To be honest it REALLY sounds like you support the law

I am leaning towards not sterlising minors being a good thing because it is a life altering decision that Im not convinced a minor can make.

If you can’t be trusted to responsibly consume alcohol how can you be trusted to choose to be sterilised?

if you cared about factual reporting you would have also released the policy memo

I don’t follow US politics closely enough to be aware of the memo but I did read about the actual policy that was passed. As for banning puberty blockers, that isn’t what was passed by 81 Democrats.

I’m in a country with universal healthcare and laws play very little role in the practice of medicine.

Name the country and I will disprove your claim. Healthcare is always political, from the structure (public vs private) to what care is legal.

It’s pretty intellectually dishonest to frame doctors as mad scientist lobotomists barely restrained by a set of laws

It is even more dishonest to ignore history, the people who suffered and the progress that was made largely through changes to laws. Sometimes as a result of activism or protest.

you’ve got a lot of backwards conservative/incel beliefs

That’s amusing, Im married with children, vote left and support Unions

“tax dollars not spent to directly benefit YOU are a waste”

Wrong. Government spending that doesn’t benefit society as a whole is wasteful. There are never enough funds to sort every problem out and the particular topic you’re referring to here was a change by a centre left government that I support.

But you don’t care that laws aren’t what’s doing the protecting in those situations.

Go open a history book. That’s exactly what the laws are doing. You talk like someone with zero understanding of how governments work, or the history that has shaped governments and the systems they govern.

Huh, I actually read that claim in a journal, TIL

The actual section says ‘sterilisation’ which would be permanent

To be clear, I am not endorsing the decision or criticising, I merely sought to state the fact of the change.

I believe it is important to be clear and factual when reporting and discussing such changes to avoid causing unnecessary panic, alarm and outrage. While the actual change is provided in an article linked from the one in the OP it isn’t directly stated in this article.

The language used in the article makes this sound like a much more impactful change than I suspect it is.

“Section 708.” This clause would prohibit TRICARE from covering any medical treatments for gender dysphoria in transgender youth under 18 that “could result in sterilization.”

To address your points

But WHY do we need this?

It could be argued that those under 18, as minors and not adults, can not consent to sterilization. We know that human brains are still developing until around 26 years old, so allowing someone under 18 to make such an enormous life altering decision may be irresponsible of society. Again, I am not aiming to endorse this decision, merely trying to understand the possible logic behind it.

If this was never something that cost money why are we spending the time of our most expensive politicians in this?

Cost is hardly the only factor that should be considered when politicians are making decisions, ethical and moral factors should also apply, though I doubt many politicians are aware things such as morals exist.

idiotic meddling of politics in medicine

For better or worse healthcare for is political for everyone, even in countries with universal healthcare. Healthcare is an enormous part of the social fabric of nations, of their economy, and impacts everyone. Healthcare professionals can hardly be trusted to always act in the best interest of people (see the Tuskege experiments, lobotomies and more) and so laws must be passed and enforced.

To be clear, it defunds any treatment for body dysmorphia that would result in infertility for under 18s, which does not exclude the most common forms of care for under 18s.