Internet trend-setter Google has joined the ranks of those leading another trend: offering fully inclusive health care benefits to transgender employees. Effective immediately, the company’s employee benefits policies will cover all medically necessary procedures and services for transgender employees in accordance with the Standards of Care maintained by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). These procedures include treatments commonly related to gender transition, such as hormone therapy, reconstructive chest and genital surgery, and mental health services.

In addition to WPATH, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the Endocrine Society, and other major medical professional associations have determined that transition-related care is safe, effective, and medically necessary. However, access to these medically necessary services is limited for many transgender people by insurance exclusions that specifically deny coverage for care related to being transgender.

The vast majority of medically necessary services denied to transgender people by insurance industry exclusions are routinely covered for non-transgender people and are all likely to be part of the list of essential benefits to be determined by the Department of Health and Human Services in the spring. These services include:

– coverage for services that may be involved in gender transition but that are also often medically necessary for non-transgender people, such as hormone therapy, hysterectomy, mental health services, and reconstructive surgery

– coverage for routine preventive screenings, such as screenings for ovarian, cervical, and prostate cancer, and other services that are typically associated with one gender or another

– coverage for services that are not transition-related, such setting a broken bone or treating pneumonia

Thanks to Google’s size, the company was able to negotiate with its current insurance providers to remove exclusions and to affirm that coverage is available for all services that a doctor has deemed medically necessary for a transgender employee. Google’s move to end discrimination against its transgender employees in health coverage is part of a growing trend by companies focused on winning the battle to attract and retain a highly qualified and competitive workforce. According to the 2011 Corporate Equality Index (CEI), 85 companies, including eight of the top 20 Fortune 500 companies and 26 of the American Lawyer top 200 law firms, already provide these benefits to their more than 2.6 million employees. In 2012, the CEI will begin requiring all companies that it rates to offer fully transgender-inclusive benefits in order to score a full 100 percent in its rankings.

These companies have consistently found that the costs involved in providing inclusive benefits for their transgender employees are negligible. And with overwhelming majorities of Americans agreeing that transgender people deserve protection from discrimination, there’s no better time for forward-thinking companies to cover all the basics for their transgender employees by ending discrimination in health care benefits.

The National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher has some special Thanksgiving advice (“handy ammo”) for her anti-gay followers. To proclaim your opposition to marriage equality at the dinner table, just follow these three simple steps:

1. State your position briefly.

2. Refute the charge of bigotry.

3. A call to tolerance. (Repeat as necessary… “or until they bring in the pie.”)

Watch it:

Maggie’s advice seems questionable. When demonstrating a “stubborn and complete intolerance” for someone else’s belief, simply saying it isn’t bigotry doesn’t mean that it isn’t bigotry. In fact, her model conveniently sets up the self-victimization NOM is so fond of, because it depends upon the idea that being intolerant of same-sex couple’s right to marry in no way contradicts “a call to tolerance.” As always, the “moral high ground” is more important than any appreciation for the actual experience of LGBT families.

Maggie claims this lopsided, asymmetrical approach is going to make the “pretty uncomfortable” dinner conversation somehow go smoother. In reality, she probably hopes that anyone who follows this advice provokes such an offensive reaction that they can be duped into further believing equality opponents are the true “victims” in the culture war.

It’s no secret that social conservatives are not thrilled about the prospect of Mitt Romney winning the Republican presidential nomination, but what is a secret is the meeting key leaders of the movement in Iowa held this week to prevent that prospect from becoming a reality. Representatives for leading social conservative groups met covertly in Iowa Monday with the hope of choosing an alternative candidate that social conservatives could unite behind, CNN reports:

The meeting, the group’s first, took place in a private office building in Des Moines on Monday. In attendance were representatives from the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, The Family Leader, the group Iowa Right to Life, and a representative for the Iowa chapter of Concerned Women for America. Some pastors from prominent Iowa churches also attended the meeting. [...]

Sources say there were about 20 to 25 people present at the meeting and that another meeting is planned for Monday of next week.

The problems for Romney here are obvious. Romney used to be staunchly pro-choice, saying, for example, when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, “I sustain and support [Roe v. Wade], and the right of a woman to make that choice.” And while Romney now vows to restrict a woman’s right to choose if elected, the specifics of his anti-choice positions are unclear, as he has refused to take a position on key issues. He’s also been relatively progressive on gay rights, saying just this week, “I favor gay rights.” And Romney’s Mormon faith could pose problems as well, as a recent Pew survey noted that a majority of white evangelical protestants do not view the religion as Christian.

In their search for an alternative, attendees at the Iowa meeting disqualified Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) because of his libertarian leanings on social issues, and also dimissed Herman Cain because of a “lack of consistency on issues of sanctity of life and marriage” and “some concern he’s maybe not quite experienced enough in civics.”

The police officer who casually pepper-sprayed students at University of California, Davis, was involved in a discrimination lawsuit alleging that he used an anti-gay slur against an openly-gay officer, the Daily Mail reports. The racial and sexual discrimination lawsuit specifically singled out Lt. John Pike, a retired Marine sergeant, for “using a profane anti-gay epithet” against a gay police officer. The case ended in a $250,000 settlement:

Officer Calvin Chang’s 2003 discrimination complaint against the university’s police chief and the UC Board of Regents alleged he was systematically marginalized as the result of anti-gay and racist attitudes on the force, and he specifically claimed Pike described him using a profane anti-gay epithet.

Katehi identified Pike as one of the officers involved in the pepper-spray incident in an interview with the campus television station Sunday, and university communications staff confirmed his role Tuesday.

Watch a local news report about the story:

“When I saw that, I was as shocked as anybody else, but not surprised when I realized who it was,” Chang, the accusing officer, told a local ABC affiliate. “Every police officer should know students have a right, citizens have a right to assemble and to peacefully protest. And they should not be met with violence.”

Pike and another officer have been placed on paid administrative leave.