Women on Boards Law Illustrates Leftist Lunacy

Women on Boards Law Illustrates Leftist Lunacy

Mandating that women must be on corporate boards based on their biological makeup is sheer discrimination, but progressives do not seem to realise the hilarious hypocrisy of such a law.

Contradiction is not a glitch in Woke ideology, it’s a feature.

This was perfectly illustrated in California, where — until last week — it was illegal for a business to discriminate against people on the basis of gender, and illegal for a business not to have at least one woman on their board of directors.

Wait. What?

Yes, you read that correctly.

In California, it was illegal to discriminate against people based on gender, except when appointing board directors, in which case you were required by law to discriminate against people based on gender.

As I often say: Cognitive dissonance, thy name is Leftism.

Not Fair

The Women on Boards law called for fines ranging from $100,000 for failing to report board compositions to the California secretary of state’s office to $300,000 for multiple failures to have the required number of women board members.

The law would have required companies to have a minimum of three female directors this year.

Fortunately, the Los Angeles County Superior Court has not been drinking the Woke Kool-Aid.

The Court ruled last week that requiring businesses to have female directors was unconstitutional because it required them to explicitly distinguish between individuals on the basis of gender.

No kidding.

It’s funny how Leftists always think the way to correct a perceived injustice is to implement actual injustice.

They typically address claims of sexism with actual sexism, and claims of racism with actual racism.

But that wasn’t the only hypocrisy.

Peak Trans

The law designed to promote gender equity defined a woman as anyone who “identifies as a woman”.

In other words, you could have an all-male board so long as one man thought of himself as a woman because — let’s face it — that’s close enough.

Leftists can’t even say “women’s rights” without making fools of themselves!

Judge Maureen Duffy Lewis ruled that the purpose of the law requiring gender quotas “was gender-balancing, not remedying discrimination”.

Leftist politicians, according to Duffy Lewis, had used the law, not for the protection of citizens, but for their own special brand of social engineering.

The Democrats — convinced they knew what was best for Californians, and convinced Californians were so hopelessly mired in misogyny that they would not choose what was best — decided to force Californians to perform the Party’s idea of best.

Diversity

It’s a wonder those same legislators didn’t also demand equal treatment for high school dropouts. They could have insisted that every corporate board must comprise at least three people who have absolutely no clue. Except, of course, that all those people were already working for the Democrats.

I’m only half-joking. The decision to overrule gender mandates came just a month after another Los Angeles judge found that a California law mandating that corporations diversify their boards with members from certain racial, ethnic or LGBT groups was unconstitutional.

Say what you like about the Right’s supposed homophobia, transphobia or Islamophobia; the Left match all of that and more with their raging meritocracy-phobia.

The point here is not whether it is a good thing for more women to be on corporate boards. At issue is whether private companies should be forced, under threat of penalty, to appoint people based on genitalia rather than on merit.

Coerced

When the Women on Boards law was stuck down, Lieutenant-Governor of California Eleni Kounalakis tweeted:

“The number of women directors on California boards went from just 766 in 2018 to 1,844 just 3 years later. It’s disappointing to see this setback for such an effective tool to help us achieve equal representation.

Well yes. It’s amazing what can be achieved with “such an effective tool” as the threat of punishment.

And it’s hardly fair on women.

One can say that 766 of 766 women serving on boards prior to 2018 were there because they deserved to be. The same cannot be said for the 1078 women appointed at threat of gunpoint.

Is she a woman?

Is she a token?

Is she a man pretending to be a woman, doubling as a token?

Who would know in the crazy social justice world that Leftists are always trying to force upon free people?

The best display of the Left’s topsy-turvy worldview was CA’s Secretary of State Shirley Weber who told Politico:

“I’m deeply disappointed in the court’s decision to allow the State to revert to policies that allow systemic gender discrimination to create an impenetrable wall”

Huh?

What could be more “systemic” than legislated quotas? And what could be more discriminatory than demanding one particular gender is favoured, by law, on the threat of sanction?

These are rhetorical questions, of course. Leftists have no interest in addressing them. Contradictions, remember, are not a glitch, they are a feature.

___

Originally published at The James Macpherson Report.
Subscribe to his Substack here for daily witty commentary.
Photo by cottonbro.

Thank the Source

Handwritten Notes From 2017 Show FBI Agents Mislead DOJ On The Trump-Russia Investigation

Handwritten Notes From 2017 Show FBI Agents Mislead DOJ On The Trump-Russia Investigation

Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann is currently on trial for lying to the FBI about his role in pushing data pertaining to alleged communications between Trump and the Russian Alfa Bank. According to Special Counsel John Durham, Sussmann lied when he brought that data to the FBI’s General Counsel James Baker as part of the Clinton campaign’s efforts to trigger an FBI investigation of her opponent, Donald Trump. Specifically, Sussmann allegedly wrote Baker a text message claiming he was not representing anyone in providing the information when, in fact, he was representing the Clinton campaign.

In a surprising move, Sussmann’s defense team last week disclosed three sets of handwritten Department of Justice (DOJ) notes of a March 6, 2017 meeting between high-ranking DOJ and FBI officials. Durham gave the notes written by DOJ officials Tashina Gauhar, Mary McCord, and Scott Schools to Sussmann’s team as part of Durham’s discovery obligations.

While the notes contain a one-line hearsay suggestion that may cast doubt on Sussmann’s earlier claim that he was not representing anyone, their broader significance lies in what they reveal about the FBI’s strategy in the months leading up to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in May 2017.

In fact, the notes are the very first documents to have been released to the public that show what the FBI was telling the DOJ about the predication and status of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation only two weeks before FBI Director James Comey’s shock announcement to the House Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017, that the Trump campaign was being investigated by the FBI for ties to the Kremlin. It was Comey’s announcement that ultimately led to the appointment of Mueller.

The DOJ had a legal responsibility to supervise the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which, as a “sensitive matter,” placed special oversight and due diligence obligations on the DOJ and additional reporting and due diligence obligations on the FBI. The March 6 meeting was a key milestone in those due diligence obligations.

The FBI was represented at the meeting by three of its top officials: Deputy Director Andy McCabe, Counterintelligence Executive Assistant Director Bill Priestap, and Counterintelligence Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok. The DOJ was also represented by top-level officials, led by Acting Attorney General Dana Boente. Boente was taking the place of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had recused himself only four days previously.

The notes reveal a pattern of repeated lies and omissions by FBI leadership to DOJ officials that concealed the dramatic deterioration of the predicate for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. As the predication deteriorated, so too was the purported justification for Comey’s public reveal of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

The significance of the FBI’s lies was accentuated this week at Sussmann’s trial when Scott Hellman, an FBI cyber analyst, testified that he knew right away in September 2016 that Sussmann’s data did not suggest any covert communications between Trump and Russia. Hellman added that he wondered if the person who put together the data was suffering from a mental disability.

Hellman’s testimony is the clearest evidence yet that the FBI knew from the start that one of the two major components of the Trump Russia collusion narrative – the Alfa Bank data – was false. As the March 6 notes show, they concealed this fact from their DOJ superiors.

The other major component of the investigation was the Steele dossier. The FBI knew from a January 2017 interview of Igor Danchenko, Christopher Steele’s “Primary Sub-Source” through whom all the allegations in the Steele dossier were originated or channeled, that the dossier too was false.

Danchenko’s most shocking revelation to the FBI was that he had never met Sergei Millian, the attributed source for the Steele dossier’s most inflammatory claims, including the allegation that there was a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between Trump and the Kremlin, that Russia passed hacked Democratic National Committee emails to WikiLeaks, as well as the infamous Moscow pee tape story.

Danchenko, although a Russian national, was not “Russian-based,” as the FBI was claiming, but had lived and worked in Washington, D.C. for more than a decade, including at the Brookings Institute. Fiona Hill, a Brookings Institute stalwart, was a key supporter of Danchenko’s and had even introduced him to Steele in 2011. In 2016, Hill introduced Danchenko to former Hillary Clinton aide Charles Dolan. Danchenko would later use Dolan as a source for a number of his dossier claims.

Beyond the fact that Millian could not have been a source for the dossier, the FBI also learned from Danchenko that the dossier stories were based on bar talk and innuendo (Danchenko has since been charged by Durham with lying to the FBI about his sources).

The FBI appears to have concealed these matters from the DOJ. In fact, it does not appear from the March 6 notes that the FBI ever mentioned Danchenko. Despite Danchenko’s disavowal of the dossier as of March 6, it remained as the main component of the overall Crossfire Hurricane investigation, including being the basis of two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

The March 6 notes also reveal that FBI leadership told DOJ officials that the Page FISA application had been “fruitful” even though it had turned up nothing of significance. Page was never charged with, or even accused of, any offense and is now suing the DOJ for damages.

FBI leadership also pushed the narrative on their DOJ counterparts that the dossier was “CROWN reporting,” implying that the dossier was an official United Kingdom intelligence product when it was actually made-up stories and gossip and paid for by the Clinton campaign – a fact the FBI knew from their Danchenko interview.

The notes cite “CROWN reporting” in connection with collusion allegations on at least two occasions. In Strzok’s exposition of the status of Page’s case, the notes indicate that Strzok referred to “Crown source reporting” as a key element in the Page FISA warrant. This was already known from unredacted portions of the FISA applications that were publicly disclosed in 2020. However, what was not known was that the FBI also lied internally about these facts to their DOJ supervisors.

Similarly, the March 6 notes indicate that, in connection with the status of the Manafort case, Strzok had reported that, based on “CROWN reporting,” the FBI had “looked at [the Republican] convention” and allegations that the Trump campaign had caused the convention to “soften stance on Crimea and NATO” in exchange for “Russian energy stocks.”

In fact, there is no reference to allegations about Crimea or NATO in Steele’s dossier. Strzok attributed these false accusations to “CROWN reporting,” presumably to lend weight to them with his DOJ superiors.

With respect to “Russian energy stocks,” the dossier includes a false reference to Page receiving a brokerage fee for the sale of a Russian energy company but this allegation is not related to the convention but to the lifting of sanctions. Again, Strzok falsely portrayed this as having something to do with the Republican Party’s convention.

Additionally, the notes show that lead agent Strzok also lied to DOJ officials about the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Strzok claimed the investigation was triggered by Trump when he jokingly asked Russia to publish Clinton’s missing 30,000 emails. It was Trump’s joke which, according to Strzok, caused the Australian diplomat to provide his tip about Trump aide George Papadopoulos to the U.S. embassy in London.

In truth, the diplomat provided his tip before Trump made the joke. Another fact that the FBI concealed in respect of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane was that their theory that Papadopoulos had advanced knowledge of the DNC hack was logically impossible. When Papadopoulos met the Australian diplomat on May 10, 2016, most of the hacked DNC emails hadn’t even been written yet.

Ironically, in analyzing why the FBI leadership felt compelled to brazenly lie to their DOJ counterparts, it appears that their hand was forced by Trump himself. Just two days before the FBI-DOJ meeting, on March 4, 2017, Trump tweeted he had found out that President Obama had wiretapped Trump at Trump Tower. Trump’s tweet was in an apparent reference to radio host Mark Levin, who reported on his show on March 2 that Trump campaign aides had been the subject of FISA warrants.

In a number of instances, the March 6 meeting notes reflect the FBI leadership’s befuddlement as to how much Trump knew about the FBI’s investigation of him. McCabe is cited repeatedly as having said that the FBI was investigating what was behind Trump’s tweet.

In reality, Trump’s tweet probably just restated what Levin had said. But the fact that the FBI did not know how much Trump knew meant FBI leadership had a choice to make. They could either downplay the investigation with a view to wrapping it up or they could double down even though they had not found any incriminating evidence.

They chose to double down, with Comey going on offense in the immediate aftermath of the March 6 meeting. Aside from giving narrative-shaping briefings to congressional leaders, Comey publicly disclosed the existence of the Trump Russia investigation, ensuring a media frenzy. That frenzy ultimately led to the appointment of Mueller on May 17, 2017.

While we have become accustomed to false statements charges being filed against Trump associates such as Roger Stone, Papadopoulos, and Michael Flynn, those same charges are also applicable to false statements or concealment of material facts by FBI officials to DOJ officials in the conduct of their supervision of FBI investigations.

It is perplexing that no one within the FBI has been held accountable for the many lies told at the March 6 meeting. This fact is all the more perplexing as it was Durham who originally turned over the March 6 notes to Sussmann’s defense team.

Former Attorney General William Barr had earlier turned down the opportunity to charge McCabe with lying during an internal FBI investigation of a leak related to the Hillary Clinton email investigation. McCabe had authorized the leak but lied about it. McCabe later apologized for lying to agents who were investigating the leak.

While Barr claimed it was a judgment call not to prosecute McCabe, his lies must now properly be seen in light of the FBI’s and his own pattern of lies, as documented in the March 6 notes. While the notes were only publicly released last week, they have been available to Barr, Durham and the DOJ for much longer. Yet no action was taken.

Crucially, public release of the notes came after the five-year statute of limitations had lapsed in March of this year. The question is why the DOJ — and Durham in particular — gave the FBI a free pass. The uncomfortable answer may be that, as has been suspected for a while, Durham’s authority is effectively limited to private actors such as Sussmann and Danchenko and does not extend to public officials such as McCabe and Strzok.


Hans Mahncke is in-house counsel at a global business advisory firm. He holds LL.B., LL.M. and Ph.D. degrees in law. He is the author of numerous law books and his research has been published in a range of international journals. Stephen McIntyre is a semi-retired mining consultant specializing in statistical analysis. He holds a B.Sc. degree from the University of Toronto and a PPE degree from Oxford. Steve is known as the founder and editor of Climate Audit, a website devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data.

Source

BREAKING: ‘A Dark Day for Our State’ – NSW Parliament Finally Passes Euthanasia Laws

BREAKING: ‘A Dark Day for Our State’ – NSW Parliament Finally Passes Euthanasia Laws

In a tragic development for pro-life groups around the country, New South Wales has become the last state in Australia to pass assisted dying legislation. The bill passed the NSW Upper House after a lengthy debate and the amendments were accepted by the Lower House.

After three attempts over a decade, advocates of the bill – led by activist independent Alex Greenwich – have finally succeeded in permitting terminally ill patients to choose to end their own lives.

The bill received strong support in the Legislative Council (the Upper House), passing 23 to 15, according to the Australian Broadcasting Network.

Only a handful of the nearly 100 amendments debated passed the Upper House, with any amendments put forward by opponents of the bill dismissed as ‘hostile’ and voted down.  These amendments included one that would have permitted aged care and residential organisations to choose not to provide euthanasia services.

Damien Tudehope, the leader of the government in the Upper House, spoke against the bill, ultimately stating that he would leave the chamber thinking “this is a dark day for our state”.

Encouragingly, when the bill was originally passed in the Lower House, both the Premier, Dominic Perrottet, and the Opposition Leader, Chris Minns, voted against it.

Alex Greenwich, who also spearheaded the charge for abortion decriminalisation, was the de facto sponsor of the bill; however, it also received support from a number of other sponsors.

Greenwich has already turned his aim to the federal battlefield, urging federal parliamentarians to remove bans on territories introducing euthanasia legislation.

FamilyVoice Director Greg Bondar said that all major faith organisations had rejected the legislation.

“MPs have failed to adopt their ethical and religious conscience in opposing this bill,” he said.

The Australian Christian Lobby also spoke out about the law’s passage, calling it a ‘dangerous’.

As euthanasia legislation is now legal around Australia, Christians can pray that the vulnerable, suffering and dying people will not be pressured into degrading their own lives’ worth before God. Let’s pray that each person will appreciate just how precious their life is to their loved ones and, more importantly, to their Maker.

___

Photo by Kampus Production.

Thank the Source

The WHO Power Grab for Total Control

The WHO Power Grab for Total Control

What could go wrong with Gates bankrolling a coercive globalist health body? Countries have ceded their authority to the WHO, allowing it to steamroll even those who would demur at over-the-top reactions to the next pandemic in store.

Nothing could go wrong if we turned our health care decisions over to a globalist body with powers similar to a one-world government and with the backing of folks like Bill Gates — right? Um, not if you know your history, especially the history of the past two years.

But the World Health Organization is looking to do exactly this. Back in 2005, the International Health Regulations (IHR) was set up to deal with international public health issues. It is an instrument of international law that is legally binding on the 194 WHO Member States.

Global Power

Earlier this year, the US government sought to amend the IHR to deal with pandemics in even a more globalised and coercive fashion. Many are warning about the anti-democratic and draconian nature of these proposed amendments. Recall that earlier on, I discussed one European champion for freedom, Eva Vlaardingerbroek. In a chat with Mark Steyn, she discussed this very move, saying:

This is the first step to world governance. … This is not a democratic process, this is something that is diametrically opposed to the democratic process. That’s why we’re not hearing about it. …

Once a new pandemic hits, and those are their words, not mine, we will have a united response to how to deal with a pandemic, meaning there will be this organisation that is not democratically elected, that we didn’t vote for… that is going to basically create laws that will decide how our respective nations are going to respond to a new crisis, a new pandemic. So this is huge news and it’s very dangerous, but we are not hearing anything about it.

The World Council for Health said this about the matter:

These amendments give control over the declaration of a public health emergency in any member state to the WHO Director-General — even over the objection of the member state. The Director-General communicated the text of the proposed amendments on 20 January 2022, via a circular letter to State Parties.

The proposed IHR amendments also cede control to WHO “regional directors,” who are given the authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC). Moreover, the proposed amendments allow the Director-General to ring an international alarm bell, by unilaterally issuing an “Intermediate Public Health Alert (IPHA).”

Properly understood, the proposed IHR amendments are directed towards establishing a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting, and management. Consistent with a top-down view of governance, the public will not have opportunities to provide input or criticism concerning the amendments. This, of course, is a direct violation of the basic tenets of democracy…

The WCH opposes the unnecessary and dystopian move toward centralized control of public health. This proven harmful model assumes that only one entity, WHO, understands how to manage the health policy of every state — and by implication, the health of each and every individual. It also assumes, incorrectly, that Big Pharma’s controversial model of medicine which is the WHO’s preferred model — is the expert guide to better health and wellness.”

Corrupted

Scottish historian and author Neil Oliver has an important 8-minute video about it here:

This is part of what he said:

The WHO is a fabulously wealthy offshoot of the United Nations. It has its head office in Geneva and is presently headed by Ethiopian-born Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Know much about him? No, nor me. He and it are funded by 194 member states and also by donations from private entities.

As things stand, most of its money comes from the United States, from Communist China and from computer salesman and international man of mystery Bill Gates. Let us remember that for the past two years, the WHO has loudly celebrated the approach taken by China to the handling of Covid-19.

Even now, as tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens remain locked in their homes in scores of cities across that country… and after unknown numbers have died in those circumstances, including some who committed suicide by leaping to their deaths from their tower block imprisonment… the WHO continues to applaud the tactics of the Chinese Communist Party that is its benefactor.

For his own part Bill Gates, who struggles even to control viruses in the software sold by Microsoft, is on record admiring the Draconian approach taken by Australia — to the extent that he has said that in his opinion the world would have had greater success in eliminating the disease — the one that more than likely leaked from a lab in China — if only more nations had followed the Australian model, locked everyone down and sought Zero Covid….

Amendments written into the proposed treaty by the re-enamoured Biden administration will see 194 nations cede sovereignty over national health care decisions to the WHO. The WHO would thereby have decision-making power over and above our own government — and every other government.

Consider this — when you watch footage of the 26 million people of Shanghai locked down in their homes, their cats and dogs beaten to death in the street … the WHO would, by the terms of the new treaty, have the power to impose the same on cities here. Know too, that under the terms of the treaty, the WHO does not — does not — have to show any data to legitimise its conclusions or decisions.

It is also worth knowing, to say the least, that it would be up to the WHO to define what the next pandemic is. Seeing how things are going, I would hardly be surprised to hear about a pandemic of obesity, or of heart attacks — followed by the lockdowns and other restrictions to deal with same.”

Be Prepared

The Children’s Health Defense featured a piece by Dr Joseph Mercola, who put it this way:

Under the guise of a global pandemic, the WHO, the World Economic Forum and all its installed leaders in government and private business were able to roll out a plan that had already been decades in the making. The pandemic was a perfect cover. In the name of keeping everyone “safe” from infection, the globalists justified unprecedented attacks on democracy, civil liberties and personal freedoms, including the right to choose your own medical treatment.

Now, the WHO is gearing up to make its pandemic leadership permanent, extend it into the healthcare systems of every nation and eventually implement a universal or “socialist-like” healthcare system as part of The Great Reset.

While this is not currently being discussed, there’s every reason to suspect that this is part of the plan. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has previously stated that his “central priority” as director-general of the WHO is to push the world toward universal health coverage.

And, considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease,” without the original specificity of severe illness that causes high morbidity, just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion.

Also, Dr Silvia Behrendt, an Austrian once involved with WHO on the IHR issue, said this:

Global health security ideology is not an ideology that humanity can live with. We all have diseases. We don’t like diseases. We can defeat diseases, but diseases are not threats to the nations, they affect individuals.”

She begins her talk with these words:

“Right now we hear a lot about the pandemic treaty — there has been a lot of attention and political focus on the pandemic treaty, besides which there are the IHR amendments proposed by the US, which are very explosive and which will change international law, definitely.

And on the other side, there are a lot of issues going on within WHO, which are very troubling and concerning, because health and powers get globalized to the extent that the individual’s freedoms get jeopardized.”

You can view this 35-minute video with her here.

By way of action, the World Council for Health said this:

In the best campaigns for human rights, multi-pronged strategies are effective. Here are some ideas:

  1. Speak: Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos
  2. Act: Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices, and cases, etc.
  3. Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health
  4. Explore activist toolboxes such as: www.dontyoudare.info and stopthewho.com
  5. Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR
  6. Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments

___

Originally published at CultureWatch.

Thank the Source

For Once, the Sexual Revolutionaries Aren’t Wrong

For Once, the Sexual Revolutionaries Aren’t Wrong

A fresh Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade will certainly affect the law on same-sex marriage throughout the United States.

“The Sexual Revolutionaries fretting over gay marriage and contraception are not wrong,” said Ruth Institute President Dr Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD.

“Once the Court stops propping up the Sexual Revolution with so-called rights invented out of thin air, a lot of ‘settled issues’ are up for grabs.”

“Although in his draft of a Roe decision, Justice Samuel Alito said it would not impact other so-called rights, like gay marriage, logic would suggest otherwise,” Morse observed.
Roe v. Wade was decided over 49 years ago,” Morse noted.

“But Obergefell v. Hodges — which mandated homosexual marriage nationwide — was only decided in 2015. Doesn’t that make Obergefell a less important precedent?”

Shaky Basis

“The Supreme Court found rights in the Constitution that simply aren’t there. There’s no right to privacy, which the Court claimed to find in the First Amendment. This imaginary right to privacy was the foundation for Griswold and Eisenstadt as well as Roe. And there is no right to gay marriage in the 14th Amendment,” Morse explained.

“Part of the original Bill of Rights, the First Amendment was enacted to protect freedom of speech and religion. It says nothing about privacy, let alone abortion.”

“The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War to prevent Southern states from abridging the rights of ex-slaves. Only justices bent on legislating from the bench could interpret that as requiring same-sex marriage nationwide,” Morse charged.
“The Court frequently changes its mind about divisive topics,” Morse said.

“In the 1858 Dredd Scott decision, it said slaves are property. In 1896, it said ‘separate but equal’ in education was constitutional. In 1954, it said it was not.”

Losing Ground

“There is one important difference between Roe and Obergefell though,” Morse continued.

Roe galvanised the pro-life community and created a vibrant authentically grassroots nationwide movement. After Obergefell, proponents of marriage threw up their hands and said, ‘Oh, well, we tried,’ and moved on to other issues. The right-to-life movement never gave up and has had many successes.”

“We are fighting transgenderism today, precisely because we lost and gave up on marriage in 2015. Obergefell de-gendered marriage, which led to removing gendered words from legal documents. ‘Husband’ and ‘wife,’ were replaced with ‘spouse’ or ‘partner.’ ‘Mother’ and ‘father’ became androgynous ‘parents.’ No wonder we’re fighting transgenderism in schools.”

“If the Supreme Court does recognise a right to life, it gives hope to those of us who never gave up on man-woman marriage.”

The Ruth Institute’s upcoming 5th Annual Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution June 24-25 in Lake Charles, LA, will feature a keynote speech by Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life of America. There will be multiple sessions on gender ideology, and Morse will present: “Defending Traditional Christian Sexual Ethics like a Pro.”
___

Originally published at The Ruth Institute. Photo by Gotta Be Worth It.

Thank the Source

Texas Supreme Court Allows Child Abuse Investigations Over Mutilative Sex Surgeries To Proceed

Texas Supreme Court Allows Child Abuse Investigations Over Mutilative Sex Surgeries To Proceed

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday found that the state may continue to pursue child abuse investigations against parents who subject their children to radical and irreversible puberty blockers or mutilative surgeries under the auspices of “changing” the child’s sex.

The court’s ruling comes amid a lawsuit brought by the parents of a 16-year-old child, who were investigated by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services after Gov. Greg Abbott sent a directive to the agency explaining how “surgeries that can cause sterilization, mastectomies, removals of otherwise healthy body parts, and administration of puberty-blocking drugs or supraphysiologic doses of testosterone or estrogen” would amount to child abuse under existing state law.

District Judge Amy Clark Meachum of Travis County had previously issued an injunction blocking all such investigations statewide while the parents (named in the case as the “Does”) proceeded with their case, rather than simply issuing an injunction to temporarily block further investigations into the “Doe” family. An appeals court let her injunction stand, but the highest court in Texas found that the lower court had “abused its discretion” in making such a broad ruling, and struck it down.

That means that while the Doe trial continues, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) can continue to investigate other parents for subjecting their minor children to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgical procedures that could leave them sterile.

The Texas Supreme Court also noted in its ruling that Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton did not possess “statutory authority” to directly force a DFPS investigation but that such authority rests with DFPS. Rather than creating a new category of child abuse and demanding that DFPS start investigating it, however, Abbott and Paxton’s letter explained how giving transgender surgeries or hormones to children already violated existing law.

“Each of the ‘sex change’ procedures and treatments enumerated above, when performed on children, can legally constitute child abuse under several provisions of chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code,” Paxton wrote before listing the relevant statutes.


Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

Source

Texas Supreme Court Allows Child Abuse Investigations Over Mutilative Sex Surgeries To Proceed

Texas Supreme Court Allows Child Abuse Investigations Over Mutilative Sex Surgeries To Proceed

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday found that the state may continue to pursue child abuse investigations against parents who subject their children to radical and irreversible puberty blockers or mutilative surgeries under the auspices of “changing” the child’s sex.

The court’s ruling comes amid a lawsuit brought by the parents of a 16-year-old child, who were investigated by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services after Gov. Greg Abbott sent a directive to the agency explaining how “surgeries that can cause sterilization, mastectomies, removals of otherwise healthy body parts, and administration of puberty-blocking drugs or supraphysiologic doses of testosterone or estrogen” would amount to child abuse under existing state law.

District Judge Amy Clark Meachum of Travis County had previously issued an injunction blocking all such investigations statewide while the parents (named in the case as the “Does”) proceeded with their case, rather than simply issuing an injunction to temporarily block further investigations into the “Doe” family. An appeals court let her injunction stand, but the highest court in Texas found that the lower court had “abused its discretion” in making such a broad ruling, and struck it down.

That means that while the Doe trial continues, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) can continue to investigate other parents for subjecting their minor children to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgical procedures that could leave them sterile.

The Texas Supreme Court also noted in its ruling that Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton did not possess “statutory authority” to directly force a DFPS investigation but that such authority rests with DFPS. Rather than creating a new category of child abuse and demanding that DFPS start investigating it, however, Abbott and Paxton’s letter explained how giving transgender surgeries or hormones to children already violated existing law.

“Each of the ‘sex change’ procedures and treatments enumerated above, when performed on children, can legally constitute child abuse under several provisions of chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code,” Paxton wrote before listing the relevant statutes.


Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

Source

House Counsel Who Subpoenaed McCarthy For Jan. 6 Under Fire For Conflicts Of Interest

House Counsel Who Subpoenaed McCarthy For Jan. 6 Under Fire For Conflicts Of Interest

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was officially subpoenaed by the Select Committee on Jan. 6 along with four other Republican members of the lower chamber in an unprecedented step on Thursday.

Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Mo Brooks of Alabama are each demanded to offer testimony to the witch-hunt probe established by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi under threat of contempt charges that have been levied on those who’ve refused to comply.

“The illegitimate January 6th Committee had already turned Congress’s investigative authority into a political weapon; now they’ve turned that weapon on their own colleagues,” said GOP Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, who was appointed as ranking member of the committee but was barred by Speaker Pelosi from serving his minority duty. “If anyone deserves a subpoena, it’s the Speaker, the only person in Congress who is covering up key documents related to January 6th.”

Even more bizarre than the subpoenas issued to sitting lawmakers, however, are the circumstances surrounding their inception.

A congressional subpoena is not necessarily a document of its authorized committee. It is a document of Congress, wherein the authorizing committee votes on its delivery, it gets signed by the chairman, and then it gets approved by the House Counsel’s office, which reviews its legal legitimacy. No subpoena may ever be issued by Congress without the express consent of the House General Counsel, which is also tasked with representing lawmakers.

Douglas Letter, the incumbent general counsel for the House of Representatives, sent a message to members shortly after the subpoenas were issued offering to receive their service on lawmakers’ behalf.

“I am authorized by House Members to accept service of process on their behalf in situations in which they are receiving subpoenas in connection with court proceedings, such as when they are being sued or are being asked to be a witness,” Letter wrote. “In such situations, Members authorize me to play this very limited ministerial role in order to make the service of process mechanism simple and so that they and their offices are not bothered by persons trying to serve process.”

The arrangement, however — according to Stan Brand, an attorney with Brand Woodward Law — presents a grave conflict of interest.

“It’s like calling up your opponent in litigation and offering to accept service on their behalf,” Brand told The Federalist. “How does he do that since his role is on the other side of the case?”

Brand called the conflict “remarkable,” adding, “there are constitutional legal issues involved in the enforcement of these subpoenas.”

Letter did not immediately respond to The Federalist’s request for comment.

Several House lawmakers who were handed official subpoenas on Thursday refused to comply with committee requests to offer voluntary testimony, claiming the investigation is illegitimate.

The Jan. 6 Committee, born in the ashes of the failed Jan. 6 Commission, is operating under questionable authority after Pelosi launched the norm-breaking probe with a prohibition on minority appointments to the panel. Jordan and Banks, now running their own investigation of the Capitol security failures with the speaker at the center, were each kicked from their appointed roles on the select committee in violation of House rules.

Republican lawmakers have consequently been barred from a review of the same material in the hands of Pelosi’s deputies on the panel who’ve selectively leaked their findings of private communications to smear political dissidents.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)