Sunday, April 14, 2019



Ohio Governor Signs Historical Pro-Life Bill

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) gave a victory to the pro-life movement Thursday by signing one of the strictest pro-life bills in the nation.

“The essential function of government is to protect the most vulnerable among us,” DeWine said before signing the bill. “Those who do not have a voice. Government’s role should be to protect life from the beginning to the end. To protect those who cannot protect themselves, such as the elderly, the unborn, those who are sick, those who have a disability, those who have a mental illness or an addiction. The signing of this bill today is consistent with that respect for life and the imperative to protect those who cannot protect themselves.”

The Human Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act makes it illegal for women to receive abortions after the first heartbeat is detected. According to The Hill, a fetal heartbeat can occur between eight and ten weeks. The bill was able to pass in the state’s House and Senate. Both have GOP control.

The bill was sent to the governor’s office twice before, but former Gov. John Kasich vetoed the measure both times.

SOURCE  






Pentagon's transgender policy for military service to take effect, nearly two years after Trump tweeted about the ban

The Pentagon's new policy that places limits on the military service of transgender individuals goes into effect on Friday, nearly two years after President Donald Trump tweeted that he wanted to ban transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military.

The new policy largely requires service members and those wishing to join the military to adhere to the standards associated with their biological sex.

Service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria, defined as "a marked incongruence between one's experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender ... associated with clinically significant distress and impairment of functioning," will no longer be allowed medical surgeries for gender transition unless they are currently in the process of receiving medical treatment. And transgender individuals who have received hormones or medical surgery related to their transition are now barred from joining the military, even if they can prove stability in their preferred gender.

The Pentagon asserts that the new policy is not a ban on transgender individuals, saying "all persons will continue to be treated with dignity and respect."

A string of lawsuits were filed after Trump called for the ban in July 2017. He has not tweeted about the issue since.

A federal judge lifted the final injunction of the ban last month, allowing the Pentagon to proceed with its implementation of the new policy. In the meantime, four outstanding lawsuits will proceed in courts across the country with the plaintiffs arguing the ban is unconstitutional.

In preparation for the policy to take effect on Friday, a Pentagon spokesperson told ABC News that fact sheets have been provided to military medical providers, service members, applicants, commanders, recruiters and to those in the human resources field.

Transgender service members who were serving in their preferred gender prior to Friday will be grandfathered in under the Obama administration policy, which allowed transgender individuals to serve openly.

"There's transgender people who have been scrambling to try to hurry up, come out and begin the transition process so that they can be included in this so-called grandfathered group," said Shannon Minter, one of the lead attorneys for two of the lawsuits filed against the policy. "So that has been a source of enormous stress and anxiety."

Minter, a transgender man and the Legal Director for NCLR, described transgender service members as in a "state of despair" and fear as the new policy is implemented. He said the military will lose skilled, highly qualified individuals from service because of their gender identity and that the new policy could "encourage bias and discrimination."

"This is absolutely 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' for transgender people," Minter told ABC News, referring to the Pentagon's policy in the 1990s and early 2000s that banned gay and lesbian service members from serving openly in uniform.

In a message to sailors in advance of the new policy, the Navy said people were permitted to "live socially" in their preferred gender while not on duty, as long as they conform to the standards associated with their biological sex while in uniform.

"There is no policy that prohibits the ability of a service member to express themselves off-duty in their preferred gender," officials said in a recently released Navy administrative message, according to Military.com which obtained the guidance. "Appropriate civilian attire, as outlined in the uniform regulations, will not be determined based on gender."

Yet the Pentagon has said the policy doesn't require transgender service members to conceal their gender identity. "Gender is a fundamental aspect of a person's identity," Minter said. "It cannot be turned on and off like a switch, and the very notion of requiring a non-transgender person to do so would immediately be recognized as cruel and unworkable. It is equally cruel and unworkable for transgender people."

The Pentagon asserts that about 9,000 service members self-identify as transgender.

SOURCE  






234 House Democrats, Two Republicans Co-Sponsor Bill Forcing Schools To Let Male Athletes Compete On Girls’ Sports Teams

Every House Democrat but one has co-sponsored a bill requiring schools to allow male athletes who identify as transgender girls to compete on female sports teams.

Democrats’ Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make “sexual orientation and gender identity” protected characteristics under federal anti-discrimination law. Among other things, the bill would force public schools to expand female athletic teams to include biological males who identify as transgender girls.

Sarah Warbelow, director of the left-wing Human Rights Campaign, praised the bill’s impact on high school sports in written testimony submitted to a House subcommittee on Tuesday.

“Opponents of equality in athletics for transgender athletes have argued that girls who are transgender have unfair physiological advantages over cisgender girls and as a result, will dominate women’s competitive sports,” Warbelow wrote, calling it not “rooted in fact” that biologically male athletes will outperform their female counterparts.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York, made a similar argument during an April 2 hearing his committee held on the legislation. (RELATED: Biological Male Is Top-Ranked NCAA Track Star)

“Many states have sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination laws, and all of them still have women’s sports. Arguments about transgender athletes participating in sports in accordance with their gender identity having competitive advantages have not been borne out,” Nadler said in his opening statement.

In Connecticut, one of the states to which Nadler was referring, two male runners have dominated girls’ high school track. A female competitor called the male runners’ advantage “demoralizing.”

Julia Beck, the head of a self-described radical feminist organization, testified against the bill.

The Democrats’ bill would lead to a male invasion of female spaces, including on the athletic field, Beck said in her April 2 testimony. “Men will dominate female sports,” she warned.

Of the 235 Democrats in the House, 234 have co-sponsored the legislation. (That’s not counting Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico’s non-voting representatives, who also signed on as co-sponsors.)

Reps. John Katko of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania are the only House Republicans to co-sponsor the bill.

Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, the only pro-life Democrat left in the House, is also the only one in his party not co-sponsoring the Equality Act.

SOURCE  





The McCarthyite, Anti-Christian Campaign Against Chick-fil-A
    
The fast-food chain Chick-fil-A is wanted on suspicion of aiding and abetting Christian organizations.

The home of the “original chicken sandwich” was banned from its second airport in two weeks for the offense of contributing to Christian groups deemed anti-gay by its critics.

The San Antonio City Council voted to exclude the restaurant from its airport, and Buffalo, New York, soon followed suit, thus denying travelers the option of juicy chicken sandwiches and waffle fries in the cause of social justice.

This is about punishing the Georgia-based company for the faith of its leadership. The official bans are anti-Christian, unconstitutional and a harbinger of a larger effort to hunt down and punish any organization that has uncongenial views on sexual morality.

In San Antonio, the leader of the anti-Chick-fil-A effort, City Councilman Roberto Trevino, explained that, “Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport.” The irony of discriminating against Chick-fil-A in order to demonstrate the city’s famous open-ness was, of course, lost on him.

As for everyone feeling welcome, it’s not as though Chick-fil-A refuses to serve or hire anyone. It didn’t become the fastest-growing restaurant chain in America, projected to take third place in sales after McDonald’s and Starbucks, by putting obstacles between hungry patrons and its sandwiches (except for on Sundays, when it is closed).

The hostility to Chick-fil-A stems from a controversy back in 2012 when its CEO, Dan Cathy, made statements opposing gay marriage, and the foundation established by the company’s founder contributed to politically engaged social-conservative groups. There was nothing wrong with this, but since most profit-seeking enterprises don’t like controversy, Cathy said the company would back off the gay-marriage debate and focus on the chicken.

It has, but its critics still detect a lingering stench of Christianity.

The left-wing outfit ThinkProgress issued a report cited widely in the press and among Chick-fil-A opponents accusing the company’s foundation of “anti-equality” giving. By which it means it donated to the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (and a small Christian home for troubled young men in Vidalia, Georgia).

Needless to say, a lot of other people are guilty of the same offense, given that the Salvation Army raises about $2 billion a year. To consider all that the Salvation Army does — its thrift shops, aid for the homeless, disaster relief, anti-trafficking programs, Christmas gifts to needy children and much, much more — and reduce the organization to an allegedly anti-LGBT group is perverse.

For its part, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes stands accused of seeking “to spread an anti-LGBTQ message to college athletes.” It’s true that FCA asks its leaders to forswear homosexual acts, but it also wants them to pledge not to engage in heterosexual acts outside of marriage and, for that matter, refuse to use drugs, alcohol or tobacco.

According to Chick-fil-A, its donation to FCA supported sports camps and school programs for inner-city kids — not exactly controversial causes. And its gift to the Salvation Army went to youth camps and Christmas presents for thousands of Atlanta kids.

The latest campaign against Chick-fil-A is based on the idea that it is impermissible for it to associate with any group with a traditional Christian understanding of sex and marriage, for any purpose whatsoever, no matter how unobjectionable or noble.

Any public official joining the punitive campaign against Chick-fil-A needs a remedial lesson in the Constitution, which forbids discrimination against private companies on the basis of political or religious viewpoint. It is the enemies of Chick-fil-A who are intolerant and out-of-the-mainstream. They desperately need to abandon their tawdry McCarthyite crusade and “Eat Mor Chikin.”

SOURCE  

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

***************************

No comments: