Difference between revisions of "Transgender lawfare"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* On May 10, 2024, “An effort by Nassau County to ban transgender women from competing in women’s sports was struck down by a State Supreme Court judge Friday — a decision County Executive Bruce Blakeman said he will 'absolutely' appeal. ... 'Lack of courage from a Judge who didn’t want to decide the case on its merits. Unfortunately, girls and women are hurt by the Court,' Blakeman said in a statement after the decision.”<ref>https://nypost.com/2024/05/11/us-news/nassau-county-transgender-sports-ban-overturned-by-judge/</ref> | * On May 10, 2024, “An effort by Nassau County to ban transgender women from competing in women’s sports was struck down by a State Supreme Court judge Friday — a decision County Executive Bruce Blakeman said he will 'absolutely' appeal. ... 'Lack of courage from a Judge who didn’t want to decide the case on its merits. Unfortunately, girls and women are hurt by the Court,' Blakeman said in a statement after the decision.”<ref>https://nypost.com/2024/05/11/us-news/nassau-county-transgender-sports-ban-overturned-by-judge/</ref> | ||
* 2016-2023, a seven-year court battle: “I lost sole medical authority. I lost custody. I lost $150,000 in legal costs,” a 32-year-old father said. “But I saved my son” against having [[transgender]] attempts being pushed on him.<ref>https://nypost.com/2024/02/04/metro/dad-claims-ex-wife-forced-young-son-to-transition-despite-his-protests/</ref> | * 2016-2023, a seven-year court battle: “I lost sole medical authority. I lost custody. I lost $150,000 in legal costs,” a 32-year-old father said. “But I saved my son” against having [[transgender]] attempts being pushed on him.<ref>https://nypost.com/2024/02/04/metro/dad-claims-ex-wife-forced-young-son-to-transition-despite-his-protests/</ref> | ||
| + | * 2022-2023, a [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] school in [[Michigan]] sought clarification and protection against transgender-based lawfare under a new law there, but the federal court dismissed the case without providing any safeguard against anticipated lawfare.<ref>{{cquote|St. Joseph alleges that Michigan's amended civil rights law infringes on and chills its First Amendment right to govern itself according to religious principles, frame its policies and doctrine, create and maintain a parish and school environment that is faithful to its religious beliefs, and select its employees according to those religious principles without government interference (id. ¶ 137). St. Joseph alleges that the "ELCRA's broad provisions impose overlapping nondiscrimination requirements on St. Joseph—as an educator, as an employer, and as a public accommodation" (id. ¶¶ 11-12). Specifically, St. Joseph alleges that the newly amended civil rights law makes it unlawful for St. Joseph to follow "the 2,000-year-old teachings of the Catholic Church, including its teaching that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, that sexual relations are limited to marriage, and that human beings are created as either male or female" (id. ¶ 13). In its educational activities, St. Joseph teaches and practices that "men and women, boys and girls, should be treated according to their biological sex, including in dress, personal pronouns, participation in sports teams, and use of bathrooms, locker rooms, or other single-sex spaces" (id. ¶ 52). Diocese policy requires that "[s]tudents [who attend Diocesan schools] and [their] parents (or legal guardians) shall conduct themselves in accord with their God given biological sex" (id. ¶ 46). | ||
| + | |||
| + | St. Joseph alleges that "the risk of liability" has led it to hold off on hiring or expanding its services (id. ¶¶ 14-15). St. Joseph alleges that also at stake is its ability to rent its facilities and conduct parish activities without being held liable as a public accommodation (id. ¶ 18). St. Joseph does not identify any pending complaint, investigation, or prosecution against it, but St. Joseph alleges that "[w]ith 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity or expression' protections now enshrined in the ELCRA, St. Joseph faces an immediate threat of enforcement" (id. ¶ 129).}} | ||
| + | ''St. Joseph Par. St. Johns v. Nessel'', No. 1:22-cv-1154, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237000, at *11-13 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2023).</ref> | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 02:44, May 12, 2024
Transgender lawfare is the very aggressive, lavishly funded misuse of the courts to advance the transgender agenda through lawsuits. There is a new unjust ruling nearly daily now (May 2024) by judicial activism that orders special rights to transgenders, and often to the detriment of many others such as female athletes. These rulings are typically in violation of natural law.
Legislatures, both state and federal, could withdraw jurisdiction from courts to prevent this judicial activism, but have not done so yet. Schools and small businesses that resist the demands by Leftist transgender activists risk being wrongly bankrupted by their lawfare.
Here is a growing list of examples:
- On April 29, 2024, an 8-6 en banc ruling by the Fourth Circuit required States (specifically in this case, West Virginia) to fund transgender surgeries at taxpayer expense through Medicaid.[1]
- On May 10, 2024, “An effort by Nassau County to ban transgender women from competing in women’s sports was struck down by a State Supreme Court judge Friday — a decision County Executive Bruce Blakeman said he will 'absolutely' appeal. ... 'Lack of courage from a Judge who didn’t want to decide the case on its merits. Unfortunately, girls and women are hurt by the Court,' Blakeman said in a statement after the decision.”[2]
- 2016-2023, a seven-year court battle: “I lost sole medical authority. I lost custody. I lost $150,000 in legal costs,” a 32-year-old father said. “But I saved my son” against having transgender attempts being pushed on him.[3]
- 2022-2023, a Catholic school in Michigan sought clarification and protection against transgender-based lawfare under a new law there, but the federal court dismissed the case without providing any safeguard against anticipated lawfare.[4]
References
- ↑ https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221721.P.pdf
- ↑ https://nypost.com/2024/05/11/us-news/nassau-county-transgender-sports-ban-overturned-by-judge/
- ↑ https://nypost.com/2024/02/04/metro/dad-claims-ex-wife-forced-young-son-to-transition-despite-his-protests/
- ↑
“ St. Joseph alleges that Michigan's amended civil rights law infringes on and chills its First Amendment right to govern itself according to religious principles, frame its policies and doctrine, create and maintain a parish and school environment that is faithful to its religious beliefs, and select its employees according to those religious principles without government interference (id. ¶ 137). St. Joseph alleges that the "ELCRA's broad provisions impose overlapping nondiscrimination requirements on St. Joseph—as an educator, as an employer, and as a public accommodation" (id. ¶¶ 11-12). Specifically, St. Joseph alleges that the newly amended civil rights law makes it unlawful for St. Joseph to follow "the 2,000-year-old teachings of the Catholic Church, including its teaching that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, that sexual relations are limited to marriage, and that human beings are created as either male or female" (id. ¶ 13). In its educational activities, St. Joseph teaches and practices that "men and women, boys and girls, should be treated according to their biological sex, including in dress, personal pronouns, participation in sports teams, and use of bathrooms, locker rooms, or other single-sex spaces" (id. ¶ 52). Diocese policy requires that "[s]tudents [who attend Diocesan schools] and [their] parents (or legal guardians) shall conduct themselves in accord with their God given biological sex" (id. ¶ 46). St. Joseph alleges that "the risk of liability" has led it to hold off on hiring or expanding its services (id. ¶¶ 14-15). St. Joseph alleges that also at stake is its ability to rent its facilities and conduct parish activities without being held liable as a public accommodation (id. ¶ 18). St. Joseph does not identify any pending complaint, investigation, or prosecution against it, but St. Joseph alleges that "[w]ith 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity or expression' protections now enshrined in the ELCRA, St. Joseph faces an immediate threat of enforcement" (id. ¶ 129).
” St. Joseph Par. St. Johns v. Nessel, No. 1:22-cv-1154, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237000, at *11-13 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2023).