on minors that “may result in sterilization.”
Reps. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, and Terri Sewell, D-Ala., also voted in favor of the bill despite their displeasure at the ban.
“The NDAA is a hugely important bill. We had to pass it, which is why I voted yes,” Landsman posted on X Friday. “However, the anti-trans language that was attached to it was mean and awful and should never have been included.”
“I have serious concerns about some remaining provisions that were placed in the bill for political purposes,” Sewell said Wednesday. “Still, the responsibility to support our service members and provide for our national security is one that I do not take lightly, which is why I ultimately chose to support the bill.”
Besides the importance of annual military funding, another reason some House Democrats assented to the legislation is because they were successful in axing other House Republican amendments, such as a plan to eliminate reimbursements for service members who travel to obtain abortions.
The Senate is expected to pass the bill within the next few days, after which President Joe Biden is expected to sign it into law.
