By Allie Martin and Jody Brown
January 6, 2003

(AgapePress) - An official with a family-values organization is praising a federal appeals court which ruled that a New York state employer doesn't have to pay for an employee's sex-change operation.

Last month, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that P&C Food Markets could deny a request by Margo Mario to pay for her sex-change operation on grounds that it was "not medically necessary."

Mario, who now dresses as a man and goes by the name Marc Andrew Mario, claimed to be suffering from "gender dysphoria and transsexualism" and wanted P&C to pay for hormone therapy, a double mastectomy, and a hysterectomy. After researching the subject of transsexualism, the company determined Mario's request fell into the category of cosmetic surgery and was not medically necessary.

The company also found "considerable disagreement" in the medical community as to whether gender dysphoria is a legitimate illness. Mario had defined that as being when a person experiences discomfort or discontent about nature's choice of his or her particular sex and prefers to be the other sex.

Peter Sprigg is senior director of culture studies for Family Research Council. He says the homosexual lobby will continue pushing for employer-funded sex-change operations.

"Anywhere that the homosexual movement has had success in pushing privileges or special rights for homosexuals, they're going to want to extend those to people who want to change their sex or present themselves as a different sex from their biological sex as well," he says.

Sprigg also says if employers were required to pay for sex-change operations, it would cripple the healthcare system.

"This would be putting a tremendous burden on the healthcare system and on the cost of health insurance," he says, "if anyone could simply require their insurance company or their employer to pay for what is essentially self-mutilating surgery simply because they wish to be a member of the opposite sex."

The appeals court also dismissed Mario's claims, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that she was a victim of sex discrimination because she "failed to conform to gender stereotypes."

© 2003 AgapePress all rights reserved.

E-mail this page to a friend Printer-Friendly Version