[RD] LGBTQ news

Status
Not open for further replies.

I rather think that qualified immunity applies to action taken under a state law before that law is ruled unconstitutional.

I was referring previously to action taken after that state law has been ruled unconstitutional.

Sure. Won't stop them if the only relief for victims is for each individual victim to go through the long, grinding court process.

An appeal would need to be filed, but if SCOTUS has ruled that the law under which that individual was fined or imprisoned is unconstitutional, that appeal should be a simple process.
 
Last edited:
However it would seem to me that if the supreme court has ruled a state law
invalid any arrests made under that law after that ruling, are unlawful arrests.

As if an arrest being unlawful has ever stopped a cop from doing it
 
I was discussing what is lawful.

I am not sure what the point of your post is.

I could equally well say that:

Murder is unlawful but that doesn't stop murderers.
 
I was discussing what is lawful.

I am not sure what the point of your post is.

I could equally well say that:

Murder is unlawful but that doesn't stop murderers.
Police are (ostensibly) meant to protect. Not sure comparing them to murderers was what you intended.

Or maybe you did! If so, kudos :)
 
I rather think that qualified immunity applies to action taken under a state law before that law is ruled unconstitutional.

I was referring previously to action taken after that state law has been ruled unconstitutional.



An appeal would need to be filed, but if SCOTUS has ruled that the law under which that individual was fined or imprisoned is unconstitutional, that appeal should be a simple process.
I believe your starting assumption is incorrect. It doesn't appear that the law (or other similar laws in other states) have been definitively ruled unconstitutional. Presumably if it/they had then your point would have more strength, but at the moment I think it's moot.
 
I believe the purpose of getting the injunction was that the plaintiffs felt as though it might be unconstitutional. I haven't thought about it a great deal, but it seems that a law discriminating against children simply becomes invalid when they become 18 anyway. To that end, it at least makes sense to me that granting a universal injunction is simply a circumvention of a democratically enacted law (whether you think that law is lousy or not), without a class action suit that could be said to represent a more sizable sample of plaintiffs.
 
I believe your starting assumption is incorrect. It doesn't appear that the law (or other similar laws in other states) have been definitively ruled unconstitutional. Presumably if it/they had then your point would have more strength, but at the moment I think it's moot.

Quite so.

There is indeed a distinction between a definite SCOTUS ruling of the unconstitutionality of a law (where I was
picking up from the black and white argument), and the (otherwise referenced in this thread) injunction to stay.

However in the later instance I'd think that limiting its applicability to named plaintiffs is reasonable.
And if the final ruling is that the law is unconstitutional then that ruling might either include the
generality of such a class of plaintiffs, or enable others to follow through with simple law suites/appeals.
 
The purpose of a stay is to pause the execution of a law which may have unlawfully cause lasting or irrecoverable damage. If a state passed a law specifying that thieves were to be punished by removal of the hand, and then after 2 years once the law is ruled unconstitutional you may have hundreds or thousands of people who had their hands removed, who should not have had that done to them, and who will never be able to get that hand back. It is the same here. If a child who is on puberty blockers is ordered off puberty blockers while the case is settled, that child will experience puberty. That puberty will cause severe mental and emotional trauma, it will cause lasting physical changes which are either enormously expensive and time consuming to reverse, and in some cases are outright irreversible. I have a friend who this year is looking at paying somewhere in the ballpark of $170,000 out of pocket for two corrective surgeries to repair the effects undergoing cis puberty did to her. That’s just for the procedure and recovery, not including airfare, lodging or food. Those are expenses she would not have had to undergo if puberty blockers had been available to her at the appropriate age.

The issue here is that the court recognizes the clear harm that would occur to the plaintiffs in this case. That’s why the injunction was granted for them. The problem though is that if this law was harmful for the plaintiffs, then it would also clearly be harmful to the dozens or hundreds of other trans youth in the state who would likewise see their access to necessary medication cut off, but the court refuses to extend this injunction to them as well. In addition to this being a monstrous decision in isolation, its implications are extremely worrying, as this is to say if that corporal punishment law for thieves were instituted, then every person accused of theft would have to individually file suit and have it heard on a case-by-case basis. It is antithetical to the concept of justice itself as it is to declare that the law is not to be applied to everyone equally, but rather individually and subjectively.
 
Guardian Australia explainer - What implications does England’s review of trans healthcare have for Australia?

(Very important that it's the Australian Guardian team here and not the British lol)

Australian experts, including clinicians, politicians and peak medical bodies, spoken to by Guardian Australia all said the trans and gender-diverse care provided by states and territories is substantially different from that in England, and is based on holistic, best-practice care with various levels of assessments.

Guardian Australia understands neither New South Wales or Victoria have plans to make changes to puberty blocker prescribing or accessibility as a result of the Cass review.

Victoria’s health minister, Mary-Anne Thomas, said: “Our gender clinics offer some of the most vulnerable young people in our community the support they deserve – we’re fiercely proud of the important work they do.

“We will continue engaging with trans and gender-diverse community and health service partners to ensure that trans and gender-diverse people can access the care they need.”

Associate Prof Ada Cheung, an endocrinologist with the Trans Health Research Group, said there are cases where “not providing, or delaying, wished-for and medically indicated treatment for transgender young people is emotionally distressing and is associated with poorer outcomes”.

“Doing nothing carries significant risk.”

Cheung said clinical guidelines elsewhere, including in Canada and Germany, support clinicians being able to confidently prescribe puberty blockers where appropriate. She is concerned the Cass review “downplays the risk of denying treatment to young people with gender dysphoria and limits their options by placing restrictions on their access to care”.

“The UK have one single clinic with ridiculously long waiting lists with thousands who can’t access care and their approach is different to the holistic gender-affirming approach in Australia,” Cheung said.

The Cass review has been criticised by some Australian clinicians and trans health experts for having an unrealistic threshold for high-quality evidence, effectively discounting moderate-quality observational studies that were not randomised control trials, considered the gold standard of scientific research.

Randomised control trials are not always feasible or ethical to conduct, the vice-president of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health (AusPATH), Dr Portia Predny, said. Many areas of medicine, including perinatal care and paediatric care, lack randomised control trials, she said.
 
Last edited:

“Just up the street from where we are right now is Lewisville, Texas. In Lewisville, Texas, in the high school, recently — as in just a month ago — they had a high school teacher who was a man who would go to school dressed as a woman in a dress, high heels, and makeup. Now, what do you think is going through the mind of the students that’s in that classroom? Are they focusing on the subject that this person is trying to teach? I don’t know. What I do know are these two things: One is this person, a man, dressing as a woman, in a public high school in the state of Texas, he’s trying to normalize the concept that this type of behavior is OK. This type of behavior is not OK, and this is the type of behavior that we want to make sure we end in the state of Texas.”
 
Now, what do you think is going through the mind of the students that’s in that classroom? Are they focusing on the subject that this person is trying to teach? I don’t know.

The answer to "are a group of teenagers focused on the subject of the class" is pretty much always no, regardless of what the teacher is wearing.
 

NBC News said:
A federal appeals court ruled in favor of a transgender teenager who sued West Virginia over the state's law barring trans athletes from competing on girls' and women's sports teams in public schools and colleges.
NBC News said:
The federal appeals court, which is based in Richmond, Virginia, concluded that the state legislation violated Title IX, a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools or education programs that receive funding from the federal government.

“Offering B.P.J. a ‘choice’ between not participating in sports and participating only on boys teams is no real choice at all,” Judge Toby Heytens wrote, using the plaintiff’s initials. “The defendants cannot expect that B.P.J. will countermand her social transition, her medical treatment, and all the work she has done with her schools, teachers, and coaches for nearly half her life by introducing herself to teammates, coaches, and even opponents as a boy.”
 

Idaho Drag Performer Wins $1.1 Million In Damages After Far-Right Blogger Defamed Him​

Eric Posey was falsely accused of exposing himself at a pride event after blogger Summer Bushnell shared a doctored video online.

 

Pride flags will fly in Colorado despite Republican Party call to burn them​

Candidate Valdamar Archuleta declines his party’s endorsement over ‘God Hates Pride’ email

Pride celebrations will go on in Colorado despite a Republican Party email branding its participants "godless groomers" and calling on people to burn Pride flags.

"Our joy and just our celebration alone is a demonstration to these folks who want to kind of stoke this type of hatred that they're not going to keep us down," Nadine Bridges, executive director of One Colorado, an 2SLGBTQ+ advocacy organization, told CBC.

"At One Colorado, we'll hit over 25 Prides across the state, and we're going to keep doing the things that we need to do."

In Denver, the state's capital and home to its largest Pride festival, organizers say they're working with law enforcement to ensure security, but they won't be cowed by the recent rhetoric.

"We're not going to cut back on it. We're not going to change it to accommodate folks like this," said Rex Fuller, CEO of the Centre on Colfax, a community centre that organizes Denver Pride.

"I think that's the whole point of Pride is being out and proud and being yourself and free expression, and that's what we're going to do."

Republican nominee calls out own party​

To mark the beginning of Pride month, the Colorado GOP sent an email with the subject line "God Hates Pride," with a video of a church sermon encouraging people to burn Pride flags.

"The month of June has arrived and, once again, the godless groomers in our society want to attack what is decent, holy, and righteous so they can ultimately harm our children," reads the message, signed by Dave Williams, the Colorado Republican Party chairperson.

The party later posted on X: "Burn all the #pride flags this June."

In a social media post, Shad Muri, the state's Democratic Party chair, says the message is proof that "vile hatred has come to define" Colorado Republicans.

But Valdamar Archuleta, Republican candidate for the 1st Congressional District in Colorado, disagrees.

"It's not representative of who Republicans are as a party, of who Republican voters are in Colorado, nor who we are as a country," Archuleta told As It Happens host Nil Köksal.

"It was a huge mistake. And I'm just disappointed that the party would do that."

Archuleta, who is gay and chairs the conservative 2SLGBTQ+ group Log Cabin Republicans, issued a statement condemning Williams' email and rejecting his party's formal endorsement.

But he says he stands by his fellow candidates, many of whom have sent him messages of support for speaking out.

"When I made the decision to reject the endorsement, I wasn't sure how it would be taken or what would happen," he said. "I've heard nothing but condemnation for what the party did. And I've been fully supported."

The Colorado Republican Party did not respond to a request for comment from CBC. But, in an interview with NBC affiliate 9News, Williams stood by the message.

"We make no apologies for opposing the woke Pride Month agenda as it ultimately harms children and undermines parents," he said.

"But Archuleta is the presumptive nominee in an overwhelmingly Democrat-heavy district, so we will of course continue to highlight his candidacy."

Archuleta says it's time for Williams and others like him in the party to go so it can focus on issues that matter to voters, like the housing crisis and the cost of living.

"This whole thing here is just a distraction. It's something stupid. And it came from one person," he said.

Bridges says her organization tries to work with "all elected officials who are pro-justice, pro-equality."

But she says she doesn't understand why any leader would risk inciting more violence in a state that has seen several mass shootings, including one at a 2SLGBTQ+ nightclub in 2022.

"I don't even understand, you know, what they're thinking," she said.

"I only hope that those folks who support these types of leaders start to question their own support and look more to folks who have respect and love for the human condition. Because at the end of the day, we all should want the opportunity to thrive. And anybody who gets in the way of that should be questioned."
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/colorado-republican-pride-1.7227472
 

Judge Strikes Down Ron DeSantis' Signature Law​

Florida's blanket restrictions on medical care for transgender children were ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Tuesday, striking down a key pillar of Gov. Ron DeSantis' platform.

In his ruling from Tallahassee, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle invalidated a Florida health code rule and a new state law that prohibited Medicaid payments for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. He found these bans violated federal laws, including the Affordable Care Act's prohibition on sex discrimination in healthcare.
https://www.newsweek.com/florida-transgender-law-banned-unconstitutional-1911413
 
So who's taking bets on how many months it takes for that case to go to the Supreme Court, which will rule 6-3 that banning trans people's healthcare is very legal and very cool?
 
It'll be 5-4 Gorsuch had been oddly strong in his support for consistency in civil rights stuff like that. It's possible Roberts flips as well but I'd doubt it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom