Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author:

‘Losing their health’: Detransitioner sounds alarm about sex-change surgeries negatively impacting children

‘Losing their health’: Detransitioner sounds alarm about sex-change surgeries negatively impacting children

As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the high-profile transgender case this past week, a prominent detransitioner and public speaker emphasized the importance of the case and said it could change everything about the gender ideology they fight in the United States.   U.S. v. Skrmetti revolves around a Tennessee law that bans sex-change treatments and surgeries for children. Experts believe the Supreme Court’s decision in the case could set a precedent that will shape laws about transgender treatments for children across the country. “It’s incredibly important that this law goes through so that other states, not just Tennessee, who have these protective laws, can uphold them in courts and maybe states that are more on the fence, like blue states or purple states, can have pressure put on them to put in these laws to protect children in their area as well,” Chloe Cole told Fox News Digital in the frigid cold outside the Supreme Court building “This is an identity crisis that is plaguing my generation right now,” she continued. “Children are losing their health, they’re losing their ability to grow up into adults, are losing their ability to have children when they become adults. It’s unconscionable.”   GOP TENNESSEE AG REACTS TO ORAL ARGUMENTS IN SUPREME COURT TRANSGENDER RIGHTS CASE: ‘FEEL REALLY GOOD’ Cole, who is 20 years old and began transitioning from a female into a male at the age of 12 and stopped at 17, said that she continues to suffer daily pain and faces serious health issues from the long-term effects of the sex-change treatments and surgery she received as a child. “I’ve been on the puberty blockers, the testosterone injections, and I’ve had a double mastectomy, and all three of these treatments have irreversibly and permanently affected my health,” she said. “I basically went through an artificial menopause while I was young,” Cole explained. “So, I was experiencing hot flashes and these other uncomfortable, painful symptoms that are not too dissimilar to what women naturally experience when they’re in their 40s, 50s, 60s, not before they’re even teenagers.” Some activists, including attorneys arguing against Tennessee’s law, posit that sex-change treatments help children suffering from gender confusion, improving their mental health and preventing suicide. However, many former transgender individuals – often called “detransitioners” – dispute the claim that sex-change treatments solve mental health issues. Instead, they say that in addition to causing physical problems, treatments can also lead to serious psychological damage. Besides having to live with the reality of having both her breasts cut off at the age of 15, Cole said that testosterone has also “made it so that I have permanent changes to my bone structure.” “I have a left-over Adam’s apple and facial hair growth, but I also have issues with my urinary tract, with pelvic pain [and] with things like sexual function, which, now, as an adult woman, that is something that has been both physically and psychologically incredibly painful,” she explained. “I’m a woman,” she went on. “I aspire to become a mother one day, I want to get married, and this is something that is going to undoubtedly affect my marriage, my romantic life, and potentially my ability to have children.” SOTOMAYOR COMPARES TRANS MEDICAL ‘TREATMENTS’ TO ASPIRIN IN QUESTION ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS DURING ORAL ARGUMENTS Although gender transition treatment is promoted by doctors and hospital systems across the country, Cole said that there are still many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of these treatments. “I don’t know what the lasting effects are on my fertility. There are so many unknowns about my health, I have no idea what the future of my health is going to look like,” she said. “It’s been years after the fact, and I’m still experiencing reeling effects from all of this when I could have just grown up into a healthy young woman with a body intact.” Although she continues to suffer the aftereffects of the treatments, Cole said she is resolved to stop more children from suffering what she underwent.   “This is not what children deserve,” she concluded. “Children deserve to be allowed to grow up with their bodies fully intact, they deserve a chance to learn how to love themselves the way that they are, the way they were born, the way that God beautifully crafted them in their mother’s womb.”

The Speaker’s Lobby: Thermonuclear Fracas

The Speaker’s Lobby: Thermonuclear Fracas

The 13 members of the House’s bipartisan panel investigating the assassination attempt of President-elect Trump huddled around a microphone in the Rayburn House Office Building early Thursday afternoon. The task force had just concluded its hearing exploring what went wrong and how to fix problems at the Secret Service.  “We tried to set the tone that this was going to be a serious and bipartisan effort,” said Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., the top Democrat on the task force. “And that’s exactly what you see here. And that’s exactly how it played out.” “We never identified as Republicans or Democrats. We have identified as task force members,” declared Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Penn., who chaired the effort. The committee forged common ground about how the Secret Service had failed its mission in Butler, Penn., when gunman Thomas Crooks nearly killed Mr. Trump. They are pleased with some reforms at the Secret Service, such as increased use of drones, automated robot “dogs” on the property of the incoming President’s golf club in Florida and enhanced communication with local law enforcement. SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TRUMP FINDINGS TO DOJ BEFORE LEAVING. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? Bipartisan lawmakers also expressed frustration that they never got to examine the body of Crooks. They still haven’t determined a motive. Nor have they established whether Crooks worked alone or had help. “The Department of Justice to this point has not provided this task force with information about the digital devices,” lamented Rep. Laurel Lee, R-Fla., who served on the committee. “And that’s still a black hole to this day?” asked yours truly. “Correct,” replied Lee. Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe was the lone witness at the hearing. He declared “there will be accountability and that accountability is occurring.” Yet he didn’t cite specific examples of discipline. “It is essential that we recognize the gravity of our failure. I personally carry the weight of knowing that we almost lost a protectee,” added Rowe at the hearing. “I have reflected extensively on the agency’s substandard performance during the advance for the Butler rally.” That’s all well and good. But no one will remember any of that. And in fact, no one will remember that the committee embodied one of the best examples of significant bipartisanship in Congress in years. That’s because of a thermonuclear fracas which erupted between Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Tex., and Rowe. I have covered Congress for decades. I’ve seen former Rep. Bob Walker, R-Penn., slam the gavel down so angrily that the head broke off and spiraled into the well of the chamber. I’ve seen a near fist-fight between lawmakers early in the morning of January 7, 2021, hours after the Capitol riot. Just last year, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., challenged Teamsters President Sean O’Brien to a fight during a hearing. Never mind that Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., chased former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., through the halls on the same day. Burchett said McCarthy elbowed him in the kidneys. But I have never observed a verbal brawl between a lawmaker and a witness like the Fallon-Rowe tilt. Both men utterly exploded in anger, barking at each other and jabbing their index fingers. Various accounts said the two “sparred.” If this was sparring, then Ali versus Frazier was afternoon tea at the Willard. “You are out of line!” thundered Rowe. “You are out of line, Congressman!” “Don’t try to bully me!” fumed Fallon. “Don’t try to bully me!” “Do not invoke 9/11 for political purposes!” yelled Rowe. “I was there out of respect!” “Oh, that’s a bunch of horse hockey!” retorted Fallon. “You endangered President Biden’s life! Vice President Harris’s life, because you put those agents out of position!” CONSERVATIVES WORRY CONGRESS WON’T HAVE ‘SPINE’ FOR SPENDING OVERHAUL AFTER DOGE MEETINGS Anything of substance about improvements by the Secret Service or after-action reviews fell by the wayside. This was now the main event. And no one would recall much else. Here’s some context on what lit the fuse to his melee: From the dais, Fallon held up a picture of President Biden, Vice President Harris, President-elect Trump along with President-elect and Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, standing at Ground Zero on 9/11 of this year. Fallon notes that Rowe is in the picture, near the principals. One photo displayed by Fallon even circled Rowe in red. Fallon asked Rowe whether he was the “Special Agent in Charge” or “SAC” that day. That’s where things spiraled out of control. “Actually, Congressman, what you’re not seeing is the SAC of the detail out of the picture’s view,” said Rowe. His voice then grew gravelly with just a splice of disdain. “That is the day where we remember the more than 3,000 people that have died on 9/11,” said Rowe, his verbal timbre rising. “I actually responded to Ground Zero. I was there going through the ashes of the World Trade Center. I was there at Fresh Kills (Landfall in New York).” That’s when Fallon sneered at Rowe. “I’m not asking you that! I’m asking you if you were the Special Agent in Charge!” hollered Fallon. “I was there to show respect!” countered Rowe.  “You were not!” shot back Fallon. INCOMING GOP SENATE MAJORITY LEADER UNVEILS LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S 1ST 30 DAYS Fallon asserted that Rowe was not serving as a true protective agent that day. He suggested that Rowe essentially shoved other agents out of the way for political purposes – endangering the lives of protectees. “You know why you were there? Because you wanted to be visible, because you were auditioning for this job that you’re not going to get!” said Fallon. He suggested that Rowe wanted the “acting” removed from his title. “Did you have a radio with you? Did you wear a vest? Did you wear a weapon? No,” said Fallon. “I did, sir!” growled Rowe. Before the hearing, I asked Rowe whether he wanted to become the permanent Secret Service Director. He didn’t respond. Fallon alleged that Rowe’s positioning asserts

As Trump nominee battles brew, NC Senate cleared of raucous onlookers

As Trump nominee battles brew, NC Senate cleared of raucous onlookers

While Washington is enveloped in battles over President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees, a different but equally raucous appointments battle boiled over this week just 300 miles down US-1 from the nation’s capital. North Carolina Republicans, seeing their veto-proof supermajority slip away by a single legislative seat in the state House, are trying to override outgoing Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s disapproval of a bill that would move gubernatorial authority over the NC Board of Elections to the State Auditor’s office. The Senate overrode the veto but not without an uproar that led to the gallery being cleared. The House is poised to attempt its complementary override, but the GOP’s plans have hit a snag there. The proposal was part of a bill chiefly geared toward Hurricane Helene relief, and was lambasted by Democrats as a power grab, in part due to the fact the GOP flipped the executive branch office with Auditor-elect Dave Boliek – but failed to see their gubernatorial candidate, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson best Gov.-elect Josh Stein. NC OVERRIDES VETO OF ICE-TRUMP AGENCY COOPERATION However, Robinson – as the Senate’s presiding officer – moved to clear the gallery after raucous protestations and chants of “Shame, Shame, Shame!” erupted above lawmakers preparing to vote on the veto override. Robinson has thus far had to do so twice, according to Carolina Public Press. As the eventually successful vote was about take place, a woman shouted “[the law] destroys the will of the voter – it’s voter suppression!” “It restructures the entire state constitution.” Robinson, without raising his voice, spoke into his mic that the woman was “disrupting … the legislative process.” When a gallery-watcher shouted that the bill lacked any “reasonable relief for hurricane victims,” Robinson banged his gavel and called out, “Clear the gallery.” “Everybody’s gotta go,” he said, as police calmly ushered spectators out, threatening those who remained with arrest. “You can bang that gavel,” one man was heard taunting Robinson as he left. NC JUDGE SENDS PROSPECTIVE JUROR TO JAIL OVER COVID MASK VIOLATION State Sen. Natasha Marcus, D-Huntersville, was heard on video captured by the Raleigh News-Observer calling out to Robinson that he could not clear the whole gallery, because many people were respectfully watching the vote, and saying the capitol is “the people’s house.” Before he vetoed the bill, Cooper told NBC Charlotte that the legislation “really didn’t provide immediate and direct funding to western North Carolina” despite being labeled as Helene relief. He called it a “massive power grab.” Jim Stirling, a research associate at the North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation, has done a deep dive into the controversy, and his group filed an amicus brief with lawmakers in a recent lawsuit related to the matter. “It is not under the purview of the governor to execute all laws. The other executive agencies of the executive branch or indeed other executive elected officials are in charge of executing law. Not just the governor,” Stirling said. “Under [Cooper’s] argument, he says effectively that all appointments must be under him because he’s in charge of executing the law, and he has the power of appointment on this.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Overriding the veto, however, could render part of the lawsuit moot, he said. The lawsuit will “probably need to be restarted based on the argument that these appointments must be under the governor, not any other executive agency (like the auditor),” he said. Neither Cooper nor Robinson responded to a request for comment.  In moving election boards’ appointment power to the state auditor’s office, the state board’s activities would remain independent of Boliek and the executive branch, but his office would control its appointments and funding, according to NBC Charlotte. What would change would be the current Democratic control of the elections board, an official told the outlet. The state auditor would also be able to appoint chairpersons in all 100 Tarheel State counties. Currently, Cooper – and would-be Stein – also appoint the state board’s members, who must consist of three majority-party and two minority-party individuals. Attempts to move appointment powers away from the governor’s office have been subject to lawsuits in recent months and years. The most recent ruling, in Cooper v. Berger, held that an attempt to move appointment powers to the legislature unlawfully infringed on the executive branch’s express power in that regard. A prior case, McCrory v. Berger – bearing the name of Cooper’s predecessor, Republican Gov. Patrick McCrory – resulted in a state supreme court ruling holding that some appointments made by legislators violate separation of powers. In the state House, three Republicans from the Helene-ravaged western part of the state voted against the bill, with one, Rep. Mark Pless of Canton, saying it had nothing “that was going to send money to the many needs in Western NC – it was simply moving money from one account to another.” Pless, however, said the election board appointments portion appears “allowable by the legislature,” according to FOX-8. The veto-override in the lower chamber, therefore, could come up just short if the trio do not change their original positions.

Special Counsel Jack Smith required to submit Trump findings to DOJ before leaving. What happens next?

Special Counsel Jack Smith required to submit Trump findings to DOJ before leaving. What happens next?

Special Counsel Jack Smith is required to submit to the Justice Department a report summarizing the results of his dual investigations into President-elect Trump — an action that will put a formal end to his two-year probe and one that will punt all next steps, including whether to make public the results of the report, to outgoing Attorney General Merrick Garland. Smith — a longtime prosecutor who worked in The Hague and at the Justice Department, including as chief of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section — was tapped by Garland in 2022 to investigate both the alleged effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as Trump’s keeping of allegedly classified documents at his Florida residence.  Justice Department regulations mandate that a special counsel submit to the attorney general a confidential report detailing the findings of their investigation after it is concluded, and explaining any prosecution or declination decisions they reached as a result of the probe. In Smith’s case, the prosecution decision is immaterial, given Trump’s status as president-elect and longstanding Justice Department policy against bringing criminal charges against a sitting president.  TIM WALZ ADMITS HE WAS SURPRISED BY ELECTION DEFEAT: ‘THOUGHT THE COUNTRY WAS READY’ But he still must outline the investigation and its findings in his report to Garland, who will then decide whether to share it publicly.  Notably, Garland has opted to release the reports from two other special counsels whose investigations concluded during his tenure — publishing both the summary reports submitted by John Durham, who was tapped by then-Attorney General Bill Barr in 2019 to review law enforcement and intelligence gathering during the 2016 presidential campaign and the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, as well as the final report from Robert Hur, a former U.S. attorney whom he tapped in 2023 to investigate President Biden’s handling of classified documents. These reports were made public at the same time as they were shared with members of Congress. But it is unclear whether Garland will move to do the same with Smith’s findings, given their sensitivity and Trump’s status as president-elect. The Justice Department declined to respond to Fox News’s request for comment on the status of the report or whether Garland plans to share it publicly.  Smith has long pointed to Dec. 2 as the deadline for his team to submit their final status reports to the federal judges in the D.C. and the 11th Circuit Courts summarizing the results of their investigations into the cases against Trump, which were dismissed without prejudice late last month. Under Justice Department regulations, a special counsel is required at the conclusion of their work to “provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached.” TRUMP’S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING’ Garland has the authority to decide whether to make Smith’s report public before Biden leaves office, or whether to punt it to the incoming Trump administration.  It is unclear how he will act, however, and the Justice Department did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for more information on the matter. Smith had indicted Trump in D.C. earlier this year on charges stemming from the former president’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election outcome, and his team also brought federal charges against Trump in Florida in the classified documents case.  Trump, for his part, had railed against the special counsel investigation as a politically motivated “witch hunt” and vowed during his presidential campaign to fire Smith “within two seconds,” if elected. Smith, for his part, is expected to resign before Trump’s inauguration, and his team of prosecutors has moved in recent weeks to wind down their cases against Trump. ‘IT’S A SETBACK’: DEMOCRATS CRITICIZE BIDEN OVER HUNTER PARDON Late last month, Smith filed motions to vacate deadlines in both cases against Trump following his election, citing an Office of Legal Counsel memo that states it is against Department of Justice policy to investigate a sitting president for federal criminal charges and is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.  They have also cited a July Supreme Court decision that widened the criteria for immunity for sitting presidents. Smith’s team stressed in their most recent court filing that their motion to vacate the case is based solely on the Office of Legal Counsel policy, and not on the merits of the investigation itself. “That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,” Smith’s office wrote in their motion to dismiss the election interference case. “The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed. But the circumstances have,” they added.