Trump Returns Authority Over School Transgender Policies to States and Localities

On February 22, the Trump administration released a statement rescinding previous Obama administration guidance dealing with students who identify as transgender.

Contrary to almost all the news reporting on this story, the real question addressed by the new administration’s guidance is not (at least not directly), “Which restrooms or locker rooms should students who identify as transgender use?”

Instead, it is something much simpler — “Who gets to decide?”

The answer that President Trump’s administration has now given is also simple: “Not us. Not the federal government.”

Getting Title IX Right

The two Obama administration documents that have now been rescinded — a 2016 “Dear Colleague” letter to every school district in the country, and a lesser-known “opinion letter” issued January 2015 — asserted a specific interpretation of a specific federal law.

“Title IX” is common shorthand for “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972” — a federal law which prohibited discrimination on the basis of “sex” in any school that receives federal funds (as all do).

The Obama administration argued that discrimination based on “sex” includes discrimination based on “gender identity;” and that failing to treat students in accord with their self-perceived “gender identity” (rather than their biological sex) in all school activities (including restroom and locker room assignments) constitutes such “discrimination.”

This position is legally untenable. Title IX was enacted by Congress, and signed into law by President Nixon, in 1972. It strains credulity to suggest that the legislative intent of Congress — 45 years ago — was to authorize biological males to use female facilities, and vice versa. The logical conclusion is that “sex” in Title IX is a reference only to one’s biological sex at birth.

If Congress wanted to expand the reach of Title IX to encompass “gender identity” as well as “sex,” Congress could amend the law to do so. Until now, they have chosen not to. No president simply has the authority under our Constitution to effect such an expansion unilaterally. President Trump’s decision to withdraw the Obama guidance should be welcomed by anyone who believes in limited government or in the rule of law — regardless of how they feel about transgender issues.

Legal Issues With “Gender Identity” Protection

Making “gender identity” a protected category under non-discrimination laws or policies would raise concerns beyond the question of bathrooms and locker rooms. Will staff be punished for inadvertently referring to a transgender student by the wrong, non-preferred, pronoun? Will fellow students have their freedom of speech or religion infringed upon, by being punished for expressing the view that God created human beings male and female, or that biological sex is a more valid indicator of maleness or femaleness than subjective “gender identity?”

The issue of sex-separated facilities or programs is an important one. Even future Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, defending the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit sex discrimination under the law, wrote in the Washington Post in 1975 that “the equality principle” is compatible with having facilities separated on the basis of sex, declaring, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.”

Common sense, however, tells us that the reason we have separate facilities for men and women, boys and girls in the first place is not because their gender identities are different, but because their anatomy is different.

Privacy Needs

Court precedents on physical privacy have established that it is a right which includes the right not to expose one’s nude or semi-nude body to someone of the opposite biological sex, and similarly not to be exposed involuntarily to the nude or semi-nude body of someone of the opposite biological sex. The Obama guidelines would have cast this privacy right to the winds, in favor of an unrestricted preference for gender identity over biological sex.

Many observers express concern about the needs of students who identify as transgender — as they should. But what about the concerns of Kaeley Triller Haver — a rape survivor who showered in her underwear because of the trauma she had endured? What about the female student in Illinois who now wears her gym clothes to school under her regular clothes — and then puts the regular clothes back on over the gym clothes, without showering — in order to avoid exposing herself to a biological male who was given permission to use the girls’ locker room?

Providing single-user, gender-neutral restrooms or changing facilities is a reasonable accommodation that could protect everyone’s concern for privacy and safety — yet it has been rejected as discriminatory by transgender activists and the Obama administration.

The Trump administration policy will open the door for such accommodations to ensure that the legitimate needs and concerns of all students are met. This is far preferable to a “one-size-fits-all,” top-down solution imposed by the federal government. (For more from the author of “Trump Returns Authority Over School Transgender Policies to States and Localities” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hollywood Liberal Groupthink on Display at Oscars

Once again, Hollywood showcased its complete lack of diversity in thought at the Oscars.

Of course, it’s a free country, and Hollywood is fine to keep its liberal streak going … just as conservatives can continue to decide whether they want to support new movies.

But it does suggest that there might be a lot of fine stories left untold and moral dilemmas left unexplored, because Hollywood limits itself to such a narrow mindset.

Here are three “highlights” from Sunday night’s 89th Academy Awards ceremony:

1. Actresses Emma Stone and Dakota Johnson wear their support for Planned Parenthood.

What’s lovelier than plugging the nation’s largest abortion provider?

2. Host Jimmy Kimmel takes aim at President Donald Trump.

If you are among the half of all voters who supported Trump for president, Kimmel wasn’t interested in winning your support. The late-night host made several cracks about Trump, including: “This broadcast is being watched live by millions of Americans and around the world in more than 225 countries that now hate us.”

“I want to say thank you to President Trump. Remember last year when it seemed like the Oscars were racist? That’s gone, thanks to him,” Kimmel also said.

3. Iranian filmmaker attacks the travel ban.

“My absence is out of respect for the people of my country and those of the other six nations who have been disrespected by the inhumane law that bans entry of immigrants to the U.S.,” Asghar Farhadi, who didn’t attend the Oscars, said in a statement read out loud when his movie, “The Salesman,” won for best foreign language film.

“Dividing the world into the ‘us’ and ‘our enemies’ categories creates fears. A deceitful justification for aggression and war. These wars prevent democracy and human rights in countries which have themselves been victims of aggression,” Farhadi added in his statement, which got a warm reception from the audience.

Right—because of course, it’s crazy to hit pause on people from seven countries considered terrorism hot spots entering the United States. The only possible reason could be inhumanity, not a desire to protect the security of American citizens. (For more from the author of “Hollywood Liberal Groupthink on Display at Oscars” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘A Day Without a Woman’ Organizers Call Prostitution ‘Women’s Work’

I’ve tried, really I have, but I just can’t register anything but exasperation and disgust at these instructions for the International Women’s Strike, aka, A Day Without a Woman, being planned for March 8th. This is ridiculous.

How to organize and participate in the International Women’s Strike on March 8

The strike is inclusive of all women and of all forms of work women do: women working in the formal labor market with or without labor rights, with or without unions and the legal right to strike, and with or without legal status; unemployed women; sex workers; women performing unpaid housework and care work; and students. For this reason, participation in the strike can take several forms:

1. Wherever it is possible, help the creation of a large women’s strike social coalition. Check for information about local organizing on our website: www.womenstrikeus.org. If there is no meeting yet for your town, help call one!

2. Organize or participate in local marches, demonstrations and walkouts.

3. Organize or participate in picket lines and direct actions of civil disobedience. This can also be organized in support of already existing campaigns or labor negotiations or controversies, especially if involving working women.

4. Organize a strike in your workplace. If you have a union, get your union on board; if you don’t, assess with your coworkers whether it is possible to organize a walkout without jeopardizing your job.

5. Organize a boycott of companies using sexism in their advertisements or approach to workers.

6. Organize a boycott of chosen local misogynists.

7. If you can, leave care and housework for the day and join your local demonstrations.

8. In case you can’t stop work, get your friends together who support the strike and wear or use the color red that day, for example, red clothes, or a red ribbon.

9. Strike from gender roles.

Please tell me I’m not the only person who did a double-take. I still can’t believe I’m reading that correctly. “Sex workers.” “All forms of work women do.” Apparently prostitution is women’s work. And in order to teach these misogynists a thing or two, “sex workers” should go on strike for a day and see how well those ungrateful jerks get along without them. Then come March 9th, it’s back to “work”?

For All Those “Unpaid Houseworkers”

I suppose I find myself included in their list under, “women performing unpaid housework and care work.” I guess taking care of my children at home would be “care work.” And I don’t receive a paycheck for keeping the house clean, so that must be unpaid housework.

I guess I’m supposed to declare the couch and the television mine for the day and refuse to lift a finger for my family. No cooking, no changing diapers (sorry, baby, but a strike is a strike. Change your own poopy diaper). Not a dish will I wash, nor a towel will I fold, nor a meal will I prepare for those selfish, blood-sucking leeches who take from me all day long without so much as kissing my feet or prostrating themselves in homage.

The indignity! I am Woman!

I’m sorry if that sounds a bit over the top, but this “worship me because I’m a woman” routine really grates on the nerves. It’s especially tone-deaf coming from a leftist mob that is willing to call a man in a dress a woman just because he says he’s a woman and got himself some breast implants. Yeah, you don’t get to lecture anyone on the value of women’s contributions to society when you can’t even correctly identify a woman.

Then There’s the So-Called “Sex Work”

Looking at #5 and #6 on the list up there, I have to ask: Isn’t “sex work” rather sexist? Misogynist, even? How exactly does prostitution display a deep respect for women? How does “sex work” combat misogyny?

When you boycott all those local misogynists, will that include the pimps and the strip joints? What do you think your one-day boycott is going to accomplish? You’re on record saying that sex is legitimate work for a woman. So how can you complain about those misogynists who take you at your word?

And by the way, a lot of those “sex workers” could be minor girls who “work” for folks who traffick them from place to place whether they like it or not, so you be sure to let them know they should go on strike for a day from their “work.” Trafficking, what am I saying? I meant business trips.

Who are all the other “local misogynists” in your crosshairs? Probably anyone who still believes that men and women, while equal in dignity, are indeed quite different by design, and that’s a good thing. Certainly anyone who refuses to think that equality for women requires championing the slaughter of babies in the womb. And certainly anyone who still thinks a woman is, by definition, biologically female.

Striking From “Gender Roles”

How exactly are we supposed to “strike from gender roles,” anyway? Why on earth should I need to strike from the roles uniquely afforded to me precisely because I am a woman? And what’s wrong with being a woman? I don’t want to be a man!

Also, does this striking from “gender roles” mean the “sex worker” gets to play the pimp for the day?

You cannot scream about the irreplaceable value of women while disdaining the very things only women can do, then legitimize the sexual exploitation of women. Women and girls for sale is not “work.”

Join Me in Striking This Strike

This is one woman who won’t be going on strike. The only thing I’m motivated to protest these days is insane leftist nonsense like this.

I refuse to take my cue from anyone who considers prostitution “a form of work women do,” yet has no idea whatsoever what it means to be a homemaker. All that “unpaid housework and care work.”

On the contrary, on March 8th and every day, I’ll be grateful for my vocation as a wife and mother; happy to keep my home clean, and my family fed and cared for. It’s my honor to serve my family. And when my husband comes home from a hard day at work, I’ll be especially grateful I didn’t have to live a day without a man — my man. I already know he’s grateful not to have to live a day without a woman — me. (For more from the author of “‘A Day Without a Woman’ Organizers Call Prostitution ‘Women’s Work'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Nothing More Feminist Than Self-Defense, Gun Rights Advocate Says

A panel of women said that gun rights should be a feminist issue Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.

During the discussion, Antonia Okafor, a student at the University of Texas at Dallas and campus carry advocate, said gun rights—and the ability to independently protect yourself—are the very epitome of feminism.

“How much more feminist can you get than by talking about self-defense and advocating for that,” Okafor said.

Gun advocates Kimberly Corban, Ashlee Lundvall, and Kristi McMains joined Okafor on the panel moderated by Townhall.com editor Katie Pavlich.

“We need to let women know it’s OK, it’s prudent, it’s legal, it’s moral to carry a gun for self-protection, in fact, it could save your life, because it saved mine,” McMains said.

McMains said she was attacked in a parking garage last year, and she used her concealed weapon to successfully fight off an attacker.

McMains spoke about the side of the gun control debate she said often goes unaddressed—how guns save lives.

“You can become a victim of violence anywhere, anytime, and therefore I should be able to save my own life anywhere, anytime,” McMains said. “When the time comes, should we need to, we’re gonna use [a firearm] to save our lives.”

Corban, a sexual assault survivor and vocal supporter of gun rights, said both the fear and curiosity surrounding guns can be alleviated through education.

“[Education] in it of itself is going to make a better firearms community, a better community in general,” Corban said.

“That’s the feminist movement, right?” she continued. “We want women to be educated and empowered, and feel like they can do anything and watch them do it.”

Corban said she hopes women will realize that guns are empowering, not something to be afraid of.

“Someone else already took my power away and I’m going to take it back,” Corban said.

According to a report from the National Rifle Association, women are the fastest-growing group of gun owners in the country. In 2011, 23 percent of women self-reported as gun owners, a 10 percent increase from 2005, a Gallup poll found. Additionally, 42 percent of women who own a firearm own at least three.

CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, runs from Wednesday to Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington. (For more from the author of “Nothing More Feminist Than Self-Defense, Gun Rights Advocate Says” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Activists Discuss What Can Be Done to Advance Pro-Life Cause

Panelists told attendees of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, that President Donald Trump has reset the tone of the pro-life movement for the better.

“President Trump … has put an end to the failed Republican strategy of … personally professing our adherence to the pro-life cause and then equivocating when it came time to vote,” Sean Fieler of American Principles Project said.

Fieler said Trump’s fearlessness of the media coupled with his life experience has made him an unlikely yet ideal spokesman for the pro-life cause:

We were afraid of the media’s narrative on abortion. President Trump is not afraid of the media’s narrative on abortion and he understood that he could communicate directly to the American people. He also understood that his personal life … he’s no Boy Scout, gave him the freedom to explain to the American people that abortion is the taking of a human life without a demoralizing tone and without suggesting even judgment.

The panel, titled “How the Election Has Changed and Expanded the Pro-Life Movement,” also included filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, and Marcie Little, creative director of pro-life organization Save the Storks.

The media, Fieler said, is one way the pro-life movement can act to bring change.

‘Engage the Media’

“We have to change political reality into cultural reality into action,” Fieler said.

Documentary filmmakers McAleer and McElhinney have made strides in using media to advance the pro-life message.

Their new documentary film, “Gosnell,” was made to help educate the public on the horrors of abortion.

“I was in Pennsylvania promoting a documentary … I saw this [court case of] this guy called Gosnell,” McAleer said.

McAleer said that he was intrigued and followed the case, which eventually led him to convince his colleague and spouse, McElhinney, to create a documentary film on convicted abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

Gosnell was sentenced to three life terms in prison for murdering three babies that were born alive at his abortion clinic.

Gosnell’s abortion clinic, Women’s Medical Society clinic in Philadelphia, was called a “house of horrors” by some due to Gosnell’s illegal practices.

McAleer and McElhinney are screening their new film at CPAC.

‘Challenge the Assumptions’

“I think for too long we have not challenged the assumption that abortion is good for women,” Little said.

Little of Save the Storks, a pro-life organization that offers alternatives to abortion, said she has seen firsthand the struggles post-abortive women face.

“I help run social media for Save the Storks … and I sit on the receiving end of the stories we get on a weekly and sometimes daily basis of women who have had abortions and walked through that struggle … and they are full of regret,” Little said.

Be Where the Need Is

Little said she believes that one of the best things activists can do for the pro-life movement is to be where women are who find themselves in crisis pregnancies.

“We tell their stories and we go right where they are,” Little said.

Little said that one way Save the Storks goes where the women are is through its medical mobile unit outreach.

“We offer them free resources right outside the door of the abortion clinic. Our messaging is women-centric—it is women first, we focus on how empowering it is to give women real information so they see … their child perfectly formed, to hear their heartbeat, and are motivated to choose life,” Little said.

CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, runs from Wednesday to Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington. (For more from the author of “Activists Discuss What Can Be Done to Advance Pro-Life Cause” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No, a Study Did Not Show That Same-Sex “Marriage” Laws Reduce Teen Suicide Rates

You probably saw the breathless reports suggesting, as CNN did, that “same-sex marriage may decrease teen suicide attempt rates, study says.” A yes, a study. A statistical study. That’s supposed to give it gravitas. In fact many, perhaps even most, statistical studies simply can’t be trusted. Certainly not this one.

The study in question is the peer-reviewed paper “Difference-in-Differences Analysis of the Association Between State Same-Sex Marriage Policies and Adolescent Suicide Attempts” by Julia Raifman, Ellen Moscoe, and S. Bryn Austin, in the once-prestigious journal JAMA Pediatrics.

This widely touted work purports to have discovered, using statistical methods, “that same-sex marriage policies were associated with a 7% reduction in the proportion of all high school students reporting a suicide attempt within the past year.” The authors say there is now “empirical evidence for an association between same-sex marriage policies and mental health outcomes.”

Association.

Think about what the authors are implying: that the mere presence of gmarriage — government-defined marriage, as opposed to marriage defined by reality — stops teens from reporting suicide attempts.

Implications

If what these authors are eager to imply is true, it must have been that some teenagers before gmarriage reported trying to kill themselves because there was no such thing as gmarriage. Or it must be that some teenagers after gmarriage became the “law of the land” thought to themselves, “You know, I was going to report trying to kill myself. But now that Bert and Ernie can be gmarried, I won’t report it.” (Both could be true.)

About the number of teenagers who actually killed themselves because of the absence of gmarriage — or because of the presence of gmarriage — nobody knows. The study only relates how many kids self-reported suicide attempts. Since most of the kids giving answers were 15-16, it can’t have been because of actual forbidden gmarriage or marriage ceremonies that caused reporting suicide attempts (of course, there could have been a handful of child brides or grooms in the data).

This is among all teens, mind you, and not just the minority reporting same-sex attraction or other non-biologically oriented sexual desires. The authors claim the effect was greater in the sexual minority.

Weighted Realities

Forgive the dive into the details, but it’s necessary to see what’s really happening. Via a complicated massaging of numbers, the authors say that before gmarriage

a weighted 8.6% of all high school students and 28.5% of 231 413 students who identified as sexual minorities reported suicide attempts before implementation of same-sex marriage policies. Same-sex marriage policies were associated with a 0.6-percentage point…reduction in suicide attempts, representing a 7% relative reduction in the proportion of high school students attempting suicide owing to same-sex marriage implementation.

A weighted 8.6% to a weighted 8%, they say. This is a 7% reduction, all right, but a minor tweak in the actual weighted number. Thee numbers are weighted averages across several states and the result of a statistical model called a linear regression. The 0.6 drop is not observed, but is the output from a model.

What’s odd is that the authors report the rate for teens reporting non-traditional sexual desires (a modeled 4% drop from 28.5%), and also for all teens (that modeled 0.6% drop), a group which includes the sexual minority. But they don’t report numbers for normal teens (did this number increase?). This omission leads one to suspect the authors are fooling themselves. This is suggested in two ways.

Complication

The first is that these numbers are modeled averages across states. The numbers within states is anything but straightforward (the authors provide graphs). For instance, some states show reported suicide attempts increasing after gmarriage (New York, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, for example). The graphs also indicate a general decline in rates before gmarriage and continuing afterwards (see their Fig. 3). What makes this even more curious is that there are only a couple of years of data after gmarriage (there are many before), making comparisons more prone to error.

But those are all quibbles. Forget them if you like. The second reason is more to the point. The year each state imposed gmarriage was put into the authors’ model: this created a before and after period. The attempted suicide rates in the before period were caused by any number of things, but, the authors imply, some of the attempts were because of the lack of gmarriage.

In the after period, there were still myriad causes of suicide attempts, but one cause was removed (lack of gmarriage). Thus some kids who would have tried to unsuccessfully kill themselves did not try because of gmarriage access (but not for themselves, because they were too young).

Correlation is not Causation!

But — and this is a big but — since no questions about why kids tried to kill themselves were asked, the demarcation of before and after is entirely arbitrary. The year most cited for gmarriage was 2014. Thus not only could access to gmarriage by others (but not for themselves) be used, so could the Ebola epidemic becoming a global health crisis, which also happened in 2014, and which was one of the biggest news stories of the year, according to ABC.

Think: putting Ebola in the model works equally well with gmarriage to explain the data. So do the disasters of those crashing Malaysian airliners, or the fighting in Ukraine and Crimea. So does the 2014 Winter Olympics! And the death of sad-funny-man Robin Williams (all mentioned by ABC).

Or any of an uncountable number of events. The truth is the data do not say, and cannot say, what caused the observed changes. It is sloppy statistics — it is bad science, period — to suggest the one thing the authors thought of had to be the one and only cause of the changes.

It is made worse when this cause has so little bearing on the lives of the people purported to be affected. Fifteen and 16-year-olds do not often marry, and nobody has (yet?) heard of any same-sex “weddings” between teenagers.

And it grows worse yet again, when it is implied, as the authors do imply, that the increases after gmarriage in specific states were actually decreases — because the (modeled) mean across states decreased.

If suicide attempts increased in a state after gmarriage, as it did in several states, could it be that the presence of gmarriage is causing more kids to try and kill themselves?

If not, why not? (For more from the author of “No, a Study Did Not Show That Same-Sex “Marriage” Laws Reduce Teen Suicide Rates” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Right to Fix Obama’s Unlawful Transgender School Policy

The Trump administration acted Wednesday night to fix the Obama administration’s unlawful “gender identity” school policy and return authority to parents and teachers in the states.

Civil rights officers in the Department of Justice and the Department of Education issued a joint letter saying the administration was rescinding the policy, which had required schools to allow transgender students to use the restrooms, locker rooms and similar facilities of their choice—or face loss of federal funds.

In the letter, they said the Obama mandate did not show “due regard for the primary role of the states and local school districts” in making education policy.

The Trump administration is doing the right thing in correcting Obama’s unlawful overreach, which imposed a one-sided solution on all 50 states. Parents and teachers in local schools now can work to find win-win solutions that protect the dignity, privacy, and safety of all students.

For years, the Obama administration unilaterally had redefined bans on “sex” discrimination to include “gender identity.”

The problem came to a head May 13, when Obama’s Justice and Education departments sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to our nation’s schools, informing them that “both federal agencies treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of enforcing Title IX,” a 1972 law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded schools.

With this decree, the Obama administration directed all schools to allow “students to participate in sex-segregated activities and access sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity.”

Schools were told they had to allow students access to bathrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, and hotel rooms for overnight field trips based entirely on the self-declared gender identities of their students.

On Aug. 21, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled the Obama administration’s attempt to redefine sex was unlawful, and blocked the decree from going into effect.

O’Connor held that it “cannot be disputed that the plain meaning of the term sex as used … following passage of Title IX meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female,” and he placed a nationwide injunction on the administration’s guidance to schools.

The Justice Department, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, appealed this ruling Oct. 20.

But on Feb. 10, with Jeff Sessions as the nation’s new attorney general, the Justice Department withdrew that motion for a stay and cancelled the scheduled oral arguments.

The Trump administration rescinded the Obama guidance saying officials would interpret the word “sex” in Title IX to mean “gender identity.” Instead, the administration will allow parents and teachers to work together in local schools to find nuanced solutions that address the needs of everyone.

Wednesday night’s moves signaled a change in position that could have a significant impact on the Justice Department’s controversial Title IX lawsuit against North Carolina’s Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act (known as HB2), which the Trump administration inherited.

The actions also could affect a Title IX gender identity case, currently set for oral argument at the Supreme Court next month, that depends in large part on the Department of Education’s position.

Dignity, Privacy, and Safety Concerns

Last week at The Heritage Foundation, a panel of women explained the many policy problems with “gender identity” laws.

As one of them said, “when gender identity wins, women always lose.”

The panelists—a rape survivor, a lesbian, a feminist activist, a stay-at-home mom, and a conservative—explained how people who identify as transgender should be free to live as they want, but that the law shouldn’t therefore eliminate women-only spaces or redefine what it is to be a woman.

While we must be sensitive to the dignity, privacy, and safety concerns of people who identify as transgender, that is not a reason to ignore the dignity, privacy, and safety concerns of everyone else.

Unfortunately, the Obama-era policies were entirely one-sided. They favored the concerns of people who identify as transgender while entirely discounting the concerns of others.

Safe Spaces for Women, a group that “provides survivors of sexual assault with care, support, understanding, and advice,” recently submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court explaining how gender identity policies can negatively impact sexual assault survivors:

Safe Spaces for Women has a strong interest in ensuring that the voices of women who have suffered sexual abuse are heeded when policies are made that may directly affect their physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. This includes policies that require educational institutions covered by Title IX to admit to female showers, locker rooms, and restrooms biological males who identify as female. While Safe Spaces for Women bears no animus toward the transgendered community, it is deeply concerned that … survivors of sexual assault are likely to suffer psychological trauma as a result of encountering biological males—even those with entirely innocent intentions—in the traditional safe spaces of women’s showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms.

The brief goes on to note that the guidance from the Obama administration was issued “without giving those affected a voice in the process. … improperly circumvent[ing] the notice and comment process when that process was needed most.”

Likewise, Kenneth V. Lanning, a 40-year veteran law enforcement officer who specialized in sex crimes for the FBI at Quantico for 20 years, explains the problem with “gender identity-based access policies” for sex-specific intimate facilities.

Lanning says “the problem with potential sex offenses is not crimes by transgendered persons,” but rather “offenses by males who are not really transgendered but who would exploit the entirely subjective provisions” of such policies “to facilitate their sexual behavior or offenses.” Lanning explains that:

Allowing a man, based only on his claim to be [a] transgendered woman, to have unlimited access to women’s rest rooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, showers, etc. will make it easier for the type of sex offense behavior previously described to happen to more women and children. Such access would create an additional risk for potential victims in a previously protected setting and a new defense for a wide variety of sexual victimization.

Indeed, as The Daily Signal previously noted, such sexual victimization already is occurring by men who have disguised themselves as women.

What to Do Now

Wednesday night’s actions by the Justice and Education departments will lead to good policy outcomes, which is why it should not be limited to Title IX.

The Trump administration should extend this decision to every area where federal agencies have imposed new “gender identity” rules on the American people without basis in law, without congressional authorization, without considering legitimate countervailing concerns, and without the support of the American people.

Congress should make such administrative actions permanent by reintroducing and passing H.R. 5812, the Civil Rights Uniformity Act, which clarifies that the term “sex” does not mean “gender identity” for the purpose of interpreting civil rights statutes. This would have the benefit of undoing the past and current abuses of Title IX, as well as preventing future abuses of other civil rights law.

Passing the Civil Rights Uniformity Act would ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges would not get to unilaterally reshape policy affecting women and girls. It would allow schools to continue providing separate bathroom and locker room facilities and sports teams based on biological sex, not gender identity.

It also would address other unilateral Obama-era “gender identity” reinterpretations in health care, emergency shelters, housing, and employment. At the same time, such legislation would properly leave states and private entities entirely free to provide nuanced, sensitive, and reasonable accommodations of people who identify as transgender.

Up until last year’s prime-time interview of the celebrity then known as Bruce Jenner, few Americans ever had had a conversation about transgender issues. It’s a conversation we need to have.

But the Obama administration tried to shut down these discussions before they’ve even begun. The Obama administration attempted to force a one-size-fits-all policy on the entire nation rather than allow parents and teachers and local schools the time, space, and flexibility to find solutions that work best for everyone.

The Trump administration has taken the first steps to correct this.

While the Obama administration attempted to rewrite law to impose a federal “gender identity” policy on the entire nation, the Trump administration is respecting federalism, local decision-making, and parental authority in education.

For most Americans, concerns related to transgender students are a new reality. Rather than follow the Obama administration’s rush to impose a top-down solution on the entire country, the Trump administration is allowing the American people to have these conversations, consider all the relevant concerns, and make policies that will best serve all Americans.

Good for them. (For more from the author of “Trump Right to Fix Obama’s Unlawful Transgender School Policy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Latest Court Decision Blocking Texas’ Attempt to Defund Planned Parenthood Shows Need for Congressional Action

A U.S. district judge has blocked the state of Texas from cutting off Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding. This is the sixth instance in which a court has prevented a state from denying Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood: Arkansas, Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana have also attempted to make Planned Parenthood ineligible for funds.

On Dec. 20, 2016, the Office of Inspector General at the Texas Health and Human Services Commission sent a final notice informing Planned Parenthood that its participation in the state’s Medicaid program would be discontinued.

Referencing Center for Medical Progress videos released by pro-life activists in 2015, the notice informed Planned Parenthood that the inspector general “finds you are not qualified to provide medical services in a professionally competent, safe, legal and ethical manner under … state and federal law pertaining to Medicaid providers.”

According to Judge Sam Sparks’ ruling, the notice outlined specific alleged violations of accepted standards of medical practice by Planned Parenthood:

1. “A history of deviating from accepted standards to procure samples that meet researcher’s needs.”

2. “A history of permitting staff physicians to alter procedures to obtain targeted tissue samples needed for their specific outside research.”

3. “A willingness to convert normal pregnancies to the breech position to ensure researchers receive intact specimens.”

4. “An admission that ‘we get what we need to do to alter the standard of care where we are still maintaining patient safety, still maintaining efficiency in clinic operations, but we integrate research into it.’”

5. “An admission that Planned Parenthood gets requests for ‘information from our study sponsor on what data they need that is not our standard of care,’ and that [Planned Parenthood] provides what is needed by creating a separate research protocol or template that can include medically unnecessary testing.”

6. “A willingness to charge more than the costs incurred for procuring fetal tissue.”
Planned Parenthood sought a preliminary injunction claiming that Texas violated a federal statute commonly referred to as the Medicaid “free choice of provider” provision, which says that beneficiaries may obtain medical services “from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person qualified to perform the service or services required … who undertakes to provide him such services … ”

On Tuesday, Sparks sided with Planned Parenthood and issued the requested injunction.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately announced plans to appeal the decision, sharply criticizing the judge’s decision to rule that “willingness to violate state and federal law on manipulating abortion procedures and profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, making false statements to law enforcement, and misleading multiple courts were insufficient grounds for Texas to exclude Planned Parenthood” from the state’s program. Planned Parenthood has denied any illegal activity.

In a press release, Texas Right to Life expressed disappointment in the decision, but added that it “hopes Texas will soon prevail in the decision to award Medicaid contracts to ethical providers that offer health services to Texas women and families”

Congress should follow Texas’ lead and end federal funding to Planned Parenthood affiliates and other abortion providers.

Disqualifying Planned Parenthood affiliates and other abortion providers from receiving Title X family planning grants, Medicaid reimbursements, and other grants and contracts does not reduce the overall funding for women’s health care.

The funds currently flowing to abortion providers can instead be distributed to health centers that offer comprehensive health care without entanglement with abortion on demand.

Congress should take this step in the context of the upcoming budget reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare, ensuring that package includes a provision (just as the 2015 version of the bill did) that would make Planned Parenthood affiliates ineligible from receiving Medicaid reimbursements for one year after the enactment of the bill.

Ultimately, Congress should send the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which passed in the House of Representatives in January, to the president’s desk for signature. (For more from the author of “Latest Court Decision Blocking Texas’ Attempt to Defund Planned Parenthood Shows Need for Congressional Action” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge Blocks Texas Cutting Medicaid to Planned Parenthood

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Texas can’t cut off Medicaid dollars to Planned Parenthood over secretly recorded videos taken by anti-abortion activists in 2015 that launched Republican efforts across the U.S. to defund the nation’s largest abortion provider.

An injunction issued by U.S. District Sam Sparks of Austin comes after he delayed making decision in January and essentially bought Planned Parenthood an extra month in the state’s Medicaid program.

Texas is now at least the sixth state where federal courts have kept Planned Parenthood eligible for Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion services, although a bigger question remains over whether President Donald Trump will federally defund the organization. (Read more from “Judge Blocks Texas Cutting Medicaid to Planned Parenthood” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Facebook Freezes out Christian Mom for Quoting Bible About Homosexuality

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg says he wants to use his platform to build a worldwide “inclusive community.” However, a Christian ‘vlogger’ found out there appears to be no room in it for her as long as she quotes Bible passages about homosexuality.

Elizabeth Johnston, aka the “Activist Mommy,” says there is a big disconnect between Zuckerberg’s recent call for a global “inclusive community” and Facebook’s “censorship of Christians.”

“They are muzzling me and my biblical message while Mark Zuckerberg claims that FB is unbiased,” she stated in a news release.

She has had her page frozen three times now, twice in seven days, because of her posts. Last week, she posted her argument that the Bible condemns homosexuality, using Old and New Testament sources. Facebook summarily removed the post and suspended her access to the page. It also stripped her of her ability to respond to private comments for three days.

Once she was unfrozen, she complained about censorship and restored the original blog. Facebook removed it again. She was frozen for another seven days and cut off from her 70,000 followers. (Read more from “Facebook Freezes out Christian Mom for Quoting Bible About Homosexuality” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.