A transgender inmate says she was raped at a men’s prison hours after a judge threw out her request to block corrections officers from keeping her in a disciplinary unit.
Lindsay Saunders-Velez claims she had been threatened, harassed and assaulted since entering Colorado’s prison system last spring for violating her plea deal in a menacing case.
The prisoner filed a lawsuit against the state’s corrections agency in July, branding the system “discriminatory and dangerous” for transgender offenders.
Last month, her lawyers requested a judge not send Saunders-Velez to her jail’s “punishment pod” for a disciplinary infraction, saying she could end up with inmates who had tormented her.
The judge said the attorneys failed to prove an imminent risk, and rejected their request .
However, the 20-year-old was attacked during her time in the pod and needed more than a week in the infirmary recover, according to her attorney, Paula Greisen.
“This issue is not going to go away,” she said: “We’re going to fight it until these individuals are treated with the respect they deserve.”
Federal law requires prisons to individually asses where to house each transgender person, said Demoya Gordon, an attorney with LGBTQ+ advocacy group Lambda Legal’s transgender rights project.
But, she added, almost all facilities still housed inmates based on their genitalia or birth gender, resulting in many transgender women being abused or raped during their sentence.
Saunders-Velez entered Colorado’s foster care system as a child, then spent years in its youth corrections system, according to her attorneys and court records.
The prisoner says she has been “out as a trans female” since the age of four and was diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2016, beginning hormone treatments in 2017.
Her lawsuit states that it was after she entered an adult prison on a three-year jail term in May last year and was sent to Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility that her problems with other inmates began.
Court records detail incidents in which male prisoners frequently pulled down a privacy screen shielding Saunders-Velez from view as she used the bathroom in her cell.
She said other prisoners threatened her, and in December she reported an inmate sexually assaulted her during a brief transfer to another Colorado prison.
“To escape,” Saunders-Velez swallowed razors and was sent to a hospital before being reassigned to “territorial”, her attorneys said.
Prison staff denied her requests to be called Lindsay and to be identified with female pronouns, according to the complaint, as well as refusing requests to be searched by a woman.
The most recent Bureau of Justice statistics from 2012 suggest around 3,200 inmates in America’s state and federal prisons identified as transgender.
Some 40 per cent of transgender inmates reported being a victim of abusive sexual contact by another inmate or a staff member, 10 times the rate among the general prison population.
Several authorities, including the San Francisco and New York City jail systems, have begun to house transgender prisoners by the gender they identify as.
In Colorado, at least one other inmate is suing the corrections department over its treatment of transgender people. The agency said it was unable to comment on ongoing litigation.
Transgender people will be allowed for the first time to enlist in the U.S. military starting on Monday as ordered by federal courts, the Pentagon said on Friday, after President Donald Trump’s administration decided not to appeal rulings that blocked his transgender ban.
Two federal appeals courts, one in Washington and one in Virginia, last week rejected the administration’s request to put on hold orders by lower court judges requiring the military to begin accepting transgender recruits on Jan. 1.
A Justice Department official said the administration will not challenge those rulings.
“The Department of Defense has announced that it will be releasing an independent study of these issues in the coming weeks.
So rather than litigate this interim appeal before that occurs, the administration has decided to wait for DOD’s study and will continue to defend the president’s lawful authority in District Court in the meantime,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
In September, the Pentagon said it had created a panel of senior officials to study how to implement a directive by Trump to prohibit transgender individuals from serving. The Defense Department has until Feb. 21 to submit a plan to Trump.
Lawyers representing currently-serving transgender service members and aspiring recruits said they had expected the administration to appeal the rulings to the conservative-majority Supreme Court, but were hoping that would not happen.
Pentagon spokeswoman Heather Babb said in a statement: “As mandated by court order, the Department of Defense is prepared to begin accessing transgender applicants for military service Jan. 1. All applicants must meet all accession standards.”
Jennifer Levi, a lawyer with gay, lesbian and transgender advocacy group GLAD, called the decision not to appeal “great news.”
“I’m hoping it means the government has come to see that there is no way to justify a ban and that it’s not good for the military or our country,” Levi said. Both GLAD and the American Civil Liberties Union represent plaintiffs in the lawsuits filed against the administration.
“COSTS AND DISRUPTION”
In a move that appealed to his hard-line conservative supporters, Trump announced in July that he would prohibit transgender people from serving in the military, reversing Democratic President Barack Obama’s policy of accepting them.
Trump said on Twitter at the time that the military “cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
Four federal judges - in Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Seattle and Riverside, California - have issued rulings blocking Trump’s ban while legal challenges to the Republican president’s policy proceed.
The judges said the ban would likely violate the right under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection under the law.
The Pentagon on Dec. 8 issued guidelines to recruitment personnel in order to enlist transgender applicants by Jan. 1.
The memo outlined medical requirements and specified how the applicants’ sex would be identified and even which undergarments they would wear.
The Trump administration previously said in legal papers that the armed forces were not prepared to train thousands of personnel on the medical standards needed to process transgender applicants and might have to accept “some individuals who are not medically fit for service.”
The Obama administration had set a deadline of July 1, 2017, to begin accepting transgender recruits.
But Trump’s defense secretary, James Mattis, postponed that date to Jan. 1, 2018, which the president’s ban then put off indefinitely.
Trump has taken other steps aimed at rolling back transgender rights. In October, his administration said a federal law banning gender-based workplace discrimination does not protect transgender employees, reversing another Obama-era position.
In February, Trump rescinded guidance issued by the Obama administration saying that public schools should allow transgender students to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
TRANSGENDER BATHROOM LAWS NOT TRUMP'S PRIORITY FOR AMERICA (CHARLOTTE):
NOR IS TRUMP TRYING TO TURN ALL BLACK MEN GAY.
Sources: ABC News, The Economist, Charlotte Observer, YouTube
**** The Trump administration reverses guidelines on transgender bathrooms
But presidents cannot change the law and it is up to courts to enforce it
ON February 22nd, the Trump administration announced it would withdraw its predecessor’s guidelines regarding the accommodation of transgender students in America’s government-funded schools.
Sean Spicer, Donald Trump’s press secretary, said that the president had “made it clear throughout the campaign that he’s a firm believer in states’ rights”. Issues like transgender bathroom access, he added, “are not best dealt with at the federal level".
The move has disheartened liberals and cheered conservatives, but its impact is likely to be more limited than either side expects.
Nine months ago, officials from the education and justice departments officials sent a letter and 25-page instructional pamphlet to school districts across the country.
The message was simple:
America’s schools should permit transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
In the face of new laws in North Carolina and other states imposing a biological test on bathroom access, the Obama administration noted that “the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.”
This principle, it added, is “consistently recognised in civil rights cases”.
Thirteen states immediately challenged the letter in court. Days before the school year began last autumn, a federal district judge issued a nationwide injunction barring its enforcement.
The Obama administration, Reed O’Connor ruled, had not followed appropriate procedures before offering its interpretation of Title VII and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and how those provisions bear on the protections due to transgender students.
Mr O'Connor confirmed in October 2016 that his order against Mr Obama’s transgender policy applied not just in the 13 states that brought the challenge but to every school district in the country.
Later that month, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the case of Gavin Grimm, a transgender boy now in his final semester at a Virginia high school that will not permit him to use the boy’s bathroom. Mr Grimm’s complaint is set for argument at the court on March 28th.
Civil-rights groups and left-leaning politicians reacted with dismay to Mr Trump’s change of policy.
A representative from the American Civil Liberties Union said the move “shows that the president’s promise to protect LGBT rights was just empty rhetoric”.
Maura Healey, the attorney-general for Massachusetts, wrote that Mr Trump “is sending a message that discrimination is acceptable”. Dick Durbin, a Democratic senator from Illinois, called it “a major setback in the fight for civil rights”. Conservatives, meanwhile, are cheering the about-face.
Gary McCaleb, a lawyer at the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom, said, “No longer will federal officials distort federal law that is meant to equalise educational opportunities for women, and no longer will they force local officials to intermingle boys and girls within private areas like locker rooms, showers, hotel rooms on school trips, and restrooms".
Two considerations should temper reactions on both sides. First, Mr Trump’s change of policy is not a wholesale reversal of Mr Obama’s stance on trans rights; it is, instead, a withdrawal pending further consideration.
The “Dear colleague” letter issued on February 23rd criticises the May 2016 missive, along with another guidance letter from January 2015, in brief and general terms: “These guidance documents do not...contain extensive legal analysis or explain how the position is consistent with the express language of Title IX”.
It then briefly recounts the litigation battle over bathrooms, noting the legal dispute over whether discrimination against transgender people amounts to “sex” discrimination. But Mr Trump’s letter does not itself stake out a definitive claim:
The government “has decided to withdraw and rescind” Mr Obama’s guidance, it reads, “in order to further and more completely consider the legal issues involved”.
And the letter closes by affirming that protections are still in place against “discrimination, bullying and harassment” and that “all students, including LGBT students” deserve to attend schools where they “are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment”.
This rather conciliatory closing, along with the lack of a full-throated condemnation of Mr Obama’s position, may owe something to squabbling inside the White House over the move: it appears that Betsy DeVos, the new Education secretary, opposed the change but bowed to the demands of Jeff Sessions, the attorney-general, after Mr Trump intervened.
So Mr Trump’s change of policy is quite a bit softer, both in tone and content, than it might have been.
A second factor mitigates the significance of the change still further: whatever a president’s spin on civil-rights law may be, the law itself remains the same. “With or without guidance”, the National Women’s Law Centre tweeted yesterday, “Title IX is still the law of the land & schools still have an obligation to protect trans students.” Many states have already adopted transgender-friendly policies in their schools.
States that do not offer adequate accommodations will face lawsuits, and it will be up the courts—not the executive branch—to interpret and enforce the law.
OBAMA'S CHILDHOOD INDONESIAN NANNY WAS A TRANSGENDER PROSTITUTE:
OBAMA'S MOTHER (ANTHROPOLOGIST) INTRODUCED OBAMA TO GAY LIFESTYLES AT AGE EIGHT.
THIS MAY EXPLAIN WHY OBAMA FOUGHT SO HARD FOR LGBT ISSUES AND WANTED ALL BLACK MEN TO BE GAY.
Sources: AP, Daily Mail, Reuters, Young Turks, YouTube
****** Revealed: Barack Obama's gay transgender prostitute nanny who made him laugh by trying on his mother's lipstick
Evie, 66, cared for future Commander in Chief she called Barry in late 60s
Offered job after she impressed Obama's mother with steak and rice
When family left Indonesia, she became a sex worker and now lives in a slum
Barack Obama's former nanny has been revealed as a gay transgender man who made the future president laugh by trying on his mother's lipstick.
'Evie' cared for the boy she called Barry when his mother Ann Dunham moved to the Indonesian capital of Jakarta in the late 1960s.
Openly gay, she would leave the house dressed in full drag - but was very careful that Barack never saw her.
'He was so young and I never let him see me wearing women's clothes,' Evie said. 'But he did see me trying on his mother's lipstick, sometimes. That used to really crack him up.'
Former life: Barack Obama's former nanny Evie, who was born a man but believes she is a woman, on the left of this picture
The nanny, who turned to prostitution after the family left and now lives in a slum, met the future commander-in-chief's mother at a cocktail party in 1969.
Dunham, who had moved to the country two years earlier with her second husband Lolo Soetoro, sampled Evie's beef steak and fried rice and was so impressed that she offered her a job.
It did not take long before she was also eight-year-old Barack's carer, playing with him and bringing him to and from school.
Neighbours recalled they often saw Evie, who believes she is really a woman, leave the house in the evening fully made up and dressed in drag.
But when the family left in the early 1970s, things started going downhill. Evie moved in with a boyfriend. That relationship ended three years later, and she became a sex worker.
She said: 'I tried to get a job as a maid, but no one would hire me. I needed money to buy food, get a place to stay.'
It was a cat-and-mouse game with security guards and - because the country was still under the dictatorship of General Suharto - soldiers.
They often rounded up 'banshees' or 'warias', as they are known locally, loaded them into trucks, and brought them to a field where they were kicked, hit and otherwise abused.
Indonesia's attitude toward transgenders is complex.
Nobody knows how many of them live in the sprawling nation of 240million, but activists estimate seven million.
Because Indonesia is home to more Muslims than any other country in the world, the pervasiveness of men who live as women and vice versa often catches newcomers by surprise.
They hold the occasional pageant, work as singers or at salons and include well-known celebrity talk show host Dorce Gamalama.
But societal disdain still runs deep - when transgenders act in TV comedies, they are invariably the brunt of the joke.
They have taken a much lower profile in recent years, following a series of attacks by Muslim hard-liners.
And the country's highest Islamic body has decreed that they are required to live as they were born because each gender has obligations to fulfil, such as reproduction.
'They must learn to accept their nature,' says Ichwan Syam, a prominent Muslim cleric at the influential Indonesian Ulema Council.
'If they are not willing to cure themselves medically and religiously' they have 'to accept their fate to be ridiculed and harassed'.
Many transgenders turn to prostitution because jobs are hard to find and because they want to live according to what they believe is their true gender.
In doing so, they put themselves at risk of contracting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
The raid that changed everything came in 1985.
Evie and her friends scattered into dark alleys to escape the swinging batons. One particularly beautiful girl, Susi, jumped into a canal strewn with garbage.
When things quieted, those who ran went back to look for her. 'We searched all night,' said Evie, who is still haunted by the memory of her friend's face. 'Finally ... we found her. It was horrible. Her body swollen, face bashed in.'
Evie decided, then and there, to live the rest of her life as a man. She ditched her tight, flowery dresses, brocade vest and bras.
Now 66, she said: 'I knew in my heart I was a woman, but I didn't want to die like that. So I decided to just accept it. I've been living like this, a man, ever since.'
Several longtime residents of Obama's old Menteng neighbourhood confirmed Turdi had worked there as Barack's nanny for two years, also caring for his baby sister Maya.
Evie, who like many Indonesians goes by a single name, now lives in a closet-sized hovel in a tightly packed slum in an eastern corner of Jakarta, collecting and scrubbing dirty laundry to pay for food.
She wears baggy blue jeans and a white T-shirt advertising a tranquil beach resort far away in a place she has never been. She speaks softly, politely, and a deep worry line is etched between her eyes.
As a child, Evie was often beaten by a father who could not stand having such a 'sissy' for a son. She said: 'He wanted me to act like a boy, even though I didn't feel it in my soul.'
Teased and bullied, she dropped out of school after the third grade and decided to learn how to cook.
She made her way into the kitchens of several high-ranking officials by the time she was a teenager.
And then she met Obama's mother. Evie now seeks solace in religion, going regularly to the mosque and praying five times a day. She said she is just waiting to die.
She added that she did not know the boy she helped raise won the 2008 U.S. presidential election until she saw a picture of the family in local newspapers and on TV. She blurted out that she knew him.
Her friends at first laughed and thought she was crazy, but those who live in the family's old neighbourhood confirmed it is true.
'Many neighbours would remember Turdi. She was popular here at that time,' said Rudy Yara, who still lives across the street from Obama's former house.
'She was a nice person and was always patient and caring in keeping young Barry.'
Evie hopes her former charge will use his power to fight for people like her. Obama named Amanda Simpson, the first openly transgender appointee, as a senior technical adviser in the Commerce Department in 2010.
For Evie, who's now just trying to earn enough to survive each day on Jakarta's streets, the election victory itself was enough to give her a reason - for the first time in a long time - to feel proud.
'Now when people call me scum,' she says, 'I can just say: 'But I was the nanny for the President of the United States!'
Let’s start off this piece with the understanding that hypocrisy is a liberal virtue. They won’t openly claim to be hypocrites, but they will openly engage in hypocritical behavior. Without that glaring absence of self-awareness, the progressive left would likely lose some of their Stalinesque charm.
Now, turn your focus to PayPal. As reported here, yesterday, PayPal has withdrawn plans to expand their operations in North Carolina, in response to the newly passed House Bill 2, or the “bathroom bill,” which prohibits NC cities from setting gender neutral policies for all businesses and schools in their area.
The bill came as a response to a Charlotte, NC ordinance that was set to go into effect on April 1, 2016, that would have allowed men to enter the locker rooms or bathrooms of women, in accordance with how they claimed to “feel,” gender-wise, for that day. Gov. McCrory signed the bill correcting the ordinance. Cue pearl-clutching.
North Carolina Lieutenant Governor, Dan Forest, issued a statement today, in regards to PayPal’s decision to cease expansion in the state over the bill:
"If our action in keeping men out of women's bathrooms and showers protected the life of just one child or one woman from being molested or assaulted, then it was worth it. North Carolina will never put a price tag on the value of our children. They are precious and priceless.
If a corporation wanting to do business in North Carolina does not see the worth of our children in the same light, then I wish them well as they do business somewhere else."
Kudos to North Carolina’s state government for holding the line, where other states have stood, only to quickly fold under outside pressure, in this war against cultural Marxism.
Paypal has no problem maintaining operations in areas like Cuba, Singapore, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia – all known for their stringent anti-LGBT policies (and they don’t stop at just prohibiting mixed bathrooms). Hypocrisy.
Also, while PayPal would see North Carolina’s women and children put in harm’s way, simply to save the feelings of what amounts to 0.3% of the population, they don’t exactly practice what they preach. Lt. Governor Forest displayed this picture of PayPal’s global operations center on his Facebook page today. They’ve highlighted the symbol indicating the way to the Men’s restroom – not “gender neutral,” but an honest-to-goodness, segregated-by-gender bathroom!
PayPal, like every other business, is free to conduct their business any way they see fit. If that means they just can’t tolerate doing business with a state that keeps bathrooms and public shower rooms separated for the privacy and safety of the different sexes, then so be it. However, they should know that their customers are equally free to decide if they want to do business with a company that doesn’t reflect their values and would use coercive means to force their beliefs on that population.
There are unsubstantiated reports of PayPal office phone lines being backed up with calls of users cancelling their accounts, in protest of their stance against North Carolina’s bathroom bill.
Time will tell who suffers the most damage in this cultural conflict.
"Ordinance defied common sense, allowing men to use women’s bathroom/locker room for instance. That’s why I signed bipartisan bill to stop it."
7:16 PM - 23 Mar 2016
February 22, 2016 Charlotte City Council members rammed through an Aggressive Politically-Correct LGBT Bathroom Sharing ordinance without regard for public safety.
March 24, 2016 amid THREATS from Gay Rights Bullies with tons of MONEY,
North Carolina Gov Pat McCrory repealed this Aggressive Politically-Correct LGBT Bathroom Sharing ordinance.
Now the OBAMA Administration and wealthy donors are ordering all mainstream media networks to ruin Gov McCrory's political career via negative propaganda just like Bullies do when they want to destroy someone's life.
Before I proceed with this post I want to make it clear that I have not always agreed with Gov McCrory's policies but in this instance I do.
Now let's analyze the theatrics behind all this Obama-inspired, Politically-Correct divisive drama.
So why did elected members of the Charlotte City Council recently pass an ordinance requiring all local businesses (including Churches) to allow Men, Women & Children to use bathrooms of their choice based on which Sexual or Gender they identify with on a day-to-day basis?
This ordinance was passed to repay Political favours.
You see during the last election (Nov 2015) wealthy donors and LGBT advocates poured tons of money into the campaign coffers of Charlotte's elected officials.
After winning their seats it was payback time.
Regardless of public safety concerns and the obvious lack of common sense, those wealthy donors and LGBT advocates forced Charlotte's elected officials into ramming through an Aggressive "Bathroom for everyone at the same time" ordinance.
You see the passage of such an aggressive ordinance was not about prohibiting Discrimination against LGBT people.
It was about repaying Political favors to wealthy political donors who don't really care about the U.S. Constitution, nor true Human Rights.
Instead it's about the 2016 election, enforcing new Politically-Correct government agendas and blackmailing Governors who don't want to comply.
Under this new ordinance, at any given time an Adult Man or Woman based on their Gender identity for that particular day, could enter a public bathroom and use the facilities alongside a little boy or girl.
To heck with public safety right?
How ironic is it that many wealthy donors who support Gay rights wouldn't think twice about voting "YES" to Abort a baby at nine months.
In addition these same wealthy donors who support Gay rights don't really give a darn about Civil Rights for BLACK people living in the United States.
I repeat.
The passage of such aggressive bathroom sharing ordinances is not about prohibiting Discrimination against LGBT people.
Instead it's about the 2016 election, enforcing new Politically-Correct government agendas and blackmailing Governors who don't want to comply.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, North Carolina Gov Pat McCrory was left with no choice other than to work with NC legislators on quickly repealing Charlotte's Aggressive "Bathroom for everyone at the same time" ordinance.
Did Gov McCrory ruin his political career as the mainstream media predicts just because he dared to defy a few wealthy LGBT donors and the Obama Administration who think they have replaced the Lord GOD Almighty??
Stay tuned.
It's time to PRAY like never before for the United States of America.
**** MCCRORY SIGNS BILL OVERTURNING TRANSGENDER ORDINANCE
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory has signed legislation designed to rein in local governments passing their own anti-discrimination rules.
McCrory's office confirmed he signed the law late Wednesday night, hours after the legislature finalized the bill in a one-day work session.
Lawmakers returned to Raleigh because a Charlotte City Council ordinance was supposed to take effect April 1 that expanded protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for treatment at hotels and restaurants.
Critics focused on the ability of transgender people to use the bathroom or locker rooms aligned with their gender identity. So did McCrory, Charlotte's mayor for 14 years.
The resulting legislation went further. Now cities, towns, and counties can't pass anti-discrimination rules beyond a new state standard. And public schools, public college campuses and government agencies must require bathrooms or locker rooms be designated for use only by people based on their biological sex.
McCrory's office released a statement Wednesday night, saying "the basic expectation of privacy in the most personal of settings, a restroom or locker room, for each gender was violated by government overreach and intrusion by the mayor and city council of Charlotte."
The governor also said the "radical breach of trust and security under the false argument of equal access not only impacts the citizens of Charlotte but people who come to Charlotte to work, visit or play. This new government regulation defies common sense and basic community norms by allowing, for example, a man to use a woman's bathroom, shower or locker room."
Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina, and Equality North Carolina condemned McCrory's action, and announced after the bill became law that the organizations are exploring legal challenges to the law.
"Instead of solving any real problems, the law would create new ones and could lead to intolerable and unfair conditions for transgender students who are entitled, by federal law, to a safe and equitable education," said Tara Borello, a senior attorney with Lambda Legal.
Republican majorities in the state House and Senate easily passed House Bill 2, blocking Charlotte's bathroom ordinance.
But something very unusual happened in the Senate - frustrated Democrats refused to vote on the bill, and walked out.
Facing a half-empty Senate chamber, Republican Sen.Tom Apodaca suggested Republicans move on with the vote.
"Mr. President, I move that we do third reading electronically, I don't think they're going to show back up," he said from the Senate floor.
After the Democrats walked out and let their empty seats do the talking. Republicans passed the bill without them, 32-0.
"I cannot recall a time when that's happened. I think it's a serious breach of (the Democrats') obligation to the citizens that voted to elect them," said Senate Pro-Tempore Phil Berger.
Still, in news releases sent out after the passage of the bill, Governor McCrory and legislative leaders referred to the measure as "bipartisan" - pointing out it did get votes from some Democrats.
The contentious vote proved a fitting end to what's been a controversial government power struggle.
Republicans argued that Charlotte had no authority to approve a city ordinance allowing transgender people to use the restroom aligned to their gender identity, a move to protect transgender citizens who felt intimidated or bullied in public restrooms.
HB2 blocks the ordinance and bars any other local government from enacting a similar measure.
"It's a terrible day for North Carolina. It's a terrible day," said Serena Sebring, a member of Southerner on New Ground, a group who came to oppose the General Assembly's vote. "People are harmed, people are going to be continued to be harmed. I would say shame on this state, shame on our lawmakers."
Social conservative activist Tami Fitzgerald led the fight against Charlotte's ordinance, arguing it gave license to sexual predators to enter the ladies' room.
"We're very pleased with the outcome", Fitzgerald said following the Senate vote. "Really it was just common sense, not to allow men in the women's bathrooms".
Fitzgerald, executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition, also released a statement, saying in part, that, "we applaud Governor Pat McCrory for showing North Carolinians what a true leader looks like by sticking to his word in taking immediate action and signing HB2 into law. This new law strengthens North Carolina's already thriving business climate by giving business owners the freedom they deserve to do business effectively."
The law deals a blow to an LGBT movement that has had success getting similar ordinances approved in more than 200 cities across the country.
The ACLU of North Carolina issued an angry statement after the bill passed, calling the bill the "most-extreme anti-LGBT bill in the nation."
In part, the ACLU wrote:
The Charlotte ordinance protected lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents from discrimination in public accommodations including restaurants, hotels, taxis and bathrooms. Among other protections, it allowed transgender men and transgender women to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity. HB2 ... removes the ability of any local government to protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and requires all public facilities, including schools, to allow restroom access only on the basis of "biological sex." It also jeopardizes the more than $4.5 billion in federal funding that North Carolina receives for secondary and post-secondary schools under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination, including discrimination against transgender students. Republican leaders at the General Assembly scheduled a one-day session after enough lawmakers requested to reconvene. They were responding to worries from constituents and conservative activists about the provision in the state's largest city that's set to take effect April 1. Otherwise, they wouldn't have met again until late April.
Republican House Speaker Tim Moore has said intervening is necessary to protect the safety of women and children. There have been arguments that any man - perhaps a sex offender - could enter a woman's restroom or locker room simply by calling himself transgender.
"What we're doing is preserving a sense of privacy that people have long expected in private facilities and we are restoring and clarifying ... the existing authority and limits of authority of local government," said GOP Rep. Dan Bishop, who represents Charlotte, a bill sponsor.
NC Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat, released a statement Wednesday after the House vote voicing his opposition to the passage of the bill.
"We're better than this. Discrimination is wrong, period," Cooper said, in part. "That North Carolina is making discrimination part of the law is shameful. It will not only cause real harm to families, but to our economy as well."
The NC GOP fired back at Cooper, who is running for governor, saying "today, lawmakers were forced to return to Raleigh to hold an emergency session of the General Assembly because Attorney General Roy Cooper refused to do his job and protect North Carolina families and children."
Representatives for gay-rights groups said overturning the ordinance is wrong and demonizing the community. They say blocking the ordinance will deny lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people essential protections needed to ensure they can get a hotel room, hail a taxi or dine at a restaurant without fear.
At least 225 cities and counties nationwide have passed similar anti-discrimination laws.
"Charlotte's law is not unusual, unique or radical," said Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality North Carolina. "A special session to deal with such an ordinance is radical, unique and unusual."
Leading up to last month's approval in Charlotte, city leaders heard from LGBT residents who say they've experienced harassment and discrimination trying to use public accommodations.
The ordinance "sends a message to everyone that we matter," Erica Lachowitz of Charlotte, who was born male but identifies as female, said last week. Otherwise, she added, "we are afraid half the time to walk in to a bathroom that matches our gender identity."
McCrory, a Republican, has been critical of the ordinance in Charlotte, where he was mayor for 14 years.
Legislation requiring transgender students to use bathrooms corresponding with their birth gender have failed recently in other states. South Dakota's legislature failed to override Gov. Dennis Daugaard's veto of such legislation. A similar Tennessee bill died Tuesday in a House committee.
A proposal that codifies a statewide nondiscrimination policy in employment and public accommodations and prohibits North Carolina cities or towns from enacting stricter guidelines was signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory late Wednesday after clearing the General Assembly in less than nine hours.
"I have signed legislation passed by a bipartisan majority to stop this breach of basic privacy and etiquette which was to go into effect April 1," McCrory said in a statement. "Although other items included in this bill should have waited until regular session, this bill does not change existing rights under state or federal law.
"It is now time for the city of Charlotte elected officials and state elected officials to get back to working on the issues most important to our citizens."
All Democratic members of the Senate walked out of the chamber in protest Wednesday evening, leading to a 32-0 vote for the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act.
"This bill essentially ties a noose around the necks of the cities and counties, and it smothers their ability to govern in a way that their citizens think they ought to," Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue said as other Democrats left. "We're not participating in this effort that you make to roll back the clock in this state, to take away powers from local governments."
Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger criticized the walkout. "Running out and ducking this vote is a serious breach of their duty to their constituents," he said.
On Wednesday afternoon, the House voted 84-24 in favor of the bill as state lawmakers rushed to push it through the General Assembly in a one-day special session.
"This is historic," said Rep. Dan Bishop, R-Mecklenburg, noting that North Carolina has never had a nondiscrimination statute.
The bill excludes gays and lesbians from discrimination protections, however, prompting an outcry from LGBT advocates, some corporations and Attorney General Roy Cooper, the Democratic candidate for governor.
Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality North Carolina, called it the "worst anti-LGBT bill in the entire nation."
"The bill tears away at the fabric of my community by overturning and pre-empting vital protections for gay and transgendered people," Sgro said. "He [McCrory] goes back on his word again by signing legislation coming out of an expensive and unnecessary special session."
"That the North Carolina legislature would convene a costly special session specifically to invalidate and prohibit the expansion of civil rights for LGBT people is disgraceful," Eric Wachter, associate regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement. "Equality, fairness and the desire to stand on the right side of history are reasons enough for legislators to reject this odious and discriminatory legislation."
"Discrimination is wrong, period. That North Carolina is putting discrimination into the law is shameful," Cooper said in a YouTube video posted by his campaign.
"Our commitment to the fair treatment of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, has not changed and is at the core of our NCAA values," NCAA spokeswoman Gail Dent said. "It is our expectation that all people will be welcomed and treated with respect in cities that host our NCAA championships and events."
Greensboro and Charlotte are scheduled to host regional games in the NCAA men's basketball tournament in the next two years.
A similar religious rights measure is pending in Georgia, where corporations and even the NFL have said they'll avoid doing business in the state if it becomes law.
The North Carolina bill also doesn't include disabled people among the groups protected from discrimination, but Bishop said other state statutes already protect them.
Rep. Grier Martin, D-Wake, tried to amend the bill so it included gays and lesbians among the protected groups, as well as veterans, but the Republican majority voted to table that suggestion.
The Senate Judiciary II Committee likewise tabled an attempt Wednesday evening by Sen. Terry Van Duyn, D-Buncombe, to add gender identity to the bill for protections against discrimination.
Bathroom debate prompted bill
The legislation is in response to an ordinance passed last month by the Charlotte City Council that broadly defines how businesses treat LGBT customers. The ordinance includes a provision that allows transgender people to use public bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.
Social conservatives have railed against the Charlotte ordinance for weeks, saying it violates the religious freedom of business owners and puts women and children at risk by allowing sexual predators to go into women's bathrooms.
"If God didn't give you access to a male or female bathroom via your anatomy, neither should we give you access via either ordinance or legislation," John Amanchukwu, executive director of Upper Room Christian Academy in Raleigh, told members of the House Judiciary IV Committee on Wednesday morning.
Chloe Jefferson, a junior at Greenville Christian Academy, called the prospect of a boy in the girl's bathroom or locker room at her school "completely frightening," adding that dealing with body image is hard enough for teen girls without having boys around when they change clothes or go to the bathroom.
"I am not the only girl scared," Jefferson said.
Charlotte business owner Heather Garofalo encouraged lawmakers to outlaw local anti-discrimination ordinances, saying they threaten her religious right to choose not to serve LGBT customers.
"Business owners like myself, we would be forced to check our deepest-held beliefs at the door or suffer fines of $500, jail time, lawsuits," Garofalo said. "I am asking for a right to provide for my family."
But several transgender people pleaded with lawmakers to defeat the proposal, saying they are just as scared to go into bathrooms where they don't feel comfortable.
"I can't use the men's room. I won't go back to the men's room. It is unsafe for me there. People like me die there," said Madeleine Goss, a Raleigh woman who said she was bullied as a boy in Hickory because of her gender identity.
"I have the right to be safe too," a sobbing Angela Bridgeman told lawmakers.
"I feel bullied by you guys," Skye Thomson, a 15-year-old transgender boy from Greenville, told senators. "Imagine yourself in my shoes, being a boy walking into a ladies room. It's awkward and embarrassing and can actually be dangerous."
"Are you really interested in me being spit on and pushed around and shoved because of who I am in a restroom?" asked Rev. Michael Slack, a transgender man. "Legislating mistreatment, hatred and misunderstanding is shameful."
The bill would require people to use the bathroom that aligns with the gender listed on their birth certificate. Backers noted that North Carolina law allows people who have undergone a sex change to amend the gender on their birth certificates. California and Texas also allow people to amend their birth certificates, but it was unclear Wednesday whether other states had similar regulations.
"This is really not about bathrooms. It's about fear," said Rep. Rodney Moore, D-Mecklenburg. "The spirit of the bill is not what it says it intends to do."
Rep. Tricia Cotham, D-Mecklenburg, said the bill resorts to fear-mongering and "flies in the face of" attempts to move North Carolina forward.
"We must be a state that is inclusive and welcomes in North Carolina and protects everyone," Cotham said. "You are absolutely not protecting children, and you're not protecting women."
But Rep. Dean Arp, R-Union, said "prisoners have more privacy" than people in public bathrooms under the Charlotte ordinance.
"How compassionate is it to strip North Carolina citizens of their right to privacy?" Arp said.
Cotham was able to amend the bill to allow parents or caregivers to take children under age 7 into a public bathroom with them, regardless of gender.
Lawmakers draw line on municipal power
In addition to voiding the bathroom provision of Charlotte's ordinance and spelling out state policy on discrimination in employment and public accommodations, the bill also would prohibit cities and counties from adopting so-called living wage ordinances because that would require businesses to pay workers more than the state-established minimum wage.
Bishop and other supporters said North Carolina needs consistent regulations for business and that Charlotte overstepped its authority by passing its ordinance.
"This is not new law," Bishop said. "It's a clarification."
His characterization of the Charlotte City Council as "a handful of radicals under the influence of an activist group" and the ordinance as "the picture of the subversion of the rule of law" drew sharp rebukes from House Democrats.
"Government is best when handled at the lowest level possible," said Rep. Marvin Lucas, D-Cumberland, who called the bill "micromanaging."
"Even the authority you have given them in the past, you have taken away from them," said Rep. Mickey Michaux, D-Durham, noting the General Assembly has stripped cities of power several times in recent years.
Reps. Mike Hager, R-Rutherford, and Nelson Dollar said the legislature needs to act when Charlotte or another jurisdiction oversteps its authority.
"These cities and counties, especially in this case, have operated outside their boundaries, and they're into the boundaries of the state," Hager said.
"We do not need any municipal government acting outside of its appropriate authority, particularly when they are seeking to make political statements," Dollar said.
Other issues raised
Opponents to the bill also argued that not prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity could put $4 billion in federal education funding to the state at risk under the Title IX gender equity law.
Similar legislation has been defeated in Tennessee and South Dakota because of such concerns, but Republicans in the General Assembly argued Title IX has exemptions that would preclude any loss of funds to North Carolina.
Democrats also questioned whether the bill would eliminate some protections for wrongful termination claims by fired workers. Republicans disagreed on whether that was the case, with some saying it didn't and others saying people were better off filing a federal lawsuit anyway.
"A rushed process leads to mistakes, leads to omissions," Martin cautioned his fellow House members.
Under the bill, discrimination complaints would be handled by the state Human Relations Commission, but some Democrats pointed out that Republicans gutted the commission's budget last summer, which would render it ineffective.
Legislation becomes campaign issue
Lawmakers called themselves into session on Tuesday after McCrory declined to do so. McCrory said he thought the issue could be addressed during the regular 2016 legislative session, which starts April 25, but legislative leaders wanted to pre-empt the Charlotte ordinance, which is scheduled to take effect April 1.
Cooper said McCrory sparked the debate by publicly denouncing the ordinance shortly after it passed.
"Gov. McCrory got us started down this path by promising legislative action for political gain," he said. "The governor lit the match and then stood aside as the fire grew out of control."
McCrory's campaign responded by accusing Cooper of not doing his job in fighting the ordinance himself.
"Roy Cooper supports forcing women and young girls to use the same restrooms and locker rooms as grown men, all in the name of political correctness, and he refused to act as attorney general to protect our privacy and defend our state's laws," Russell Peck, McCrory's campaign manager, said in a statement.
Berger and Sen. Buck Newton, R-Wilson, the Republican candidate for attorney general, also criticized Cooper for his inaction on the Charlotte ordinance, which Newton called "a radical and dangerous policy."
"Frankly, if the attorney general would do his job, we wouldn't be here today," Newton said. "It would be easy for him to put a stop to this."
The Attorney General's Office has said no action is necessary because cases of indecent exposure and sexual assault can already be prosecuted under state law.
The Justice Department announced Friday it will recognize - for federal purposes - same-sex marriages performed for a short period in Utah.
The state on Wednesday said it would not recognize the approximately 1,000 marriages or marriage licenses issued for gay and lesbian couples, at least until the issue is fully resolved in the courts.
"These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a videotaped message.
"In the days ahead, we will continue to coordinate across the federal government to ensure the timely provision of every federal benefit to which Utah couples and couples throughout the country are entitled – regardless of whether they in same-sex or opposite-sex marriages," he added.
The federal government's decision will likely create more legal chaos over the constitutionality of same-sex marriage that is playing out in Utah, and several other states.
The Supreme Court last year said gay and lesbian couples legally married in their states were entitled to the same federal benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex partners.
The office of Utah Gov. Gary Herbert had sent a letter to Cabinet officials Wednesday saying that, based on advice from the state's attorney general, "state recognition of same-sex marital status is on hold until further notice.
"Please understand this position is not intended to comment on the legal status of those same-sex marriages - that is for the courts to decide," the governor's chief of staff, Derek Miller, wrote. "The intent of this communication is to direct state agency compliance with current laws that prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages."
The current legal and political fight erupted December 20 when U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby concluded Utah's law banning same-sex marriage, approved in 2004, conflicted with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. That prompted many counties to begin issuing marriage licenses, but the state then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The justices on Monday blocked enforcement of the district court ruling until the constitutional questions are fully resolved. A federal appeals court could hold oral arguments as soon as March. A ruling there could affect all states within the court's jurisdiction: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.
But Holder said, "In the meantime, I am confirming today that, for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages."
Utah will not recognize the hundreds of same-sex marriages that were temporarily allowed by a federal judge's ruling but before the Supreme Court issued an injunction, the state announced Wednesday.
Officials say more than a thousand marriage licenses between gay and lesbian couples were issued in the 17 days between the initial ruling and the high court's Monday order blocking enforcement.
"Based on counsel from the Attorney General's Office regarding the Supreme Court decision, state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice," said the governor's Chief of Staff Derek Miller in a letter to cabinet officials.
"Please understand this position is not intended to comment on the legal status of those same-sex marriages– that is for the courts to decide. The intent of this communication is to direct state agency compliance with current laws that prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages."
U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby concluded on December 20 the decision that a state law banning same-sex marriage, approved in 2004, conflicted with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. That prompted many counties to begin issuing marriages licenses, but the state then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The justices' two-sentence order blocks enforcement until the constitutional questions are fully resolved. A federal appeals court could hold oral arguments as soon as March. A ruling there could affect all states within the court's jurisdiction: Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
But in the meantime, that left the tricky, unresolved question about the status of those who received marriage licenses after Shelby's ruling.
"The original laws governing marriage in Utah return to effect pending final resolution by the courts," said the letter from the governor's office. "It is important to understand that those laws include not only a prohibition of performing same-sex marriages but also recognizing same-sex marriages."
State officials had sharply criticized Shelby's ruling, and his order same-sex marriages be allowed to take place immediately, saying it created legal confusion.
"This is the uncertainty that we were trying to avoid by asking the [federal] District Court for a stay immediately after its decision. It is very unfortunate that so many Utah citizens have been put into this legal limbo," said the state's attorney general Sean Reyes earlier this week.
More recently, same-sex marriage legal battles have become prominent in states where it is prohibited.
But the Utah case is a broad challenge that goes to the heart of constitutional law as it applies to the state ban and could wind up back at the Supreme Court. Same-sex couples say laws like Utah's violate their equal protection and due process rights.
"It could be the challenge that a lot of people have been waiting for, which is does the United States Constitution guarantee a right to marriage for everyone," said CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
"That's the issue in this case and it's now working its way through the courts. It could take quite some time."
The Supreme Court ruled more narrowly this past summer on separate issues involving same-sex marriage.
It cleared the way for those unions in California to resume and rejected parts of a federal law, concluding same-sex spouses legally married in a state may receive federal benefits.
Most states still ban the practice, but polls show more support for it publicly.
Liz Cheney, whose upstart bid to unseat Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi sparked a round of warfare in the Republican Party and even within her own family, is dropping out of the Senate primary, she said in a prepared statement Monday morning.
"Serious health issues have recently arisen in our family, and under the circumstances, I have decided to discontinue my campaign," she said.
Cheney, the eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, began telling associates of her decision over the weekend, CNN reported late Sunday night.
"Though this campaign stops today, my commitment to keep fighting with you and your families for the fundamental values that have made this nation and Wyoming great will never stop," she added.
Cheney's surprising decision to jump into the race, an announcement made in a YouTube video last summer, roiled Republican politics in the Wyoming, a state that Dick Cheney represented in Congress for five terms before moving up the Republican food chain in Washington.
Enzi was a low-key presence in Washington who was elected in 1996 and, with few blemishes, amassed a conservative voting record in the Senate. He expressed public annoyance at Cheney's decision to mount a primary challenge. A number of his Senate colleagues quickly rallied to his side and pledged support for his re-election bid.
There was little public polling of the race, but two partisan polls released last year showed Enzi with a wide lead, an assessment mostly shared by GOP insiders watching the race.
Cheney's campaign got off to a rocky start.
Her critics labeled her a carpetbagger, noting that she moved to Wyoming only in 2012 after relocating from Virginia. The issue flared in August after the Wyoming media reported that Cheney improperly received a fishing license despite not living in the state for at least a year, as the law requires.
Grabbing even more attention was her very public dispute with her sister, Mary, over the issue of same-sex marriage. Mary Cheney, who is a lesbian, took to Facebook in November to object to Liz Cheney's opposition to same-sex marriage, claiming that her sister has previously supported her relationship while saying something very different on the campaign trail.
The dispute prompted their parents to weigh in, saying they were "pained" to see the sisters battle over a private matter in full view of the news media.
Beyond the campaign missteps, Cheney's election effort, vigorously supported by her father and his allies, often felt out of tune with the small-government conservative sentiment that has fueled other Republican primary challengers.
Cheney, like her father, is an unapologetic neoconservative who favors muscular use of American military power overseas, a policy that does not sit well with many grassroots conservatives, particularly in the libertarian-leaning West.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
