Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author:

GOP senator to propose ban on gender transition treatment for minors

GOP senator to propose ban on gender transition treatment for minors

FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., a former medical doctor, is expected to introduce legislation that would ban gender-related medical procedures on minors and impose a penalty for professionals who perform such treatments, Fox News Digital has learned. The bill, titled the Safeguarding the Overall Protection (STOP) of Minors Act, aims to prohibit youth gender transition treatment and “castration procedures” by banning “the use of interstate commerce to perform, attempt to perform, conspire to perform, or provide referral for any gender mutilation procedures on a minor.” “Americans resoundingly rejected the Left’s dangerous transgender agenda. Let’s call it exactly what it is: child abuse,” said Marshall.  Marshall is expected to introduce the bill on Capitol Hill on Wednesday: “The days of demented doctors and activists getting rich off of mutilating, sterilizing, and castrating children are over.” The STOP Act, if passed, would call on Health and Human Services (HHS) to impose a civil penalty of at least $100,000 on those “providing transgender mutilation services and treatments” for minors. Secretary Xavier Becerra currently heads HHS under President Biden. However, he will soon be succeeded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. when President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January.  GOP LAWMAKERS REVEAL A HEIGHTENED LEGISLATIVE FOCUS AGAINST ‘IRREVERSIBLE’ GENDER SURGERY ON MINORS The Republican senator’s bill also seeks to provide assistance to people who no longer want to continue the gender transition process, commonly referred to as detransitioners. COURT UPHOLDS RED STATE’S BAN ON TRANS SURGERIES, TREATMENTS FOR MINORS Marshall signaled he would work with Trump, who has suggested he would seek to slash “gender-affirming” care for minors, on the issue. “Our legislation keeps children’s safety paramount by prohibiting anyone from performing, facilitating, or even conspiring to give these irreversible therapies and procedures to minors,” Marshall said. “This bill is just the beginning of what’s to come with President Trump at the helm and our unwavering commitment to protecting children from transgender activists’ twisted and criminal agenda.” Marshall first teed up the bill during a panel led by Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, and a group of lawmakers who discussed a heightened GOP focus on legislation against transgender medical procedures on minors.  Lawmakers on the other side of the issue have spoken out in support of such procedures for minors, such as hormone replacement therapy and laser hair removal. Most recently, they pushed back on a ban in Tennessee that prevents minors from receiving puberty blockers. In September, a total of 164 lawmakers, including 11 senators and 153 representatives in the House, filed an amicus brief defending transgender youth against the ban.  The Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the law Wednesday and decide on whether to uphold the ban. Fox News’ Jamie Jospeh contributed to this report.

Supreme Court to weigh state ban on transgender ‘medical treatments’ for minors

Supreme Court to weigh state ban on transgender ‘medical treatments’ for minors

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a high-profile case involving the right of transgender minors to receive gender transition care, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, in one of the most closely watched, potentially impactful cases slated to come before the high court this year. The case, United States v. Skrmetti, centers on a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition treatments for adolescents in the state. The law also takes aim at health care providers in Tennessee who continue to provide gender-transition treatments to transgender minors, opening them up to fines, lawsuits and other liability.   The petitioners in the case are the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of parents of three transgender adolescents, and a Memphis-based doctor who treats transgender patients. The petitioners were also joined by the Biden administration earlier this year under a federal law that allows the administration to intervene in certain cases certified by the attorney general to be of “general public importance.”  The petitioners argue the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The state has responded by insisting the law does not discriminate based on gender, arguing it sets parameters on age- and use-based restrictions on certain drugs and is therefore not a violation of the Constitution. BIDEN’S SWEEPING HUNTER PARDON AT ODDS WITH LONGTIME RHETORIC ON EXECUTIVE POWER: ‘NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW’ According to the U.S. Supreme Court website, the key question posed in the case is “whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SBl), which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow ‘a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex’ or to treat ‘purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,’ Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Wednesday’s oral arguments mark the first time the Supreme Court will consider restrictions on puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors, giving the case importance in Tennessee and in other states across the country.  Tennessee passed its law, Senate Bill 1, in March 2023. But it is just one of at least 25 U.S. states that has banned gender transition care for transgender adolescents, making the case — and Wednesday’s oral arguments — one of the most high-profile cases to be heard this session.   The oral arguments have been anticipated for months. The controversial case comes at a time in Washington when Republicans will regain control of the White House and both chambers of Congress next month, giving them heavy influence and, some fear, more control over the federal judiciary.  Here’s what you need to know ahead of Wednesday’s oral arguments. Who’s arguing the case? The petitioners will be represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and Chase Strangio, an ACLU attorney who represented the original parties in the lawsuit. Strangio, the deputy director for transgender justice for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, will be the first openly transgender person to argue before the Supreme Court. The respondents in the case, namely the state of Tennessee, will be represented in court by Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice and the state attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti.  In a court filing submitted ahead of Wednesday’s oral arguments, Prelogar’s office argued the Tennessee law has a deliberate focus on “sex and gender conformity,” asserting Senate Bill 1 “declares that its very purpose is to ‘encourag[e] minors to appreciate their sex’ and to ban treatments ‘that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.’” “That,” the federal government wrote, “is sex discrimination.” Counsel for the petitioners will argue that the Tennessee law imposes “differential treatment based on the sex an individual is assigned at birth,” triggering a higher level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. HUNTER BIDEN GUN CASE TERMINATED AFTER PARDON, BUT FEDERAL JUDGE STOPS SHORT OF FULL DISMISSAL They will also argue that upholding the ban will represent a “dangerous and discriminatory affront” to transgender minors not just in Tennessee, but across the country, a point that has been emphasized by Strangio. The state argued in a court filing that the law “contains no sex classification” warranting the heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, it said, it “creates two groups: minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes.” The question of scrutiny  The Supreme Court has determined three different levels of scrutiny that help determine whether a law is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution: Strict scrutiny, heightened scrutiny and rational basis. The highest level, strict scrutiny, requires a law be passed to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to minimize harm.  The second level of scrutiny, or “heightened scrutiny,” requires the governmental body to prove its actions further an “important government interest” by using means “substantially related to that interest.”  The lowest bar, rational basis, is the most deferential of the tests and requires the law only serve a legitimate interest with a “rational connection” to the means and goals of the statute. Overview of the arguments Wednesday’s oral arguments will center on whether banning gender transition care for minors violates protections under the Equal Protection Clause, either via gender discrimination or discrimination against their transgender status. The petitioners in the case will argue that the Tennessee law discriminates against individuals and their right to receive the same medical treatments based on their sex. Under the law, the petitioners argued in their court filing, “an adolescent assigned female at birth cannot receive puberty blockers or testosterone to live as a male, but an adolescent assigned male at birth can.” TRUMP’S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING’ Separately, they will argue that discriminating against individuals based on their transgender status is also sufficient to trigger higher scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, noting that transgender individuals “satisfy all of the hallmarks of a quasi-suspect class,” including

Who else might Biden pardon after he spared Hunter from sentencing?

Who else might Biden pardon after he spared Hunter from sentencing?

President Biden pardoned son Hunter Biden Sunday after repeatedly vowing he would not spare him from sentencing in a pair of separate federal court cases.  Biden has just under 47 days remaining in the Oval Office before President-elect Trump’s inauguration as the 47th president.  As Biden’s term comes to an end, a handful of elected officials and others have called on the president to issue pardons for other Americans, including the suggestion of “preemptive pardons” for Democrats ahead of Trump’s second term.  HUNTER BIDEN PARDON WILL UNDERMINE PARTY’S ‘SELF-PROCLAIMED AUTHORITY’ ON RULE OF LAW: DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey claimed after the election he expects Trump to act in a “fascistic way” as president and called on Biden to pardon Democrats who could face prosecution under a second Trump administration.   “I think that, without question, Trump is going to try to act in a dictatorial way, in a fascistic way, in a revengeful first year at least of his administration toward individuals who he believes harmed him,” Markey claimed during a local radio interview last month.  “If it’s clear by Jan. 19 that that is his intention, then I would recommend to President Biden that he provide those preemptive pardons to people because that’s really what our country is going to need next year.”  Trump has long accused Democrats and the Biden administration of employing “lawfare” against him as he battled charges from racketeering to falsifying business records, with supporters such as Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., proclaiming last month that “accountability is coming” for those who targeted Trump.  Under Markey’s argument, Biden could preemptively pardon Democrats who directly prosecuted Trump on charges Trump has slammed as “shams” and “witch hunts.” A handful of congressional Democrats — most notably representatives Ayanna Pressley, Mary Gay Scanlon and James Clyburn — called on Biden last month in a letter to issue sweeping pardons to convicts in a bid to “reunite families, address longstanding injustices in our legal system, and set our nation on the path toward ending mass incarceration.” The lawmakers requested the president pardon those who have languished in prison systems for years and rectify “draconian” sentences imposed on criminals. The letter specifically called for the president to consider pardons for the “elderly and chronically ill, those on death row, people with unjustified sentencing disparities, and women who were punished for defending themselves against their abusers.”  SPECIAL COUNSEL, IRS WHISTLEBLOWERS SAY DON’T BUY BIDEN’S ‘SPIN’ ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN LEGAL SAGA “Now is the time to use your clemency authority to rectify unjust and unnecessary criminal laws passed by Congress and draconian sentences given by judges. The grant of pardons and commutations and the restoration of rights will undoubtedly send a powerful message across the country in support of fundamental fairness and furthering meaningful criminal justice reform,” they wrote in a letter to Biden last month.  Outgoing Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, a vocal critic of Trump’s, said earlier this year Biden should have pardoned Trump from his indictments.  “[Biden] should have fought like crazy to keep this prosecution from going forward,” Romney told MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle in May. “It was a win-win for Donald Trump. “You may disagree with this, but had I been President Biden, when the Justice Department brought on indictments, I would have immediately pardoned him,” he said. “I’d have pardoned President Trump. Why? Well, because it makes me, President Biden, the big guy and the person I pardoned a little guy.” Biden pardoning Trump is unlikely to happen and would only apply to his federal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Legal cases against Trump have stalled since his win last month.  ROMNEY SUGGESTS BIDEN MADE ‘ENORMOUS ERROR’ IN NOT PARDONING TRUMP: ‘IT WAS A WIN-WIN’ Biden has pardoned 26 people during nearly four years in office, a review of DOJ data shows. The majority of those individuals were convicted of drug crimes, such as conspiracy to distribute marijuana, conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine or conspiracy to manufacture, distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base.  In October, seven Senate Judiciary Committee members and Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock sent a letter to Biden calling on him to commute sentences for individuals who would have been handed shorter sentences under the 2018 First Step Act. The First Step Act was a criminal justice reform bill Trump signed into law following bipartisan support that reduced mandatory minimum sentences for some drug crimes.  “This Administration has the opportunity to deliver justice to incarcerated people who were sentenced under overly harsh mandatory minimums that the bipartisan First Step Act corrected,” Vermont Sen. Peter Welch, who signed the letter, told Politico earlier this year. “President Biden should heed our call and use the power of executive clemency while he has it.” 2 TIMES BIDEN SAID HE WOULD NOT PARDON SON HUNTER BIDEN  Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is again earning support from lawmakers and others to be pardoned after years of legal woes over his publication of classified military documents leaked to him by a source in 2010.  A bipartisan effort spearheaded by representatives James McGovern, D-Mass., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., called on Biden last week to pardon Assange and “send a clear message” that his administration will not target journalistic activity. REPS MCGOVERN, MASSIE URGE BIDEN TO PARDON JULIAN ASSANGE TO ‘SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE’ ON PRESS FREEDOM “We write, first, to express our appreciation for your administration’s decision last spring to facilitate a resolution of the criminal case against publisher Julian Assange and to withdraw the related extradition request that had been pending in the United Kingdom,” the lawmakers wrote to Biden. “This brought an end to Mr. Assange’s protracted detention and allowed him to reunite with his family and return to his home country of Australia.” Assange reached a deal with the U.S. Justice Department to end his imprisonment in the U.K. over charges related to publishing classified military documents. He had spent years in the U.K. to avoid extradition to the U.S. BIDEN PARDONS SON HUNTER

Faith in DOJ plummets as Biden, pardoning Hunter, joins Trump in denouncing the department

Faith in DOJ plummets as Biden, pardoning Hunter, joins Trump in denouncing the department

Let’s face it, trust in most of our government institutions has utterly collapsed. Many people don’t have faith in the FDA, the DOD, HUD, Homeland Security, the health agencies, and the list goes on. And they don’t trust the media to deliver basic facts about Washington without bias and blunders. These sentiments have basically been growing for the last 60 years, since the lies about Vietnam merged with the lies about Watergate and forced Richard Nixon to resign. BIDEN, TRUMP BOTH RIP DOJ AFTER PRESIDENT PARDONS HUNTER But the most sensitive federal agency, everyone would agree, is the Justice Department, including the FBI. Donald Trump has been attacking these agencies for years (along with the “fake news”), accusing them of politically persecuting him. He campaigned outside courthouses by telling reporters the prosecutors and judges were awful people who were out to get him solely because he was the leading candidate to win back the White House. Joe Biden, by breaking his promise not to pardon his son Hunter, did more than just lie. He ripped his own DOJ for “selectively and unfairly prosecuting” his son.  I used to patrol the endless hallways of the J. Edgar Hoover building as the Justice Department beat reporter. On the criminal side, it is supposed to be independent, since Justice often winds up investigating the administration. Back in the day it was filled with fair-minded career prosecutors who pursued legitimate leads regardless of party. In saying that Hunter Biden was singled out for harsh treatment, the outgoing president is making the same argument as the incoming president, that the department is badly biased. Little wonder that so many people don’t trust DOJ. All Biden had to do when repeatedly asked about a pardon or commutation was “I’m not going to discuss hypotheticals.” Then at least he wouldn’t have the lying part. There is no question that Pam Bondi, despite some roughing up, will be the next attorney general, having precisely the experience (Florida AG, career prosecutor) that Matt Gaetz so blatantly lacked. She is not going to blow up the department. But in picking Kash Patel to run the FBI – and ignoring that Chris Wray is not through with his 10-year term – Trump is sending a very different message. And this isn’t some dark secret. It’s in the nominee’s own words. TRUMP HIT FOR HIRING LOYALISTS LIKE PAM BONDI: DOESN’T EVERY PRESIDENT DO THAT? Patel has vowed to shut down the bureau’s Washington headquarters. He said last year on Steve Bannon’s podcast, which we played on “Media Buzz”: “We will go out and find the conspirators…not just in government, but in the media.… Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.” In his 2022 book “Government Gangsters,” Patel names 60 people as part of the deep state,  “a cabal of unelected tyrants…the most dangerous threat to our democracy.” The press has dubbed this an enemies list. It includes the aforementioned Bill Barr (for blocking his appointment), NSC chairman John Bolton (an “arrogant control freak”), and Defense Secretary Mark Esper (who tried to fire him). Also on the list, as recounted by the New Republic: Joe Biden.  Kamala Harris. Hillary Clinton. Merrick Garland. Samantha Power, who now runs the Agency for International Development. Former Obama officials James Clapper; John Brennan; Peter Strzok (who trashed Trump in texts with his FBI girlfriend, Lisa Page), Andrew McCabe (FBI deputy director), Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. A striking number are Donald Trump’s own appointees: Pat Cippolone (his White House counsel). Gina Haspel (his CIA director). Mark Esper. Charles Kupperman (his deputy national security adviser). TRUMP DROPPED MATT GAETZ AFTER COMPLAINING ABOUT HIGH POLITICAL COST OF DEFENDING HIM Cassidy Hutchinson (Mark Meadows’ top aide, who criticized Trump in her testimony before the House Jan. 6 committee). It’s a pretty big list. And having worked for Trump hardly provides immunity. Patel would have his work cut out for him, though he’d have to get a career prosecutor to submit a wiretap request or search warrant to the courts. Meanwhile, many Democratic lawmakers are hitting their party’s president pretty hard for the Hunter pardon, in interviews with the Times. Colorado Congressman Jason Crow: He promised he would not do this. I think it will make it harder for us going forward when we talk about upholding democracy.” Washington Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez: “The president made the wrong decision. No family should be above the law.” Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet said the Biden move “put personal interest ahead of duty and further erodes Americans’ faith that the justice system is fair and equal for all.” And his late dropout from the race was also “putting his personal interest ahead of his responsibility to the country.” Vermont Sen. Peter Welch: “President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter is, as the action of a loving father, understandable — but as the action of our nation’s chief executive, unwise.”  Michigan Sen. Gary Peters: “Wrong.” Pretty bracing stuff. Some progressives defended Biden, such as Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett: “Way to go Joe!” She said a 34-count convicted felon is about to walk into the White House, perhaps missing the news that Jack Smith has dropped the charges. On “Morning Joe” yesterday, Mika Brzezinski, while saying she wished Biden hadn’t promised no pardon, took on the coverage: “You look at what has happened on the Trump side, especially if you even parallel pardons that Trump has done himself, it’s just always so — it seems so hysterically imbalanced!” Joe Scarborough spoke of “the frustration that many Democrats are having on the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, a lot of mainstream organizations blowing this up to the size that they believe is really out of proportion, given everything Donald Trump has done in the past and what he’s doing right now.” Still, the two presidents have wound up in the same place in their view of the Justice Department as partisan and politicized. One fascinating tidbit dug up by