Thread: Does North Carolina's HB2 law violate our Constitution? A resounding NO!

Former Chief Psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Has Bad News for Caitlyn Jenner

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, has an opinion about former Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner’s recent announcement that is sure to upset the many crusading for the transgender movement.

McHugh not only believes that changing sexes is biologically impossible, he also believes those identifying themselves as transgender actually have a mental disorder.

McHugh, author of six books and over 125 peer-reviewed medical journal articles, wrote in a Wall Street Journal piece that surgery is not a solution for those wishing to live as the opposite sex.

McHugh wrote that these people believing they can choose their sex suffer from a “disorder of assumption.”

In the piece, he also quoted a study claiming that transgendered people undergoing reassignment surgery are 20 times more likely to commit suicide than non-transgendered people.

McHugh also said that while Hollywood and the mainstream media promote transgenderism as normal, they are doing no favors to these people by treating their “confusions” as a right rather than treating them as a mental disorder that deserves treatment and prevention.

The doctor considers the transgendered person’s “assumption” that they are “different than the physical reality of their body “a disorder similar to someone suffering anorexia nervosa.

McHugh claims that pro-transgender advocates do not want to accept the fact that studies indicate between 70 and 80 percent of children who express transgender feelings lose such feelings over time.

Changing sexes is impossible, according to the doctor and all transgendered people do is “become feminized men or masculinized women.”

In addition, those who had sexual reassignment surgery and felt satisfied with the results of that surgery fared no better in their psycho-social adjustments than those who didn’t have surgery.

Because of these studies, Hopkins stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, the doctor said.

While certain people will disagree with Dr. McHugh’s statements, more will probably agree. But the liberal media will likely try to smother those who find such transitions troubling and embrace actions that add to the moral decay of our country.

http://conservativetribune.com/forme...ent=2016-05-13

New Obamacare Regulation Presses for Sex Change Surgery Coverage

By Sandy Fitzgerald | Saturday, 14 May 2016

The Obama administration on Friday, the same day it ordered schools to allow students to use bathrooms or locker rooms matching their chosen gender identity, issued a directive that could pressure the nation's insurers, as well as federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, or providers through Obamacare marketplaces to cover sex change procedures.

"The final rule does not require covered entities to cover any particular procedure or treatment for transition-related care, including gender reassignment surgery," a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told The Washington Free Beacon. "However, it does bar a covered entity from categorically excluding from coverage or limiting coverage for all gender transition-related services."

The new HHS directive enforces the Affordable Care Act's section 1557, which forbids discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in certain health programs or activities.

In addition to ruling that "categorical coverage exclusions or limitations for all health care services related to gender transition are discriminatory," including services such as breast implant surgery, hormone therapy and sex change surgery, the directive says:

• Women must be treated equally with men in the health care they receive and the insurance they obtain;
• Individuals must be treated consistent with their gender identity, including in access to facilities.
• Individuals cannot be denied healthcare or health coverage based on their sex, including their gender identity and sex stereotyping.
• Providers may not deny or limit treatment for any health services that are ordinarily or exclusively available to individuals of one gender based on the fact that a person seeking such services identifies as belonging to another gender.
• Sex-specific health programs or activities are permissible only if the entity can demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification, that is, that the sex-specific health program or activity is substantially related to the achievement of an important health-related or scientific objective

The final rule applies to "any health program or activity" that receives funding through the HHS, including hospitals or doctors accepting payments through taxpayer-subsidized programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, or Obamacare marketplaces.

Medicare, meanwhile, was ordered to remove a ban on coverage of gender reassignment surgery back in 2014.

The rule is a win for civil rights issues, HHS said in its press release, as it is the "first federal civil rights law to broadly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded health programs."

"A central goal of the Affordable Care Act is to help all Americans access quality, affordable health care," HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said through the release. "Today's announcement is a key step toward realizing equity within our healthcare system and reaffirms this administration's commitment to giving every American access to the health care they deserve."

Advocates for the LGBT communities also praised the new rules.

"LGBT people have too often faced healthcare systems that provide inequitable and hostile treatment. This new and important regulation will address many of these disparities and is critical to help end discrimination against transgender and gender nonconforming people in healthcare and insurance," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said in a press release.

According to The Federalist, the new rule could open the way for lawsuits from transgender people on claims that being denied sex-change medical services is a violation of civil rights.

Meanwhile, many states already prohibit private insurers from excluding services for gender transition needs, reports The Free Beacon, including California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.

Transgender people have faced barriers for years for health insurance and coverage of medical treatments, reports The Huffington Post, and in 2015, a Reuters survey showed more than 40 percent of people transitioning from women into men said they had faced discrimination while seeking healthcare.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/obam...8819/?AID=7236

SEE: Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1975: 'Unisex' bathrooms unnecessary

“Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy,” she wrote in a 1975 commentary printed by the Washington Post.

“Individual privacy, a right of constitutional dimension, is appropriately harmonized with the equality principle,” she wrote.

The author?

Ruth Ginsburg, now on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court.”


As I previously pointed out, the constitutional arguments about sex-segregated bathrooms were exhaustively debated during the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and concluded that even with the ERA sex-segregated bathrooms were protected!

See: SHE THE PEOPLE: THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT, SEX EQUALITY, FEDERALISM, AND THE FAMILY

"But during the 1970s, the decade sex discrimination doctrine was born, the law of equal protection had begun to contract around segregation as the archetypal scene of racial harm, group classification as its technology, and blindness as its remedy. A particular -- and highly stylized -- memory of race discrimination thus supplied the legal template for constitutional debates about sex discrimination.

During the 1970s, constitutional debates over sex discrimination continually referred back to this historically particular conception of race discrimination. In debates over the ERA, a litmus test for commitment to the sex equality principle was willingness to treat sex like race, which in turn translated into the question, reiterated in debate after debate: but would you eliminate sex-segregated bathrooms?[26]"

Footnote 26 is as follows:

” JANE J. MANSBRIDGE, WHY WE LOST THE ERA 114 (1986) ("Unisex toilets became one of the four major themes that activists speaking to reporters and writing in the newspapers stressed as central to their opposition."). Proponents of the ERA denied that the amendment would necessarily lead to unisex bathrooms, and argued that privacy doctrine would protect bathrooms from sex desegregation. Barbara Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk & Ann E. Freedman, The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 YALE L. J. 871, 901 (1971) (arguing that "the right of privacy would permit the separation of the sexes in public rest rooms, segregation by sex in sleeping quarters of prisons or similar public institutions, and appropriate segregation of living conditions in the armed forces"); Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Fear of the Equal Rights Amendment, WASH. POST, Apr. 7, 1975, at A21 ("Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.").


For this kind of crap to be forced down the throats of the American People under our nation's first Black President must be a shocking betrayal to those who elected him, and especially so to those in our nation's Black communities.


JWK

Loretta Lynch, our United States Attorney General, does not have authority to alter what the people have agreed to in their written Constitution. To assume she has such power is to assume” the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”___ quoting Hamilton in Federalist No 78.

See 12 States Stand Up Against Obama’s Unlawful Trans Bathroom Decree

May 14th, 2016

”Now other states have jumped on board, defending North Carolina and the state’s rights to set these guidelines themselves without federal interference. At the very least, they want Congress to establish guidelines, as the Founders intended, instead of a despotic executive bent on “fundamentally transforming” us.

At the state GOP convention in Greensboro, Sen. Ralph Hise had a message for Obama and AG Loretta Lynch: “You picked the wrong state to start this fight with.”

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg agrees that sex segregated bathrooms are within equal law.

JWK


Neither Obama or Loretta Lynch, our United States Attorney General, has authority to alter what the people have agreed to in their written Constitution. To assume they have such power is to assume” the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”___ quoting Hamilton in Federalist No 78.

TX Gov: JFK Wanted Men on Moon, Obama Wants Men in Women’s Restroom

"He's trying to cram down as many parts of his liberal agenda on the US as he possibly can"

Adan Salazar - May 17, 2016 Comments


Texas Governor Greg Abbott came out swinging Tuesday in regards to new public school bathroom regulations mandated from the federal level.

JFK wanted to send a man to the moon. Obama wants to send a man to the women's restroom. We must get our country back on track. #tcot

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) May 17, 2016

Gov. Abbott on Thursday said Texas would fight back against the Department of Education’s new transgender bathroom directives, which force public schools throughout the nation to allow students to use bathrooms which correlate with the gender they identify with.

I announced today that Texas is fighting this. Obama can't rewrite the Civil Rights Act. He's not a King. #tcot https://t.co/vDgfQPZXjR
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) May 13, 2016

Yesterday, the governor appeared on Fox News labeling the Obama administration’s latest bathroom rules a prime example of government overreach.


“Understand this, there’s only one body of the three branches of government that can write the law and that is Congress,” the governor said. “We have a president who decided, well, if Congress is not going to pass the law, he’s going to impose the law. And so the President is turning the Constitution on its head.”


“We’re fighting back. We’re demanding that the president and the United States hue to the line of the United States Constitution,” Abbott stated. “We are in the waning months of the Obama presidency and he’s trying to cram down as many parts of his liberal agenda on the United States of America as he possibly can.”


The White House’s latest policies come as the Obama administration faces off with North Carolina over a new state law ordering people to use the bathroom that correlates with the gender they were assigned at birth.



http://www.infowars.com/tx-gov-jfk-w...room/?AID=7236

Congressman Calls For ‘Civil Disobedience’ In Response To Controversial Obama Policy

"..there’s no reason for us to follow an unconstitutional edict.."

[QUOTE]U.S. Commission on Civil Rights members, stated the reason these edicts are coming down now is because the Obama administration increased the budget (by 30 percent) and size of the body[/QUOTE]
(increased that budget yet decreased deportations saying no money!)

Randy DeSoto May 19, 2016 at 10:47am

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, called for “civil disobedience” in response to the Obama administration’s directive requiring schools to allow transgender people to use the bathroom or locker room of their choice or face loss of federal funding.

“We should call for civil disobedience here,” King told 1040 WHO radio host Simon Conway of Des Moines, Iowa, Tuesday. “And there’s no reason for us to follow an unconstitutional edict from the president, who is on his way out the door.”

“The new guidelines require schools to allow transgender students to use the restroom and locker rooms that correspond to their chosen gender. And by invoking the sex discrimination law known as Title IX, the rules carry with them the threat of federal enforcement — including a loss of federal education funds,” USA Today reports.

Several state governors have responded to the edict, calling it unlawful executive overreach. Some pointed out that prohibitions against “sex” discrimination in Title IX passed in 1972 and the Civil Rights Act in 1964 have been interpreted legally as having to do with one’s actual gender, not gender identity.

King told Conway that his Task Force on Executive Overreach (set up by the House Judiciary Committee in February) plans to hold a hearing next week on the matter. The congressman reported speaking with one of the two “level-headed” members of the eight-person U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, who has stated the reason these edicts are coming down now is because the Obama administration increased the budget (by 30 percent) and size of the body.

“More personnel needed to find more things to do and that is the root of this school policy or where Obama got it from,” King said. “So we’re going to explore that more fully. I need to be more astute at how movements begin — the genesis of these kinds of policies — so that we can go find them before they proliferate and become contagious across the countryside.” (radio interview at link)

Life Site News reported at least 12 states have rejected President Obama’s transgender bathroom policy. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said on Fox & Friends Monday that there is “only one body of the three branches of government that can write the law and that is Congress. We have a president who decided, well, if Congress is not going to pass the law, he’s going to impose the law.”

“The president is turning the Constitution on its head,” Abbott said.

The news site also reported on the same day last week the Obama administration issued its transgender bathroom “guidelines,” the Department of Health and Human Services published a final rule for Obamacare’s Section 1557, which threatens to pull federal funding and prosecute healthcare providers that refuse to perform “gender transition” services or abortions.

Politico noted that the Obama administration is rushing to get regulations out before May 23 in order to prevent the next president from being able to rescind them before the review period ends.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/con...-obama-policy/

The failed amendment would have effectively nullified a provision in the defense authorization that the House passed late Wednesday night. The language embedded in the defense bill states that religious corporations, associations and institutions that receive federal contracts can’t be discriminated against on the basis of religion



(not the bathroom issue)
Chaos in House after GOP votes down LGBT measure

By Cristina Marcos and Mike LillisMay 19, 2016, 12:19 pm

(short video clip at link)

The House floor devolved into chaos and shouting on Thursday as a measure to ensure protections for members of the LGBT community narrowly failed to pass, after Republican leaders urged their members to change their votes.

Initially, it appeared Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney's (D-N.Y.) amendment had passed, as 217 "yes" votes piled up over 206 "no" votes when the clock ran out. The measure needed 213 votes to pass.

But it eventually failed, 212-213, after a number of Republican lawmakers changed their votes from "yes" to "no" after the clock had expired.

Here's the before and after votes on striking anti-LGBT language from NDAA. They had it til some GOPers flipped. pic.twitter.com/yokSeFsyOO
— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) May 19, 2016

GOP leaders held the vote open as they pressured members to change sides. Infuriating Democrats, they let lawmakers switch their votes without walking to the well at the front of the chamber.

"Shame! Shame! Shame!" Democrats chanted as they watched the vote tally go from passage of Maloney's amendment to narrow failure.

Twenty-nine Republicans voted for Maloney's amendment to a spending bill for the Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction projects, along with all Democrats in the final roll call.

"This is one of the ugliest episodes I've experienced in my three-plus years as a member of this House," Maloney, who is openly gay, said while offering his amendment.

According to the office of House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), at least seven Republicans changed their votes, including Reps. Jeff Denham (Calif.), Darrell Issa (Calif.), Bruce Poliquin (Maine), David Valadao (Calif.), Greg Walden (Ore.), Mimi Walters (Calif.) and David Young (Iowa).

Denham, Valadao, Poliquin and Young are among the most vulnerable Republicans up for reelection this year. Walden, meanwhile, chairs the House GOP campaign arm.

Poliquin denied opposing the amendment due to pressure from GOP leaders.

"I am outraged that political opponents or members of the press would claim or insinuate that I cast a vote due to pressure or party politics. No one controls my vote," he said in a statement, adding, "I abhor discrimination in any form and at any place."

The failed amendment would have effectively nullified a provision in the defense authorization that the House passed late Wednesday night. The language embedded in the defense bill states that religious corporations, associations and institutions that receive federal contracts can't be discriminated against on the basis of religion.
Democrats warn that such a provision could potentially allow discrimination against the LGBT community in the name of religious freedom. Maloney's amendment specifically would prohibit funds to implement contracts with any company that doesn't comply with President Obama's executive orderbanning federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers.

When asked about the vote-switching, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) denied knowing whether his leadership team pressured Republicans.

"I don't know the answer. I don't even know,” Ryan told reporters.

He defended the provision in the defense bill.

"This is federalism; the states should do this. The federal government shouldn't stick its nose in its business,” he said.

Democrats accused Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) of leading the Republican operation to flip votes.

Maloney said he'd approached McCarthy to urge regular order but was dismissed.

"I said, 'What are you doing? You can let this go; your own members are supporting it,'" Maloney said, recounting the exchange with McCarthy. "And he said, 'Get back on your own side of the aisle.' And I said to him, 'What side of the aisle am I supposed to stand on to support equality?'"

Maloney emphasized that many Republicans held their ground and refused to switch sides. Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) "was at the head of that list," Maloney said.
"McCarthy went down and talked to him, and [Dent] told [McCarthy] to get lost," Maloney said. "And McCarthy then went around and twisted everybody else's arms, and it was disgraceful.

"I don't think I've ever seen anything that craven and that ugly in my time in Congress," Maloney added.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who like Maloney is a member of the Congressional LGBT Caucus, said he saw Rep. Robert Dold (R-Ill.), who supported the amendment, approach Maloney on the floor and lambast his own GOP leadership team for their handling of the vote.

"This is bulls---,” Dold told Maloney, according to Takano.
Maloney declined to weigh in on that exchange specifically. But he said "easily a dozen" Republicans approached him on the floor "and expressed disgust for what happened today."

"If you look at the people who had the guts to vote yes, you'll get an idea of who that was," he added.

Procedurally, once the clock expires on a vote, the lawmaker holding the gavel usually asks if any members want to change their votes. At that point, the electronic voting machines are switched off, and any vote-changing members are expected to approach the front of the chamber, known as the well, to make their switch in person.

In this case, the Speaker pro tempore never asked that question; GOP leaders simply kept the vote open to allow members to make the switch electronically without revealing themselves.

"No one had the courage to come into the well to change their vote,” Hoyer said.

The two-minute vote was finally gaveled closed after seven minutes and 37 seconds, just after the Republicans had secured the 213 votes to kill Maloney's amendment.
The decision to leave the clock open marks a sharp break under Ryan, who assumed the Speaker's gavel with vows to return to regular order and an insistence on obeying House rules, including the use of the vote clock. It's a dynamic that was not overlooked by Democrats following Thursday's vote.

"This Speaker [has] been a stickler for having timely votes. We all rush to the floor now, because we know that they're going to close the vote now shortly after the clock runs out," Takano said. "This was highly irregular."

Maloney piled on.

"It tells me talk is cheap, and all this happy nonsense about letting the House do its will is just that: nonsense," he said. "They are strong-arming their own members to support discrimination. … This was as black-and-white as you can get."

Democrats took to Twitter to blast Republicans for pressuring their members to change votes to ensure the amendment wouldn't pass. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) tweeted:

Browbeating colleagues to change House votes & support fed discrimination is scandalous and more akin to the Russian Politburo. #Shame
— Jackie Speier (@RepSpeier) May 19, 2016

Earlier Thursday, the House passed an amendment from Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) that would restrict the display of the Confederate flag in national cemeteries.

Updated at 6:20 p.m.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...n-lgbt-measure

Believe it or not! I just read a story somewhere concerning the arrest of a grocery store security guard for physically escorting a male that claims to identify as a transgender from a woman's bathroom. The transgender called the D.C. police and had the guard arrested for assault. According to the story D.C. police were investigating the crime as a hate crime. Our country's moral compass is quickly becoming inoperable!

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...throom-problem