In this reading journal, I will be summarizing and analyzing this article on New York Times called “Biden Rule Would Strengthen Health Protections for Gay and Transgender People.”
Starting off from the headline, I think it does reflect the content of the actual article. The headline talks about how there will be more “health protections for gay and transgender people,” suggesting that the article will be about how the Biden administration announced rules to protect gay / transgender people against the discrimination that stops them from being benefited from the Affordable Care Act after Trump cancelled the protection against transgender patients in 2020.
The discourse group that Sheryl belongs to is probably the community of public health experts who fight for equal health care rights for all. The intended audience of this article is people who don’t consider themselves to be refined in the traditional sexual orientation and gender identity, or the queer community. According to Joni Madison in the article, “Despite the advances in policy during the Obama and Biden administrations, L.G.B.T.Q.+ people continue to face disproportionate challenges when it comes to accessing health care.” Due to the challenges faced by the queer community, they would be interested in reading this article.
In the article, Sheryl used a lot of ethos to build up her credibility. This is achieved by quoting a lot of healthcare experts in the field. One example will be
Health care is health care, and if you need access to it, you should not be obstructed from accessing care,” Mr. Becerra said, adding, “That, to me, is the most important principle.”
Other than ethos, Sheryl also used a lot of pathos to make people feel bad for the queer community for not having equal rights. One example is how queer people had a hard time getting health insurance and physical healthcare.
Overall, I think Sheryl presented her argument about equal healthcare rights pretty effectively through her use of persuasive languages.