hotair--2020-06-13--Judge to Smollett: Great news -- you can still be prosecuted for hoax

That sweetheart deal Jussie Smollett cut with city prosecutors over his alleged hoax of a hate-crime attack turned out to be a little too sweet .
An Illinois judge rejected Smollett ’ s motion to dismiss new charges involving the same allegations on the basis of double jeopardy : New criminal charges against actor Jussie Smollett do not violate his right against double jeopardy , a Cook County , Illinois judge ruled Friday .
Judge James Linn said the case against Smollett , the former Empire TV star accused of setting up a false claim of assault by two men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
… Smollett previously agreed to forfeit his $ 10,000 bond and made no admission of wrongdoing in exchange for having 16 charges against him on the phony assault case dropped .
The decision to drop the case was controversial and sparked outrage among law enforcement and government officials .
It turns out that Smollett and his attorneys were too clever by half .
They structured the non-prosecution agreement so that Smollett never had to admit wrongdoing and never got officially convicted of the crime .
Guess what that means , Linn asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the agreement Smollett reached with prosecutors in 2019 was not considered punishment , because the actor never admitted wrongdoing .
At the time , Smollett agreed to forfeit his bond to Chicago police and do community service .
“ There was no trial in this case , there was no jury empaneled , no witnesses were sworn , no evidence was heard , no guilty pleas were ever entered … nothing like that ever [ ] happened , ” Linn said of the 2019 case .
“ There was no adjudication of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guilt in that proceeding and taken the loss , he ’ d have been protected against a double-jeopardy prosecution .
That was really all the Chicago police and then-mayor Rahm Emanuel wanted at that time anyway .
Smollett refused to bend , however , and Foxx crafted an escape hatch that turned out to be a trap in the end .
The escape hatch was faulty in another way , too .
Smollett can ’ t rely on the non-prosecution agreement for any commitment against further prosecution because the agreement itself was corrupt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smollett ’ s new case was brought after another judge , Michael Toomin , ruled that his first prosecution was void because Cook County State ’ s Attorney Kim Foxx improperly recused herself .
The new case was brought by attorney Dan Webb , whom Toomin appointed as a special prosecutor .
However , had Smollett admitted guilt in that process or accepted a similar judgment through a no-contest plea — even to a lesser charge — that would not have been an obstacle .
Either of those options would have precluded any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was invalid ( unless there was evidence of Smollett ’ s direct participation in corruption leading to the agreement , which is another can of worms ) .
Smollett wanted to eat his cake and have it too .
Instead , he might need a cake with a file in it before all of this is over , unless he wises up and cuts an actual deal that admits wrongdoing .
Note : Reworded first paragraph to eliminate some rhetorical redundancy .

That sweetheart deal Jussie Smollett cut with city prosecutors over his alleged hoax of a hate-crime attack turned out to be a little too sweet. An Illinois judge rejected Smollett’s motion to dismiss new charges involving the same allegations on the basis of double jeopardy:
New criminal charges against actor Jussie Smollett do not violate his right against double jeopardy, a Cook County, Illinois judge ruled Friday. Judge James Linn said the case against Smollett, the former Empire TV star accused of setting up a false claim of assault by two men who uttered racial slurs, will continue. … Smollett previously agreed to forfeit his $10,000 bond and made no admission of wrongdoing in exchange for having 16 charges against him on the phony assault case dropped. The decision to drop the case was controversial and sparked outrage among law enforcement and government officials.
It turns out that Smollett and his attorneys were too clever by half. They structured the non-prosecution agreement so that Smollett never had to admit wrongdoing and never got officially convicted of the crime. Guess what that means, Linn asked — and answered:
Linn Friday said the agreement Smollett reached with prosecutors in 2019 was not considered punishment, because the actor never admitted wrongdoing. At the time, Smollett agreed to forfeit his bond to Chicago police and do community service. “There was no trial in this case, there was no jury empaneled, no witnesses were sworn, no evidence was heard, no guilty pleas were ever entered … nothing like that ever[] happened,” Linn said of the 2019 case. “There was no adjudication of this case.”
Had Smollett just admitted his guilt in that proceeding and taken the loss, he’d have been protected against a double-jeopardy prosecution. That was really all the Chicago police and then-mayor Rahm Emanuel wanted at that time anyway. Smollett refused to bend, however, and Foxx crafted an escape hatch that turned out to be a trap in the end.
The escape hatch was faulty in another way, too. Smollett can’t rely on the non-prosecution agreement for any commitment against further prosecution because the agreement itself was corrupt, Linn ruled:
Linn also noted Smollett’s new case was brought after another judge, Michael Toomin, ruled that his first prosecution was void because Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx improperly recused herself. The new case was brought by attorney Dan Webb, whom Toomin appointed as a special prosecutor.
However, had Smollett admitted guilt in that process or accepted a similar judgment through a no-contest plea — even to a lesser charge — that would not have been an obstacle. Either of those options would have precluded any further prosecution, even if the agreement was invalid (unless there was evidence of Smollett’s direct participation in corruption leading to the agreement, which is another can of worms).
Smollett wanted to eat his cake and have it too. Instead, he might need a cake with a file in it before all of this is over, unless he wises up and cuts an actual deal that admits wrongdoing.
Note: Reworded first paragraph to eliminate some rhetorical redundancy.


hotair--2020-06-13--Baltimore fines Church for holding services while thousands protest in the streets

In the Baltimore suburb of Dundalk , Pastor Stacey Shiflett made some headlines recently when he stood at the lectern in the Calvary Baptist Church and tore up a cease and desist order he ’ d received from the government .
Declaring that his congregation was “ going to do it God ’ s way , ” he insisted that if Walmart could be open , then his church would serve the needs of the congregation .
He proceeded to do just that on the following Sunday , while ensuring that congregants observed social distancing rules and had their temperatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word , the government turned around and levied a fine on the Pastor .
But now , one of Maryland ’ s congressmen is vowing to have the Department of Justice launch an investigation unless the fine is rescinded by Tuesday .
( CBS Baltimore ) A Maryland congressman says he will ask the Department of Justice to investigate a fine placed on a Dundalk church after it operated during the coronavirus stay at home order .
In a statement to WJZ , Republican Congressman Andy Harris said , “ If Baltimore County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time of the hearing on Tuesday , I do intend to ask the DOJ to investigate.
” Sunday services were held at Calvary Baptist Church on May 24 despite the county ’ s order .
“ Our people were just ready to come back to church , ” said Pastor Stacey Shiflett , with Calvary Baptist Church .
It ’ s unclear exactly what the Department of Justice could do about this even if they do open up an investigation .
The church was operating in defiance of an order from Baltimore County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still have such orders in place and the feds would have a hard time overruling them .
I suppose it ’ s possible that the Justice Department could attempt to file a lawsuit on the church ’ s behalf , but the more direct and more likely route would be for the church ’ s attorney to initiate such a procedure .
The better question to address here is the hypocrisy on display in enforcing such an order on a church at this time .
Calvary Baptist is a rather large church with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six hundred people .
Restricting them to ten people seems like a huge case of overkill if they are enforcing social distancing rules .
At the same time , we ’ ve seen both Baltimore ’ s Mayor and Chief of Police heaping praise on the thousands of protesters who took to the streets shoulder to shoulder , most without facemasks or any other sort of protection .
There was no talk of issuing tickets or fines to those individuals .
And to resurrect the point that the Pastor made when tearing up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions at Walmart don ’ t appear any safer than those inside the church .
If anything , the stores have more people in close contact with each other .
Perhaps some of those protesters could turn a portion of their energy toward protesting the closure of their churches .
That sounds like a far more direct method of getting the government to comply with your wishes these days .
If you can force elected officials to ignore the law and defund their police departments , surely they would drop some piddling fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to riot .

In the Baltimore suburb of Dundalk, Pastor Stacey Shiflett made some headlines recently when he stood at the lectern in the Calvary Baptist Church and tore up a cease and desist order he’d received from the government. Declaring that his congregation was “going to do it God’s way,” he insisted that if Walmart could be open, then his church would serve the needs of the congregation. He proceeded to do just that on the following Sunday, while ensuring that congregants observed social distancing rules and had their temperatures taken upon arrival.
Good to their word, the government turned around and levied a fine on the Pastor. But now, one of Maryland’s congressmen is vowing to have the Department of Justice launch an investigation unless the fine is rescinded by Tuesday. (CBS Baltimore)
A Maryland congressman says he will ask the Department of Justice to investigate a fine placed on a Dundalk church after it operated during the coronavirus stay at home order. In a statement to WJZ, Republican Congressman Andy Harris said, “If Baltimore County does not withdraw the fine by the time of the hearing on Tuesday, I do intend to ask the DOJ to investigate.” Sunday services were held at Calvary Baptist Church on May 24 despite the county’s order. “Our people were just ready to come back to church,” said Pastor Stacey Shiflett, with Calvary Baptist Church.
It’s unclear exactly what the Department of Justice could do about this even if they do open up an investigation. The church was operating in defiance of an order from Baltimore County. Both the city and the county still have such orders in place and the feds would have a hard time overruling them. I suppose it’s possible that the Justice Department could attempt to file a lawsuit on the church’s behalf, but the more direct and more likely route would be for the church’s attorney to initiate such a procedure.
The better question to address here is the hypocrisy on display in enforcing such an order on a church at this time. Calvary Baptist is a rather large church with a maximum seating capacity of more than six hundred people. Restricting them to ten people seems like a huge case of overkill if they are enforcing social distancing rules.
At the same time, we’ve seen both Baltimore’s Mayor and Chief of Police heaping praise on the thousands of protesters who took to the streets shoulder to shoulder, most without facemasks or any other sort of protection. There was no talk of issuing tickets or fines to those individuals. And to resurrect the point that the Pastor made when tearing up the cease and desist order, the conditions at Walmart don’t appear any safer than those inside the church. If anything, the stores have more people in close contact with each other.
Perhaps some of those protesters could turn a portion of their energy toward protesting the closure of their churches. That sounds like a far more direct method of getting the government to comply with your wishes these days. If you can force elected officials to ignore the law and defund their police departments, surely they would drop some piddling fine in a heartbeat if enough people threaten to riot.


hotair--2020-06-13--San Francisco PD will no longer be called to "settle disputes between neighbors"

San Francisco Mayor London Breed has announced a series of “ reforms ” to her city ’ s police department which one former Police Commissioner immediately described as nothing short of “ pure political pandering.
” Rather than trying to enforce the law and maintain order and safety for the citizens , Breed ’ s plan seeks to “ shift funding ” away from the police and stop them from handling certain types of crimes , lessening their presence in the community .
One of the most notable and alarming directives calls for the police to no longer respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with homeless people .
Such issues would instead be handled by vaguely described “ social workers.
” ( CBS San Francisco ) San Francisco police will no longer be called to settle disputes between neighbors , or to handle homeless people , or any non-criminal cases , according to a new plan announced by Mayor London Breed .
But not everybody thinks it ’ s a good idea .
“ This is pure political pandering , ” said Joe Alioto-Veronese , a former San Francisco Police Commissioner .
Alioto-Veronese said the SFPD is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concept of contracting social workers has its limits , as evidenced by the homeless crisis .
Alioto-Veronese is doing nothing more here than simply pointing out the obvious .
This is a case of the Mayor of San Francisco taking a knee in the hopes of quieting protesters and rioters that are constantly filling the streets of her city .
Good luck with that .
There are no reforms that are going to satisfy many of the people who are looking to leverage the George Floyd story for all it ’ s worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the potential these changes have to actually worsen violence in the community rather than lessen it .
When it comes to “ disputes between neighbors , ” there are far too many situations where even the most capable social worker is going to be completely out of their depth .
By the time somebody feels the need to dial 911 , matters have generally gone far beyond the point of Bill and Hank arguing over which weedkiller works best on dandelions .
If an argument has come to blows and shows the possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you need someone in uniform on the scene who is trained in how to properly and physically break up the altercation and deescalate the situation until cooler heads prevail .
Very often , just the sight of a police car and some uniformed officers will be enough to end the disturbance .
But if some civilian in normal street clothes shows up and tries to interfere , they may very well wind up with a punch in the nose themselves .
When it comes to the city ’ s homeless encampments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a regular basis trying to help those who are willing to accept assistance .
You generally only see the police getting involved when some of them are breaking the law and/or becoming violent .
Some of them are also dealing with mental health or addiction problems , making the potential for violence an ever-present concern .
Social workers are wonderful for certain situations , but sometimes you simply need the strong arm of the law .
Breed is also taking the opportunity to push for fewer instances of armed officers showing up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come as great news for any psychopaths out there who are thinking of shooting up a bunch of students and teachers .
Because we all know how well “ gun-free zones ” work , right ?
We are in the process of watching portions of the country committing a form of ritual suicide in response to what is increasingly becoming a case of mob rule .
And while I hate to say it , there ’ s going to be an ugly price to be paid for this somewhere down the line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill to be long in coming , either .

San Francisco Mayor London Breed has announced a series of “reforms” to her city’s police department which one former Police Commissioner immediately described as nothing short of “pure political pandering.” Rather than trying to enforce the law and maintain order and safety for the citizens, Breed’s plan seeks to “shift funding” away from the police and stop them from handling certain types of crimes, lessening their presence in the community. One of the most notable and alarming directives calls for the police to no longer respond to “disputes between neighbors” or issues with homeless people. Such issues would instead be handled by vaguely described “social workers.” (CBS San Francisco)
San Francisco police will no longer be called to settle disputes between neighbors, or to handle homeless people, or any non-criminal cases, according to a new plan announced by Mayor London Breed. But not everybody thinks it’s a good idea. “This is pure political pandering,” said Joe Alioto-Veronese, a former San Francisco Police Commissioner. Alioto-Veronese said the SFPD is already underfunded and understaffed and that the concept of contracting social workers has its limits, as evidenced by the homeless crisis.
Alioto-Veronese is doing nothing more here than simply pointing out the obvious. This is a case of the Mayor of San Francisco taking a knee in the hopes of quieting protesters and rioters that are constantly filling the streets of her city. Good luck with that. There are no reforms that are going to satisfy many of the people who are looking to leverage the George Floyd story for all it’s worth.
What’s far worse is the potential these changes have to actually worsen violence in the community rather than lessen it. When it comes to “disputes between neighbors,” there are far too many situations where even the most capable social worker is going to be completely out of their depth. By the time somebody feels the need to dial 911, matters have generally gone far beyond the point of Bill and Hank arguing over which weedkiller works best on dandelions.
If an argument has come to blows and shows the possibility of escalating to weapons of any sort, you need someone in uniform on the scene who is trained in how to properly and physically break up the altercation and deescalate the situation until cooler heads prevail. Very often, just the sight of a police car and some uniformed officers will be enough to end the disturbance. But if some civilian in normal street clothes shows up and tries to interfere, they may very well wind up with a punch in the nose themselves.
When it comes to the city’s homeless encampments, there are already social workers out there on a regular basis trying to help those who are willing to accept assistance. You generally only see the police getting involved when some of them are breaking the law and/or becoming violent. Some of them are also dealing with mental health or addiction problems, making the potential for violence an ever-present concern. Social workers are wonderful for certain situations, but sometimes you simply need the strong arm of the law.
Breed is also taking the opportunity to push for fewer instances of armed officers showing up at schools. That’s going to come as great news for any psychopaths out there who are thinking of shooting up a bunch of students and teachers. Because we all know how well “gun-free zones” work, right?
We are in the process of watching portions of the country committing a form of ritual suicide in response to what is increasingly becoming a case of mob rule. And while I hate to say it, there’s going to be an ugly price to be paid for this somewhere down the line. I wouldn’t expect that bill to be long in coming, either.


hotair--2020-06-14--Denver Board of Education votes unanimously to remove police from schools

It sounds like there was plenty of tension at the Thursday night meeting of the Denver Public Schools Board of Education .
A vote was held on a proposal to remove all SROs ( school resource officers from the Denver Police Department ) from all public schools in the district .
After four hours of heated debate and public comment , the board voted unanimously to remove them .
The number of SROs on campuses is to be reduced by 25 % immediately with all remaining officers to be given the boot by June of next year .
Going by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the reasons given for the decision sounded as if they had absolutely nothing to do with anything that ’ s been going on in the local schools and it was more about national politics than anything else .
In a unanimous vote Thursday night , the Denver Public Schools Board of Education agreed to remove school resource officers from schools .
The vote ends the district ’ s contract with the Denver Police Department .
According to the resolution , DPS will reduce the number of school resource officers by 25 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will remove all school resource officers from schools by no later than June 4 , 2021 .
DPS Superintendent Susana Cordova tells CBS4 the vote is final , unless the board proposes and votes on something different down the line .
The statement issued by the Superintendent after the vote invokes the name of George Floyd immediately .
She then goes on to talk about the need to “ do more for our students of color.
” What she fails to do is cite a single instance where any SRO has been accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Latino students .
Another board member spoke up , saying that the board needed to take “ bold steps in response to police action against those protesting the death of George Floyd in Denver.
” What he failed to note was that the SROs weren ’ t working out on the streets dealing with the riots .
So apparently , the SROs need to be punished to teach a lesson to the rest of the regular Denver PD street patrols ?
It mostly sounds as if the board is trying to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even have and are blaming their own resource officers for the perceived incorrect actions of LEOs who don ’ t even work with them .
That wasn ’ t the attitude of some of the people who actually work at the schools , however .
The principal of North High School chimed in , saying that not a single one of his colleagues he ’ d spoken to was in favor of the resolution .
But the sharpest criticism may have come from Jason Murdock , dean of students at Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College .
This would seem even crazier to me if we hadn ’ t already seen the same thing playing out at other schools around the country .
Some of the board members were speaking of their hopes that the money they spend on hiring the SROs could go instead to more “ restorative justice coordinators , mental health specialists and additional nurses.
” I ’ m not sure what a restorative justice coordinator is , but it doesn ’ t sound like they come to work packing heat .
So I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do when the front doors burst open and some maniac with firearms comes in and begins lighting the place up .
I ’ ve pointed this out before , but it bears repeating .
We ’ re seeing liberals around the country who despise the police jumping on the dogpile to take advantage of the George Floyd unrest .
In the process , they are carrying out some bizarre form of suicide ritual for our society .
And we need to figure out a way to get a handle on this or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of us down with them .

It sounds like there was plenty of tension at the Thursday night meeting of the Denver Public Schools Board of Education. A vote was held on a proposal to remove all SROs (school resource officers from the Denver Police Department) from all public schools in the district. After four hours of heated debate and public comment, the board voted unanimously to remove them. The number of SROs on campuses is to be reduced by 25% immediately with all remaining officers to be given the boot by June of next year. Going by the local CBS coverage of the meeting, the reasons given for the decision sounded as if they had absolutely nothing to do with anything that’s been going on in the local schools and it was more about national politics than anything else.
In a unanimous vote Thursday night, the Denver Public Schools Board of Education agreed to remove school resource officers from schools. The vote ends the district’s contract with the Denver Police Department. According to the resolution, DPS will reduce the number of school resource officers by 25% before the end of this year and will remove all school resource officers from schools by no later than June 4, 2021. DPS Superintendent Susana Cordova tells CBS4 the vote is final, unless the board proposes and votes on something different down the line.
The statement issued by the Superintendent after the vote invokes the name of George Floyd immediately. She then goes on to talk about the need to “do more for our students of color.” What she fails to do is cite a single instance where any SRO has been accused of abusive or racist behavior toward Black or Latino students.
Another board member spoke up, saying that the board needed to take “bold steps in response to police action against those protesting the death of George Floyd in Denver.” What he failed to note was that the SROs weren’t working out on the streets dealing with the riots. So apparently, the SROs need to be punished to teach a lesson to the rest of the regular Denver PD street patrols? It mostly sounds as if the board is trying to “solve” a problem that they don’t even have and are blaming their own resource officers for the perceived incorrect actions of LEOs who don’t even work with them.
That wasn’t the attitude of some of the people who actually work at the schools, however. The principal of North High School chimed in, saying that not a single one of his colleagues he’d spoken to was in favor of the resolution. But the sharpest criticism may have come from Jason Murdock, dean of students at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Early College.
“So we go after SROs for revenge on DPD? You are a coward, and so are any members that agree with you. Cowards for not fighting the most important fight, racism. Cowards for attacking and assaulting clearly successful SROs simply because of our anger and pain towards law enforcement,” said Murdock.
This would seem even crazier to me if we hadn’t already seen the same thing playing out at other schools around the country. Some of the board members were speaking of their hopes that the money they spend on hiring the SROs could go instead to more “restorative justice coordinators, mental health specialists and additional nurses.” I’m not sure what a restorative justice coordinator is, but it doesn’t sound like they come to work packing heat. So I’d like to know what they plan to do when the front doors burst open and some maniac with firearms comes in and begins lighting the place up.
I’ve pointed this out before, but it bears repeating. We’re seeing liberals around the country who despise the police jumping on the dogpile to take advantage of the George Floyd unrest. In the process, they are carrying out some bizarre form of suicide ritual for our society. And we need to figure out a way to get a handle on this or they’re going to take all the rest of us down with them.


hotair--2020-06-14--About that story that Trump's administration "rolled back" transgender protection... malarkey

The media is doing a fine job of pushing the narrative that the Trump administration has “ rolled back ” Obama era transgender protections , specifically in the Affordable Care Act ( Obamacare ) .
There is a very important piece of information missing in the headlines and wailing from the left , though .
In 2016 the Obama administration ’ s proposed regulation , a “ civil rights safeguard ” for the transgender community that banned discrimination against transgender medical patients and health insurance customers , defined discrimination “ on the basis of sex ” to include gender identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened in 2016 , the final year of the two-term Obama administration .
The ACA was rammed through by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law in 2010 .
So , technically , Obama had one foot out the door when he suddenly felt the need to make special concessions for one special interest group .
The squabble seems to be over the definitions of sex and gender .
The Obama rule conflates gender identity with a person ’ s biological sex .
The Trump administration announced in May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulation that would replace the 2016 Obama rule .
The Department of Health and Human Services ’ s proposed regulation would replace a 2016 rule from the Obama administration that defined discrimination “ on the basis of sex ” to include gender identity .
The Trump administration rule would no longer recognize gender identity as an avenue for sex discrimination .
Without the Obama-era language , health care workers would be free to object to performing procedures like gender reassignment surgery , and insurers would not be bound to cover all services for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fit into a broader agenda pushed by religious activists and is consistent with administration actions to limit civil rights protections for gay and transgender Americans in a variety of domains , including education , employment and housing .
The Obama administration adopted the health care discrimination rule to carry out a civil rights provision of the Affordable Care Act .
It prohibits discrimination based on race , color , national origin , sex , age or disability in “ any health program or activity ” that receives federal financial assistance .
The Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an aspect of sex , and specified that the term means a person ’ s “ internal sense of gender , which may be male , female , neither , or a combination of male and female , and which may be different from an individual ’ s sex assigned at birth.
” The Obama-era definition of discrimination also protected women who had terminated a pregnancy .
Here ’ s the catch – the Obama-era rule never went into effect .
In December 2016 a federal judge in Fort Worth , Judge Reed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity part of the rule , at least temporarily , after a group of states and religious medical providers sued .
He said at the time , “ Congress did not understand ‘ sex ’ to include ‘ gender identity.
” As noted by sister publication Twitchy , National Review explained that “ the final rule brings federal policy into compliance with court rulings.
” It wasn ’ t rolling back anything .
The final rule puts it all into order .
So , when the story came out this week that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject , the fact that it isn ’ t really a “ rollback ” of anything because the Obama rule was never in effect wasn ’ t a part of any conversations .
The press and Democrats simply embraced the narrative that it is the evil Trump administration ( they are transphobic , you know ) undoing the great Obama and his administration ’ s work .
And , the cherry on top of this phony story ?
The Trump administration announced the final rule on the 4th anniversary of the mass shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chuck Schumer sprang into action to sound the alarm on Twitter .
It ’ s all so cruel , you see .
Critics say now discrimination will be allowed due to religious objections or in coverage denial of hormone therapy , for example , while supporters say it clears up the confusion .
Critics of the final rule say the change would make it easier for doctors and hospitals , citing religious or other reasons , to discriminate against and reduce access to care for transgender people or to deny abortions .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies to deny coverage of certain procedures , such as hormone therapies or hysterectomies , to people who identify as transgender .
“ It clears up the mass confusion unleashed by Obama ’ s redefinition of sex discrimination , ” said Roger Severino , Director of Health and Human Services ’ Office of Civil Rights .
“ Sex is a biological reality critically important in the practice of medicine and science , which are substantially funded by HHS.
” The party of science continues to deny that there are only two sexes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The LGBTQ community demands that the government and society , in general , accept transgender people for whatever they want to identify as .
Ok .
But , in order for a transgender woman to become female in physical appearance , surgery must be performed and hormone treatment must occur .
Removing male genitalia and softening physical features in order to appear female is necessary .
It is frankly insulting for transgender women to demand to be recognized as just as female as biological females when it is just not so .
Female @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and standing up to the absurd policies that are allowing transgender women to compete in sports against biological women .
People can call themselves whatever they want , as far as I ’ m concerned .
It doesn ’ t change science , though , and it would be nice if the press was honest about reporting on policy decisions .

The media is doing a fine job of pushing the narrative that the Trump administration has “rolled back” Obama era transgender protections, specifically in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). There is a very important piece of information missing in the headlines and wailing from the left, though.
In 2016 the Obama administration’s proposed regulation, a “civil rights safeguard” for the transgender community that banned discrimination against transgender medical patients and health insurance customers, defined discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include gender identity. That’s right – it happened in 2016, the final year of the two-term Obama administration. The ACA was rammed through by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law in 2010. So, technically, Obama had one foot out the door when he suddenly felt the need to make special concessions for one special interest group.
The squabble seems to be over the definitions of sex and gender. The Obama rule conflates gender identity with a person’s biological sex. The Trump administration announced in May 2019 that it was formally proposing a regulation that would replace the 2016 Obama rule.
The Department of Health and Human Services’s proposed regulation would replace a 2016 rule from the Obama administration that defined discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include gender identity. The Trump administration rule would no longer recognize gender identity as an avenue for sex discrimination. Without the Obama-era language, health care workers would be free to object to performing procedures like gender reassignment surgery, and insurers would not be bound to cover all services for transgender customers. The new rule would fit into a broader agenda pushed by religious activists and is consistent with administration actions to limit civil rights protections for gay and transgender Americans in a variety of domains, including education, employment and housing. The Obama administration adopted the health care discrimination rule to carry out a civil rights provision of the Affordable Care Act. It prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in “any health program or activity” that receives federal financial assistance. The Obama administration included “gender identity” as an aspect of sex, and specified that the term means a person’s “internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female, and which may be different from an individual’s sex assigned at birth.” The Obama-era definition of discrimination also protected women who had terminated a pregnancy.
Here’s the catch – the Obama-era rule never went into effect. In December 2016 a federal judge in Fort Worth, Judge Reed O’Connor, blocked the gender identity part of the rule, at least temporarily, after a group of states and religious medical providers sued. He said at the time, “Congress did not understand ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.”
You wouldn't know from this story that the "Obama-era protections" in question were stopped by a judge in December of 2016 and never went into effect. https://t.co/3yK1gf9huf — Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) June 12, 2020
As noted by sister publication Twitchy, National Review explained that “the final rule brings federal policy into compliance with court rulings.” It wasn’t rolling back anything. The final rule puts it all into order.
So, when the story came out this week that the HHS announced its final rule on the subject, the fact that it isn’t really a “rollback” of anything because the Obama rule was never in effect wasn’t a part of any conversations. The press and Democrats simply embraced the narrative that it is the evil Trump administration (they are transphobic, you know) undoing the great Obama and his administration’s work. And, the cherry on top of this phony story? The Trump administration announced the final rule on the 4th anniversary of the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Florida.
Chuck Schumer sprang into action to sound the alarm on Twitter. It’s all so cruel, you see.
How cruel do you have to be to announce a roll back of health protections for transgender Americans in the middle of a global pandemic, in the middle of #PrideMonth, and on the anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting?!https://t.co/Y78yHofYGe — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 12, 2020
Critics say now discrimination will be allowed due to religious objections or in coverage denial of hormone therapy, for example, while supporters say it clears up the confusion.
Critics of the final rule say the change would make it easier for doctors and hospitals, citing religious or other reasons, to discriminate against and reduce access to care for transgender people or to deny abortions. They say the change would also allow health-insurance companies to deny coverage of certain procedures, such as hormone therapies or hysterectomies, to people who identify as transgender. “It clears up the mass confusion unleashed by Obama’s redefinition of sex discrimination,” said Roger Severino, Director of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights. “Sex is a biological reality critically important in the practice of medicine and science, which are substantially funded by HHS.”
The party of science continues to deny that there are only two sexes in human biology – male and female. The LGBTQ community demands that the government and society, in general, accept transgender people for whatever they want to identify as. Ok. But, in order for a transgender woman to become female in physical appearance, surgery must be performed and hormone treatment must occur. Removing male genitalia and softening physical features in order to appear female is necessary. It is frankly insulting for transgender women to demand to be recognized as just as female as biological females when it is just not so. Female athletes, for example, are waking up and standing up to the absurd policies that are allowing transgender women to compete in sports against biological women.
People can call themselves whatever they want, as far as I’m concerned. It doesn’t change science, though, and it would be nice if the press was honest about reporting on policy decisions.