Topic: Veterans Affairs
“For the first time, the VA is allowing access to abortion services, a medical procedure unrelated to military service that the VA lacks the legal authority and clinical proficiency to perform. In addition to continuing the grotesque culture of violence against the child in the womb, these sociopolitical initiatives and ideological indoctrinations distract from the department’s core missions.”
On September 9, 2022, a rule went into place that said that the VA will provide abortion counseling and abortions in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother’s life to veterans and their eligible family members. It was hardly an endorsement of elective abortions. The VA previously did not provide abortions for veterans under any circumstances and did not allow its providers to counsel patients about the procedure.
“The move is a direct result of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade this summer, which set off a wave of abortion bans and restrictions around the country. VA leaders said those restrictions created “urgent risks” for veterans and forced the agency to act. “This expansion is a patient safety decision first and foremost,” Dr. Shereef Elnahal, VA under secretary for health, told members of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Thursday. “It is important to emphasize that VA is taking these steps with our primary mission in mind: to preserve the lives and health of veterans.””
What this tells me is that while the VA would prefer not to perform abortions, they recognize correctly that sometimes abortion is necessary and that denial of access to it can threaten women’s lives.
Was the move illegal? No. That’s a conservative talking point.
“VA officials and legal experts say the agency is is on solid legal footing as it institutes the new policy, particularly due to the legal principle of federal preemption. “The federal government gets to make law and states can’t say, ‘we don’t want to follow that,’” says David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University. “So a state that tried to sue to say the VA can’t do this would be contravening that fundamental principle of American law.””
I would also argue that since the core mission of the VA is to – in their own words – preserve the lives and health of veterans, that this decision aligns with their mission.
Tucker then tries to justify his argument by going back to what services the VA provided in 1917 as their “core”, before women were allowed to even serve. (Women didn’t get regular permanent status in the Armed Forces until 1948, under Truman.) Women have served in limited capacities since the Civil War, and it wasn’t until World War I that they allowed women to serve in non-combat jobs to free up men to fight.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.11: Department of Veterans Affairs here.
“Rescind all departmental clinical policy directives that are contrary to principles of conservative governance starting with abortion services and gender reassignment surgery.”
Does the VA provide gender reassignment surgery? That started in 2021, although prior to that, they provided “all necessary gender-affirming care, with the exception of surgical interventions.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.11: Department of Veterans Affairs here.
“If the makeup of Congress is favorable in 2025, the next Administration should rapidly and explicitly codify VA MISSION Act access standards in legislation to prevent the VA from avoiding or watering down the requirements in the future.”
There’s no need for Congress to be “favorable” – the VA MISSION Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2018. It was intended to give veterans, especially in rural areas, more choices for where they could receive health care services. As of 2021, it still hadn’t been fully implemented.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.11: Department of Veterans Affairs here.
“Require VHA facilities to increase the number of patients seen each day to equal the number seen by DOD medical facilities: approximately 19 patients per provider per day. Currently, VA facilities may be seeing as few as six patients per provider per day.”
Are these facilities otherwise equal in every way, making this a reasonable mandate? No. VHA providers often treat veterans with more complex medical and psychological needs, including PTSD, long-term disabilities, and chronic conditions that require longer consultations. They’re also counseling a largely older population.
DOD providers often serve a younger, generally healther, active-duty population, making it easier to see more patients every day.
In addition, VHA physicians have more administrative tasks, including navigating complex systems for referrals, prescriptions, and coordinating benefits. Many VHA facilities are additionally understaffed and under-resourced, which also impacts the number of patients who can be seen daily.
In short, The VA often focuses on integrated, long-term care, requiring more time per patient. DOD facilities may deal more with short-term or acute care, allowing for a faster pace. Pushing VHA doctors to see more patients might compromise the quality of care, particularly for veterans who require more intensive medical and psychological attention. Increasing the patient load without addressing staffing concerns could lead to burnout among VA providers, worsening staffing shortages in the long term.
A mandate like this would need to be extremely carefully and thoughtfully implemented, to ensure that efficiency gains do not come at the cost of veterans’ health and well-being.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.11: Department of Veterans Affairs here.
“Rescind all delegations of authority promulgated by the VA under the prior Administration. Transfer all career SES out of PA/PAS-designated positions on the first day and ensure political control of the VA.”
“Ensure political control of the VA” says it all. This is another mandate for staffing the federal government with loyalists to the regime, not career professionals or experts.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.11: Department of Veterans Affairs here.