Click here to read full article.
.... All this brings us back to recent news. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order declaring that his administration will operate on the basis that biological sex overrides the nebulous “gender identity” Biden preferred to talk about. This means the U.S. government will no longer endorse the ideology that says it’s good to mutilate a child’s body to make it appear like the opposite sex.
It’s frankly Orwellian that I even have to write those words.
But it gets worse.Trump signed another executive order taking steps to protect children from chemical castration and surgical mutilation. The order directs federal agency heads to prohibit the use of federal funds for transgender medical interventions for Americans under age 19, to the extent permitted by applicable law. In Trump’s words, the United States “will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”
Perhaps the same Democratic Party that long understood the prerogatives of protecting pro-life taxpayers from being forced to financially support the killing of the unborn might instinctually grasp the need to stop propping up these transgender atrocities with Americans’ tax dollars. Oh right, I forgot—the Democratic Party abandoned its support for the pro-life Hyde Amendment in 2020 and now believes your tax dollars should fund the killing of the unborn and the mutilation of children.
You see, transgender activists and Democrat leaders can’t stand the idea of clawing back federal tax dollars from hospitals that make a mockery of medicine by practicing this Frankensteinian “care.” They filed lawsuits to block Trump’s return to sanity, and unfortunately, two federal judges took it upon themselves to force Trump to keep the gravy train going.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in Maryland on behalf of two LGBTQ+ activist groups, two young adults, and five adolescents and their families. These plaintiffs include five gender-confused minors who have already started taking experimental drugs to alter their bodies, and they want to keep that process going. After Trump’s order, many hospitals have announced they would no longer perform these “treatments” because they want to continue to receive other forms of federal aid.
U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson, a Biden appointee in Maryland, issued a 14-day temporary restraining order to block Trump’s directive applying the Hyde Amendment’s rationale to gender-affirming care.
Then Attorneys General Nick Brown, D-Wash.; Keith Ellison, D-Minn.; and Dan Rayfield, D-Ore., filed a lawsuit with three physicians, also aiming to block Trump’s order.
U.S. District Judge Lauren King, another Biden appointee in Washington state, also issued a 14-day temporary restraining order to block the Trump rule.
Both lawsuits claimed that Trump’s order involves “discrimination on the basis of sex,” violating federal law. The big problem with this logic is that Trump’s order bars the Frankensteinian “care” for all minors, not just males and not just females. It bars “treatment” aiming to force biological male bodies to resemble female bodies and vice versa. This is not discrimination—it’s forbidding a specific type of intervention for all under the age of 19.
The Democrat attorneys general lawsuit claims Trump’s order violates the separation of powers, but the Department of Justice responded, noting that the executive order “does not purport to withhold all federal funding if an institution provides the treatments referenced in the EO [executive order]. Instead, the EO instructs agencies to implement the president’s policy preference to the extent permitted by applicable law.”
The Justice Department’s filing also warned that if the judge granted a temporary restraining order, as King would go on to do, “That sort of order—cutting off at the jump the ability of the executive branch to even pursue a general course of action—would be a remarkable intrusion on a separate branch of government, in conflict with Article II” of the Constitution.
It’s hard to disagree with that conclusion. If, as Democrats repeatedly claim, we are in a “constitutional crisis,” that is because judges have usurped the president’s authority, not because Trump is breaking the law.