Category Archives: Insanity

California approves PG&E rate hike to pay for costs related to wildfires

I’d be pretty ticked off if I was a PG&E customer because it doesn’t appear that the California Public Utilities Commission was working in favor of the publics’ best interest.

As reported by SF Gate: California regulators have approved a $373 million rate hike for Pacific Gas & Electric to pay costs related to a series of wildfires.

KTVU-TV says the California Public Utilities Commission Thursday unanimously OK’d an increase that raises the average bill by $3.50 a month over 12 months.

The station says the money is supposed to be used to pay PG&E’s costs for nine fire, wind and rain events in 2016 and 2017, including repairs and clearing brush and trees from under power lines to prevent future fires.

The hike won’t cover the billions it will cost PG&E in connection with 2018’s devastating wildfires.

The utility, which has filed for bankruptcy, is also seeking about $22 a month in rate increases for wildfire safety and to attract investors.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

The compassionate left: Seattle residents want to stop nearby redevelopment into homeless supportive services for adults, veterans

Seattle city residents keep electing demorats who do absolutely nothing – except raise taxes – to solve their homeless crisis. Instead of getting the mentally ill and drug addicted into treatment, Seattle bureaucrats merely shuffle them around and assign caseworkers to do who-knows-what (besides spending taxpayer dollars).

Sorry if I’ve got no sympathy left for these residents who are now upset with their local politicians for wanting to put low income housing in their backyard. Elections have consequences.

This will come as no surprise: NIMBY folk in Seattle’s Magnolia neighborhood are trying to stop redevelopment of a decommissioned Army base at Discovery Park. The city wants to turn the empty buildings into 238 units of affordable housing.

About Seattle’s Magnolia neighborhood:

• The median home price is 140% higher than the Seattle average
• The median sales price of a home in Magnolia is $865,500
• The median home income is $108,612 – 73% higher than Seattle

According to MyNorthwest.com, a citizen group is fighting back against the City of Seattle’s plans to turn Fort Lawton, the decommissioned Army base at the main entrance to Magnolia’s Discovery Park, into 238 units of affordable housing.

Aerial view of Fort Lawton at Discovery Park

Excerpts from their story:

Spearheading the Discovery Park + 29 movement to save Fort Lawton is Seattle City Council District 7 candidate Elizabeth Campbell, who said that the city’s redevelopment plan will destroy a “jewel in the city park system” at a time when Seattle is already bursting at the seams with population growth.

For one, she pointed out to the Dori Monson Show, with the popularity of Discovery Park as an urban oasis, the Fort Lawton area is currently used for badly-needed overflow parking on busy days. “The park is already almost at capacity on weekends,” she said. “An immense number of people come through there … the park needs that additional land to expand and maintain its integrity as a natural space.”

According to Campbell, the city is refusing to think long-term by ignoring its own parks plans, such as the 2017 Parks and Open Space Plan and Comprehensive Plan.

The city’s plan for Fort Lawton includes three categories of housing — flats and houses for renter households at 60 percent of the area median income, townhouses for owner households at 80 percent AMI, and “homeless supportive housing for older adults, including veterans.”

It goes on to describe that the supportive housing would include onsite case managers, and that addiction and mental health service providers could possibly be brought onsite as well.

Campbell said, however, that the wording is disingenuous, noting that it would be not only the residents of the supportive housing, but also the residents of the units of affordable housing, who would “have issues.”

It avoids the problem of describing really who is going to be there … the plan is for the city to monitor and have programming in place 24/7 for every level of resident that they have there,” she said. “So, I mean, it’s a highly problematic type of compound that they’re establishing.”

Read their whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

No. Just No: Actor Jeff Goldblum is inspiring men to wear skimpy short shorts

Jeff Goldblum/photo from Prada Instatram

From NY Post: Sky’s out, thighs out! Prepare to see a lot of dudes in Daisy Dukes this spring.

Legendary fashion houses Prada, Fendi and Missoni, as well as It labels Off-White and Jacquemus, all debuted men’s short shorts for Spring 2019. When describing her shorts-centric collection, Miuccia Prada went so far to describe the ultra-leggy pieces as “miniskirts for men.”

And actor-turned-fashionisto Jeff Goldblum is among the first high-style guys to rock them off the runway.

He was recently featured wearing two different pricey Prada pairs — an $838 white jersey set and $792 daring denim duds (pictured above) — in Dazed magazine’s “The Meaning Of Cult” issue. It’s worth noting that the inseams of those shorts are a teensy 1.6 inches and 2.4 inches, respectively, according to measurements on Matches Fashion.

Evidently, the thigh-skimming trousers have caught the eyes of the folks at fast fashion retailers ASOS and Urban Outfitters. Both companies are selling teensie — and affordable — versions of their own.

Alas, anti-shorts sticklers may be repulsed by this micro trend and cite one of Tom Ford’s iconic fashion commandments: “A man should never wear shorts in the city,” the dapper designer said in 2011. “Shorts should only be worn on the tennis court or on the beach.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

$16.2 trillion tax hikes to fund millionaire-socialist Bernie Sanders’ Medicare For All plan

Although he had never worked at a productive job in his life, Bernie Sanders, 77, the Demonrat senator of Vermont who fancies himself an “independent” but actually identifies as an outright socialist, is that curious oxymoronic creature — a millionaire socialist with three homes.

One of the three homes is a lakefront summer home in North Hero, Vermont, which Sanders purchased for $600,000 just five days after the 2016 Democratic National Convention, in which he sold out his idealistic millennial supporters by enthusiastically endorsing his rival, one-percenter Hillary Clinton who had used the Democratic National Committee to undermine his presidential campaign. The Democratic National Convention even called a SWAT team on Sanders’ delegates.

On February 19, 2019, Sanders joined the ever-growing list of Demonrat freaks and communists by declaring his candidacy for the 2020 presidential election, pledging to run a campaign focused on “transforming” the U.S. and “creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice” — blah, blah, blah. Shedding his political identity as an “Independent” as readily as a snake sheds its skin, Sanders will, once again, run as a Democrat, as he did in 2016.

3½ hours after announcing his candidacy, Sanders raised over $1 million from small donations. Within a week of his announcement, Sanders had raised $10 million from 359,914 donors, including some 12,000 registered Republicans.

Central to his campaign is a “Medicare for All” plan. What you may not know is that the plan is not just for all Americans or U.S. citizens, whether Medicare age (65 years) or not, Sanders means to extend Medicare to all residents in the United States, including the tens of millions who are here illegally. Even Obamacare doesn’t do that, but instead provides medical coverage to only U.S. citizens and “lawfully present” immigrants. Sanders’ Medicare for All, however, will not only prohibit the government from denying medical coverage because of “citizenship status”, it will cover even those who can’t meet the loose definition of resident — “Even if an individual is not covered under a broad definition of ‘residency’ by the secretary of HHS, the federal government can take steps ‘to ensure that every person in the United States has access to health care.'” (The Blaze)

Sanders’ insanely expansive and expensive Medicare for All will have to be funded — with what he calls tax hike “options”.

According to an estimate by Americans for Tax Reform, a nonprofit, 501(c)(4) taxpayer advocacy group founded in 1985 by Grover Norquist at the request of President Ronald Reagan, Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal will increase taxes by $16.2 trillion over ten years, which “would hit American families at every income level and businesses large and small.”

The dizzying list of proposed tax hikes will include:

  1. A new 4% employee payroll tax: Sanders would impose another 4% payroll tax on top of existing payroll taxes. This new 4% payroll tax will be “income-based premium paid by employees,” which will  increase taxes on American families and individuals by $3.9 trillion.
  2. A new 7% employer payroll tax: Sanders would impose another 7% payroll tax on employees which he calls an “income-based premium paid by employers”, estimated to be a $3.5 trillion tax increase over ten years.
  3. Eliminating health tax “expenditures”: Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal would ban employer-provided insurance and repeal the deduction for health care and the Health Savings Accounts utilized by about 25 million U.S. families, mainly the middle class. The deduction for cafeteria plans and the medical expense deduction is also eliminated. All of which will increase taxes on families and businesses by $4.2 trillion.
  4. 70% top tax bracket for ordinary income and capital gains income, which would make America the highest income tax rate in the world. According to the Tax Foundation, a top 70% rate for ordinary income and capital gains income above $10 million will raise $51.4 billion over a decade. After accounting for macroeconomic effects, the proposal would actually cost the government $63.5 billion because the proposal would suppress investment and economic growth.
  5. 77% death tax: Currently, the death tax applies to estates over $11 million and applies a 40% rate. Under Sanders’ proposal, the death tax would kick in at $3.5 million with a rate of 45%. He also proposes raising the death tax rate to 77% for inheritances. All of which will increase taxes by $2.2 trillion over ten years.
  6. Wealth tax: Sanders proposes an annual wealth tax of 1 percent kicking in above $21 million in assets. Sanders estimates the proposal will increase taxes by $1.3 trillion over ten years.
  7. Bank tax: Sanders proposes a tax on financial institutions totaling $800 billion over ten years.
  8. Broaden the self employment tax: Sanders would require business owners to report more of their business income as salary, increasing the amount of self-employment tax owed, which would increase taxes by $247 billion over ten years.

U.S. national debt is already over $22 TRILLION. Imagine what Medicare for All taxes would do to our national debt. It would kill this country.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Illinois Senate votes to bar Trump from 2020 ballot if tax returns aren’t released

Illinois state senate legislators Thursday (April 11) publicly removed all possible doubts whether they are blithering, sniveling, whining, petulant idiots.

They are.

There is absolutely no question in my military mind.

Illinois Democrats approved a bill that would require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns if they want their names to appear on the state’s ballot. In other words, if Present Trump wants his name on the ballot in Illinois in 2020, he would have to first cough up five years of his income tax returns to Illinois Demorats.

New York state legislators introduced a similar bill on Monday. New York would authorize the state’s tax commissioner to release state tax returns to Congress upon request. The legislation, if passed, would enable the release of Trump’s state returns, since he is a New York resident and the state is home to his corporate businesses.

Illinois Senate Bill 145, introduced in January by State Sen. Antonio Muñoz, would require any candidate for president or vice president to release the most recent five years of their tax returns to have their name on the general election ballot.

“Voters have a right to know a presidential candidate’s conflicts of interests,” Muñoz said in a statement on his website. “They have reasonably expected this disclosure for decades, and if candidates won’t release the information willingly, then we need a law in place that requires it.”

The push from Illinois Democrats for President Donald Trump’s taxes ahead of the 2020 presidential election comes as several other states are pursuing similar legislation.

Since 2017, 18 state legislatures, including those in Illinois and New York, have introduced bills that would require presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns to be on the ballot, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

House Democrats in Washington formally requested the President’s tax returns last week from the Internal Revenue Service, but Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin informed them on Wednesday that his department would be unable to comply with their deadline for Trump’s tax return.

Under the bill approved Thursday, the Illinois secretary of state would post the tax returns on its website, with the candidate’s personal information redacted. The bill would not apply to congressional or statewide candidates.

The measure was approved by the Illinois Democratic-controlled Senate, 36-19. The bill has moved to the Illinois House, where Democrats also hold the majority

Republican state Sen. Dale Righter questioned the bill’s constitutionality and called it “an embarrassing waste of the Senate’s time” on Thursday, the Capitol News Illinois reported.

Cokie Roberts, moderator of NPR’s “Morning Edition” said in a broadcast February 15, “It’s been standard from Nixon on for presidents and presidential candidates to let the public see what they’ve paid, but not everyone has handled it the same way. Gerald Ford, Nixon’s successor, provided a summary of his taxes. Some candidates have just turned over a couple of years’ worth of documents. Others have provided returns for many years.”

She noted that the tradition of presidential candidate making their income tax return public began with Richard Nixon. But she that Nixon did not volunteer to turn over his tax returns.

“Nixon didn’t initially turn over his returns voluntarily,” she said. “They were leaked by someone in the IRS.”

There is no law requiring a presidential candidate to make his or her tax returns public. And there certainly is no law requiring publicizing tax returns as a condition of having one’s name placed on an election ballot. But democrats socialists might be able to force President Trump to give up his tax returns under a little known tax law from 1924.

According to Roberts, “The law that some House members want to employ to force the IRS to turn over Trump’s returns is a very obscure section of the tax code. And it allows the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to demand any tax filer’s returns. It dates back to the Teapot Dome scandals of the 1920s, when members of the Harding administration were accepting bribes. Congress had to rely on the executive for financial information, so they made this law. It’s been rarely used. But the Republican members of the Ways Means Committee did employee it a few years ago when they were investigating what they called the IRS’ discrimination against conservative organizations.”

# # #

I have an alternative suggestion. Let every demorat disclose all of their tax returns first—just to show good faith. Of course they won’t. They have no faith—good or otherwise.

Idiots.

~ Grif

Click here for full text of Illinois Senate Bill 145.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Boston College student says babies who survive an abortion should die

From Daily Mail: Video footage has emerged of a college student arguing that if a baby is born alive after a botched abortion, the child should be denied healthcare and allowed to die.

Pro-life activist Kristan Hawkins was speaking at Boston College, a private Jesuit-run university, last month when the pro-choice female student made the remark during a Q&A session.

‘They were performing an abortion,’ the unidentified student said of the hypothetical scenario. ‘So, before that, they’ve already determined that it’s not a baby.’

The remark comes amid renewed debate over late-term abortion, and echoes January comments made by Virginia Governor Ralph Northam on the subject of babies born alive during botched abortions.

The exchange came during a Q&A session on March 19, when Hawkins was speaking at the invitation of Boston College’s Pro-Life Club. Hawkins is the president of Students for Life of America and has toured several universities speaking on the theme of ‘Lies Feminists Tell’.

‘Do you think that children that are apprehended at the border that are in U.S. government care…do you think babies who are going to die should be resuscitated and given care?’ Hawkins asked the student. ‘Yes,’ the student replied.

‘Okay. Do you believe that a baby who is born alive during an abortion at Planned Parenthood should get care?’ Hawkins followed up. The student replied, ‘No.’

When Hawkins pressed the student on the difference between the two scenarios, the student said that a baby that survived an abortion was ‘not a baby’.

Although most of the students who asked questions during the Q&A criticized Hawkins, with one even rudely asking if she had ever had an orgasm, some were supportive of her pro-life stance, according to an account in student newspaper The Heights.

In recent months, the abortion debate has been renewed over speculation that a changing Supreme Court could overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, reverting jurisdiction over abortion laws back to individual states.

Ohio this week became the latest state to enact a ‘heartbeat’ bill, which bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected by ultrasound.

Anti-abortion activists hope that court challenges to these new state laws will go before the Supreme Court and establish a new precedent.

Meanwhile, New York in January passed a sweeping law legalizing abortion up until the moment of birth, and allowing non-doctors to perform abortions.

Around the same time, Virginia Governor Northam, a Democrat, defended a similar bill in his state. Northam, a pediatric doctor, described a hypothetical situation where a severely deformed newborn infant could be left to die.

He said that if a woman were to desire an abortion as she’s going into labor, the baby would be delivered and then ‘resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue’ between doctors and the mother.

Late-term abortions are an emotionally charged subject on all sides of the issue, although they are relatively rare.

A 2014 CDC study found that 1.3 per cent of abortions in the U.S. occur during or after the 21st week of gestation.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Proposed law would provide free abortions to students in all California universities

The California Senate Health Committee April 3 approved SB 24, a bill to give students on all UC and USC campuses access to free medical abortions on demand. SB 24, titled the “College Student Right to Access Act,” now goes to the full state Senate for a vote. Gov. Gavin Newsom has said he would support the bill if it reaches his desk.

A nearly identical bill (SB 320) was introduced by State Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) in 2017. SB 320 was vetoed in September, 2018 by then governor Jerry Brown, who said it was not necessary. Leyva introduced SB 24 in December, 2018.

The bill originated out of lobbying by the Students United for Reproductive Justice organization (SURJ) at UC Berkeley. The group sought help from the Women’s Policy Institute, which is part of the Women’s Foundation of California. The Institute sought Leyva’s assistance, who then agreed to file the abortion bill.

In a statement on her web site, Leyva said, “SB 24 is an important step toward ensuring the right to abortion is available to all Californians and that our college students don’t face unnecessary barriers. Students should not have to travel off campus or miss class or work responsibilities in order to receive care that can easily be provided at a student health center.”

California taxpayers would be mandated to provide the funding needed to give “free” chemical abortions to students on campus by 2023.”

To fund the mandate, the measure would allocate $200,000 in grant money to each of California’s 33 public university student health centers, covering the costs of “medication abortion readiness” which includes the purchase of equipment, facility and security upgrades, and training staff members.

The bill also would require the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls to administer the College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund, which the bill would establish.

The bill would continuously appropriate the moneys in that fund to the commission for grants to these student health care clinics for specified activities in preparation for providing abortion by medication techniques, thereby making an appropriation.

The bill would additionally require that at least $10,290,000 in private moneys is made available to the fund in a timely manner on or after January 1, 2020.

According to research from the pro-abortion Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, and the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, at the University of California, San Francisco, chemical abortions are already widespread among students. The groups estimate that California public college students undergo approximately 300-500 chemical abortions each month, and with serious risks.

The drug Mifepristone/RU-486, which ends the life of the unborn child, and Misoprostol which causes severe cramping, contractions, and bleeding to expel the baby from the womb, are used together in chemical abortions.

Approximately 3.4 million women have used Mifepristone in the US for the medical termination of pregnancy through the end of December 2017, an increase of approximately 163,000 since June 2017. The FDA has documented at least 4,000 cases of serious adverse events, including more than 1,000 women who required hospitalization; in addition, at least 22 women died after using the drug.

~ Grif

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Woman gang raped by Somali refugees blasts plane “mutiny” which stopped one attacker from being deported

#WaronWomen

From Daily Mirror: A woman raped by a Somali refugee has told of her anger after a passenger mutiny on a flight prevented the attacker from being deported. Yaqub Ahmed was one of four men who gang raped the woman in North London when she was just 16.

In October last year, well-meaning travellers on a flight from London to Turkey intervened when they discovered Ahmed was being forced to leave the country, having served a jail term for rape.

Faced with a dozen passengers demanding Ahmed was taken off the plane, Home Office officials relented.
But the footage piled on the misery for the 27-year-old victim, who was horrified to see people support the rapist.

One man was heard in a video clip telling Ahmed: “You’re a free man now.”

The woman, who has suffered post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the rape, told the Mail on Sunday that seeing the video made her “angry and upset”.

Hitting out at the “bleeding heart” passengers who intervened, she said: “He was in handcuffs, he was being taken out of the country… who are you people to interfere with justice? Fair enough you didn’t know the situation, but now I hope you feel proud of yourselves because you stopped something that I have waited for so long: something that made me feel that little bit safer.”

The four men were jailed for a combined 35 years following the sex attack in August 2007.Ahmed remains in the UK, the Mail on Sunday reports, with efforts to deport him continuing.

The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, said she was lured to a flat in Crouch End, North London, by a youth who claimed her friend was waiting for her after she lost her on a night out. She said she was held down while the men took turns to rape her during the horrific attack.

Neighbours heard her screams and called police, but all four denied rape, forcing the woman to relive the ordeal at a trial.

Ahmed, then 19, Adnan Mohamud, 19, and Adnan Barud, 21, were all jailed for nine years. Ondogo Ahmed, 19, was given eight years for conspiracy to rape. He died fighting for ISIS in 2013.

Voicing her fury at those who prevented the deportation, the woman said they clearly thought there had been an injustice because Ahmed was in handcuffs. But she continued: “Those people should have realised it takes a lot to get someone deported, maybe we shouldn’t interfere.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Limited resources: Elderly in Britain left to go blind due to NHS rationing cataract surgeries

The Straits Times has a report about how the elderly are going blind as they are being refused for eye surgery. Apparently the NHS has limited resources.

Ain’t socialized medicine grand?

From the Straits Time story:

Thousands of elderly people in Britain are left to go blind because of rationing of eye surgery in the National Health Service (NHS), a report revealed on Saturday (April 6).

The Times newspaper said a survey by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO) found tens of thousands of elderly people are left struggling to see because of an NHS cost-cutting drive that relies on them dying before they can qualify for cataract surgery.

The survey has found that the NHS has ignored instructions to end cataract treatment rationing in defiance of official guidance two years ago.

The RCO said its survey has found 62 per cent of eye units retain policies that require people’s vision to have deteriorated below a certain point before surgery is funded.

With more than 400,000 cataract operations carried out each year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) concluded that there was no justification for policies that denied patients cataract removal surgery until they could barely see.

The RCO said that refusal to fund surgery was insulting and called into question the entire system through which the NHS approves treatments.

Ms. Helen Lee of the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) said: “Cataracts can have a dramatic impact on someone’s ability to lead a full and independent life, potentially stopping them from driving and increasing their chance of serious injury by falling. The NICE guidelines make it clear cataract surgery is highly cost effective and should not be rationed. It is nonsensical for clinical commissioning groups to deny patients this crucial treatment.

Ms. Julie Wood, CEO of NHS Clinical Commissioners, which represents local funding bodies, defended the restrictions.

She told the Times: “NICE guidance is not mandatory and clinical commissioners must have the freedom to make clinically led decisions that are in the best interests of both individual patients and their wider local populations. The NHS does not have unlimited resources.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Democrats file legislation to force all Americans to accept the LGBTQ agenda

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi March 13 introduced the so-called Equality Act, a bill that would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes under federal civil rights law.

The legislation, known as the Equality Act would specifically include all LGBTQ definitions and would penalize everyday Americans for their beliefs about marriage and biological sex. Similar sexual orientation and gender identity laws at the state and local level have already been used in this way.

While liberal Democrats and some liberal Republicans in the House of Representatives are lauding the proposed legislation, some conservatives are calling it a “frontal assault on religious liberty.”

If the Equality Act becomes law, it would impact essentially every part of American life. It would force employers and workers to conform to new sexual norms or else lose their businesses and jobs. It would force hospitals and insurers to provide and pay for these therapies against any moral or medical objections. It would force parents to provide sexual reassignment treatments for their children who are confused about their sexual identity. It would force religious institutions that provide adoptions to permit same sex couples to adopt children, and the list goes on.

Monica Burke, a research assistant in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, in a critique of the proposed legislation noted that most Americans “don’t want a nationwide bathroom requirement, health care mandate, or “preferred pronoun” law based on gender identity, but congressional Democrats seem to think it’s time to impose them.”

Burke’s critique in The Daily Signal:

Nancy Pelosi delivered . . . on her promise to introduce the so-called Equality Act, which would elevate sexual orientation and gender identity to protected classes in federal anti-discrimination law.

Although that may sound nice in theory, in practice sexual orientation and gender identity policies at the state and local level have caused profound harms to Americans from all walks of life.

How might a sexual orientation and gender identity law on the federal level, as introduced in the House and Senate, affect you and your community? Here are seven ways:

1.   It would penalize Americans who don’t affirm new sexual norms or gender ideology.

Jack Phillips’ case went all the way to the Supreme Court after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission accused the bakery owner of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation when the self-described cake artist declined to create a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, but left the law in question, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, intact. Until last week, Phillips was in court again defending himself against the same agency under the same law.

The day after the Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ case, Autumn Scardina, a lawyer who identifies as transgender, requested that he create a “gender transition cake.” After Phillips declined, the state Civil Rights Commission found probable cause under the law that the baker had discriminated on the basis of gender identity.

Thankfully, the commission dropped the case, and Phillips agreed to drop his own lawsuit accusing the state agency of harassing him for his Christian beliefs.

Phillips is just one of many Americans who have lost income because of their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. Others cases involve florists, bakers, photographers, wedding venue owners, videographers, web designers, calligraphers, and public servants.

These cases are just the beginning. The same policies used to silence disagreement over marriage can be used to silence disagreement over the biological reality of sex.

2.  It would compel speech.

Virginia high school teacher Peter Vlaming lost his job for something he did not say.

A county school board voted unanimously to fire the veteran teacher over the objections of his students after he refused to comply with administrators’ orders to use masculine pronouns in referring to a female student who identifies as transgender.

Vlaming did his best to accommodate the student without violating his religious belief that God created human beings male and female, using the student’s new name and simply refraining from using pronouns altogether.

Unfortunately, the school still considered this a violation of its anti-discrimination policy.

Incidents like these would increase under federal policy proposed in the Equality Act. Both federal and private employers could face costly lawsuits if they fail to implement strict preferred pronoun policies. Employees could be disciplined if they fail to comply, regardless of their scientific or moral objections.

3 . It could shut down charities.

Foster care and adoption agencies, drug rehabilitation centers, and homeless centers already face challenges under state and local policies on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In Philadelphia, just days after the city put out an urgent call for 300 additional families to foster children, the city halted child placements by Catholic Social Services because of the organization’s belief that every child deserves both a mother and a father.

Although same-sex couples have the opportunity to foster children through the state or every other agency in Philadelphia, the city canceled its contract with Catholic Social Services. The agency’s approved foster homes remain available while children languish on the waiting list.

A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law would make this situation a national phenomenon, which would spell disaster for the 437,500 children in foster care nationwide.

Other charities would be affected, too.

In Anchorage, Alaska, a biological male born Timothy Paul Coyle goes by the name of Samantha Amanda Coyle. On two occasions, Coyle tried to gain access to the city’s Downtown Soup Kitchen Hope Center, a shelter for homeless, abused, and trafficked women.

In one attempt, authorities said, Coyle was inebriated and had gotten into a fight with a staffer at another shelter, so Hope Center staff paid Coyle’s fare to the emergency room to receive medical attention. Coyle sued the center for “gender identity discrimination.”

A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law could force any social service organization to open up private facilities—including single-sex bathrooms, showers, and sleeping areas—to members of the opposite sex.

4.  It would allow more biological males to defeat girls in sports.

Two biological males who identify and compete as women easily defeated all of their female competitors in an event at the Connecticut State Track Championships. Transgender athlete Terry Miller broke the state record in the girls’100-meter dash. Andraya Yearwood, also transgender, took second place.

Selina Soule, a female runner, not only lost to the biological males in the championships but also lost out on valuable opportunities to be seen by college coaches and chosen for scholarships.

Soule said about the 100-meter event: “We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralizing.”

A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law would defeat the purpose of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which is supposed to guarantee women equal educational and athletic opportunities.

Under radical gender identity policies, female athletes have sustained gruesome injuries at the hands of male competitors. In high school wrestling, female athletes have forfeited rather than compete against transgender athletes on testosterone.

A federal law could set girls’ and women’s sports back permanently at every level.

5.  It could be used to coerce medical professionals.

Under state sexual orientation and gender identity laws, individuals who identify as transgender have sued Catholic hospitals in California and New Jersey for declining to perform hysterectomies on otherwise healthy women who wanted to pursue gender transition.

If these lawsuits succeed, medical professionals would be pressured to treat patients according to ideology rather than their best medical judgment.

The Obama administration tried to coerce medical professionals into offering transition-affirming therapies through a regulation in the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.

That move was stopped in the 11th hour by a federal judge. However, that could all be set back in motion if a national law imposes a nationwide health care mandate regarding gender identity.

6.  It could lead to more parents losing custody of their children.

The politicization of medicine according to gender ideology will create more conflicts among parents, doctors, and the government. A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law would jeopardize parental rights nationwide.

In fact, the current issue of the American Journal of Bioethics includes an article arguing that the state should overrule the parents of transgender children who do not consent to give them puberty-blocking drugs.

This has already happened. In Ohio, a judge removed a biological girl from her parents’ custody after they declined to help her “transition” to male with testosterone supplements.

After the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital’s Transgender Health Clinic recommended these treatments for the girl’s gender dysphoria, the parents wanted to pursue counseling instead. Then the county’s family services agency charged the parents with abuse and neglect, and the judge terminated their custody.

Similar cases are proceeding through the courts with children as young as 6 years old.

Meanwhile, studies show that 80 to 95 percent of children no longer experience gender dysphoria after puberty. Politicizing medicine could have serious consequences for children who are exposed to the unnecessary medical risks of drastic therapies.

A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law would make these cases more common.

7.  It would enable sexual assault.

A complaint under investigation by federal education officials alleges that a boy who identifies as “gender fluid” at Oakhurst Elementary School in Decatur, Georgia, sexually assaulted Pascha Thomas’ 5-year-old daughter in a girls’ restroom. The boy had access to the girls’ restroom because of Decatur City Schools’ transgender restroom policy.

School authorities refused to change the policy even after Thomas reported the assault. Eventually, she decided to remove her daughter from school for the girl’s emotional well-being and physical safety.

A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law would give male sexual predators who self-identify as females access to private facilities, increasing the likelihood of these tragic incidents.

It could also make victims less likely to report sexual misconduct and police less likely to get involved, for fear of being accused of discrimination.

The proposed Equality Act could impose a nationwide bathroom policy that would leave women and children in particular vulnerable to predators. It actually would promote inequality by elevating the ideologies of special-interest groups to the level of protected groups in civil rights law.

This extreme and dangerous legislation would create unprecedented harms to businesses, charities, medical professionals, women and children, and entire families.

Texas fights back

Meanwhile, as congressional Democrats are advocating for the hamstringing of religious belief, Texas is pushing forward with new legislation that, if passed, will ultimately protect religious freedom—in Texas, at least. From Christian Ellis, CBN News, March 25:

The Republican-controlled state senate in Texas is considering SB 17. The bill would allow state license holders like lawyers, health care professionals, and counselors to serve clients based on their religious beliefs without any adverse actions from licensing boards.

Texas Lt. Gov Dan Patrick (R) announced the bill as one of his top priorities for the 2019 Legislative Session. The bill was designated a priority as “a result of requests and recommendations from senators and the people of Texas.”

“They strengthen our support for life, liberty and Texas values, increase protections for taxpayers,” wrote Patrick.

SB 17’s section on religious freedom reads:

“State agency that issues a license or otherwise regulates a business, occupation, or profession may not adopt any rule, regulation, or policy or impose a penalty that:

(1) limits an applicant’s ability to obtain, maintain, or renew a license based on a sincerely held religious belief of the applicant; or

(2) burdens an applicant’s or a license holder’s:

(A) free exercise of religion, regardless of whether the burden is the result of a rule generally applicable to all applicants or license holders;

(B) freedom of speech regarding a sincerely held religious belief; or

(C) membership in any religious organization.”

Conservatives across the state expect the bill to pass as the Republican party has control over the state’s House, Senate, and governorship. However, opponents like the National Association of Social Workers Texas have stated they will argue against the bill in the hearing, calling it “discriminatory”.

The organization states the bill runs “counter to the NASW Code of Ethics for all professionals, and will deny services to already marginalized persons in the LGBTQ community or women seeking access to reproductive care and services.”

SB 17 comes at a crucial time when religious freedom faces ongoing threats across the country, and as a new threat emerges in the Democrat-controlled US House of Representatives. This month, Democrats introduced an updated version of their Equality Act that elevates protections for sexual orientation over protections for religious liberty. The bill could threaten ministries with legal consequences if they denied an LGBTQ individual from working for their institution.

“Every American should be treated with dignity and respect, but our laws need to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights that we have,” Greg Baylor from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) told CBN News.

“Now under the Equality Act we will have a nationwide law,” continued Baylor. “We will see a proliferation of instances where Christians and others are being coerced to violate their beliefs in order to comply with such a law.”

While Democrats are indicating the Equality Act is a big part of their agenda, they do not currently control the US Senate, so the measure is not expected to pass unless they gain control of both houses of Congress in the 2020 election.

While Democrat liberals are planning an assault on religion, Texas is pushing forward with new legislation that, if passed, will ultimately protect religious freedom.

The Republican-controlled state senate in Texas is considering SB 17. The bill would allow state license holders like lawyers, health care professionals, and counselors to serve clients based on their religious beliefs without any adverse actions from licensing boards.

Texas Lt. Gov Dan Patrick (R) announced the bill as one of his top priorities for the 2019 Legislative Session. The bill was designated a priority as “a result of requests and recommendations from senators and the people of Texas.”

~ Grif

Note from Eowyn: H.R. 5 – Equality Act was introduced by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) on March 13, 2019. See also “Coming to America: Canadian man fined $55,000 for ‘misgendering’ a ‘transgender’“.

Please follow and like us:
error0