Connect with us

Politics

Judge Tosses Biden Rules Threatening Doctors And Parents Who Oppose Amputating Kids’ Genitals

Published

on

A federal judge in Texas threw out Biden administration guidelines threatening health care providers and parents with civil rights lawsuits over opposition to transgender surgeries that mutilate children’s sex organs.

In September last year, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas challenging regulations from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that mandated accommodation for trans-identified employees. Under the EEOC guidance, employers may be sued for discrimination over policies related to dress codes, bathrooms, and pronouns.

But in March, the case was amended to include new rules from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) covering how minors must be accommodated with wrongly named “gender affirming care.” The HHS regulations came in response to Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s February order, which tasked protective services with investigating so-called sex-change procedures on minors as child abuse, and stipulated that opponents to such severe medical intervention could be subject to civil rights lawsuits.

The Biden administration argued the new regulations were justified by the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, wherein the high court changed the meaning of “sex” in civil rights protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority 6-3 opinion, which declared that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to fire an employee for being gay or transgender. Writing in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito warned the majority ruling in Bostock would creep into attempted government coercion of every possible avenue of accommodation.

“Today’s decision may have effects that extend well beyond the domain of federal antidiscrimination statutes,” Alito wrote, citing another case where a transgender prisoner was denied hormone medication “and ability to dress and groom as a female.”

In striking down the Biden administration guidelines last week, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the administration overstepped in its regulations when it drew upon the court’s Bostock ruling. The Supreme Court, Kacsmaryk wrote, barred discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender identity under Title VII “but not necessarily all correlated conduct,” and cited Justice Alito’s hypothetical “parade of horrible” coming to fruition.

Kacsmaryk did not rule whether “correlated conduct” such as pronoun demands and bathroom rules is protected under Title VII but argued that the Supreme Court did not decide on the issue and left the door open.

“The Guidances and Defendants misread Bostock by melding ‘status’ and ‘conduct’ into one catchall protected class covering all conduct correlating to ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity,’” the judge wrote.

In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII barred the firing of employees for being gay or transgender, but the justices did not decide on how far protections extended under Title VII.

Meanwhile, sex change procedures for minors are on the rise. The business of transgender surgery is expected to become a $5 billion-dollar industry in the next 10 years, with major health care networks capitalizing on child sex changes. Gender-confused children who pursue irreversible medical treatments become permanent patients requiring lifelong treatment.

Boston Children’s Hospital has promoted “gender-affirming” hysterectomies and sterilizations for minors while Vanderbilt University openly describes child patients as dollar signs.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Leftist ‘Voter Guide’ Group Pushes Its Way Into Universities

Published

on

A left-wing “voter guide” group is contacting professors, attempting to place biased content in universities. The group claims its content is “nonpartisan.”

“We have made it simple to incorporate our guides and resources into your existing curriculum,” wrote Claire Adams, campus and youth programs director for Guides.Vote, in an email to a professor, obtained by The Federalist. “We hope you’ll check out our guides and use our resources to help your students vote.”

Adams apparently emailed college professors on Sept. 12, pitching content from Guides.Vote for use in the classroom. Youth Service America is the “fiscal host for the Guides.Vote initiative,” YSA Vice President of Partnerships Michael Minks told The Federalist. According to InfluenceWatch, YSA is a left-wing group that mobilizes youth to “influence elections.”

“With Higher Education in mind, our FREE resources have been created to be easily embedded in Canvas, or any other LMS [Learning Management System],” Adams wrote. “We would love to support you, your students, and your campus voter engagement efforts.”

She advertised “printable guides” and an “interactive quiz where students can guess where the presidential candidates really stand.” 

While the group claims its voter resources are “nonpartisan,” the guides indicate a clear bias in favor of left-wing candidates.

Promoting Democrat Candidates

Guides.Vote offers a guide contrasting former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris for November’s election.

One issue is “How to ensure effectiveness and fairness in law enforcement?”

The group said Trump thinks “police are ‘under siege.’ Cut back active federal oversight of

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Election Integrity Advocates Can Inspect South Carolina Voter Rolls, Federal Judge Rules

Published

on

A federal judge in South Carolina ruled Wednesday that an election integrity advocacy organization has the right to review the state’s voter rolls for ineligible voting.

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr., an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the South Carolina State Election Commission (SEC) could not block the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) from reviewing the Palmetto State’s voter rolls, despite it being an out-of-state organization.

Because voter rolls are a matter of public information under federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), the SEC could not block PILF from reviewing its Statewide Voter Registration List (SVRL), the court’s opinion explained.

“South Carolina’s prohibition on the distribution of the SVRL to only eligible South Carolina voters conflicts with the NVRA’s mandate that all records concerning maintenance and accuracy activities be made available for ‘public inspection,’” Anderson wrote. “Because adherence to South Carolina law would frustrate application of the Federal mandate, the state law must yield.”

The SEC, South Carolina’s executive agency responsible for administering elections, argued that state law would prohibit PILF from obtaining the voter records because the group is not a “qualified elector” in South Carolina. It therefore blocked PILF’s initial request for the data in February.

PILF is not a South Carolina voter, but “describes itself as a ‘public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity’ which ‘protects the right to vote and preserves the Constitutional framework of American elections through litigation, investigation, research, and education,’” the opinion noted.

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. To Appeal Decision Letting Michigan’s Secretary Of State Keep Him On The Ballot

Published

on

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said today he will appeal a federal court’s decision allowing Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, to keep him on the ballot despite his withdrawal from the presidential race. 

Judge Denise Hood, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, denied Kennedy’s attempt Wednesday to keep Benson from adding him to the ballot. According to The Detroit News, Kennedy notified Hood today that he would be appealing the ruling to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kennedy announced last month he would drop out of the race, withdrawing his name from the ballot in swing states like Michigan in hopes of helping former President Donald Trump defeat Vice President Kamala Harris. 

But Benson refused to take Kennedy off the ballot, citing concerns that the Natural Law Party — with which Kennedy was running — could not nominate another candidate before November, as The Federalist previously reported. Since then, Kennedy and Benson have been battling in court. Similar obstacles to Kennedy’s withdrawal have cropped up in other states. 

“The harm incurred by Defendant, the Natural Law Party, and Michigan voters outweighs that felt by Plaintiff if he is prohibited from withdrawing,” Hood wrote in the latest ruling. “Plaintiff’s motion is denied.”

Michigan is approaching election deadlines. According to the Detroit Free Press, county clerks must deliver absentee ballots to local clerks by Saturday, and “absentee ballots must be available to the general public by next Thursday.”

The Ruling

Kennedy asked the

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending