Hi, bi trans woman here. The fact that you're turning a thread about the rights about me and my community into yet another Manchin slap fight thread is kinda gross.
Especially since none of you apparently give a shit about the much worse bill I posted about.
The Department of Justice has submitted a proposal to the White House to change the way they enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
this is one that needs reversing, ASAP.
Because I wrote to all my Congress critters and tried to keep track of it at the time. So far as I could tell months ago, and re-upping the search just now, it never actually got finalized. So it died January 20th.
Title and Tracking Number: Amendment of Title VI Regulations (RIN 11190-AA75)
I would very much like an exhaustive list of gender conformity rules from those Republicans. None of this "I know it when I see it" nonsense. Detail for everyone how teenage boys and girls are supposed to act.
Cause based on my own experience I'm fairly certain I know how most teenagers will act.
Hi, bi trans woman here. The fact that you're turning a thread about the rights about me and my community into yet another Manchin slap fight thread is kinda gross.
Especially since none of you apparently give a shit about the much worse bill I posted about.
Also Bi trans woman here
Manchin is a bastard, and no one is coopting the suffering of our community for a dunk here.
No one made him side with the GOP against the community. That is on him. And he should be held accountable for it
We don't need 30 pages of the stupid lesser evil vs burn it all down argument on a topic that had no chance of becoming law anyway.. Manchin is an transphobic asshole, it is known.
Yes, but you’re also not our spokeswoman either. I’m glad there are people pissed at this shithead on our behalf. We can’t afford for this shit to fly, not even a little, especially when those who would dehumanize us already are practicing on dividing us from the rest of the queer coalition. So I’d rather a bunch of people post about what a shithead Manchin is, because that means those are people who have our backs when the bigots array against us.
Maybe we should strive to hold our elected officials to a higher standard than "less evil than the Republican candidate." "Less evil" is still evil.
I don't vote in West Virginia.
Our choice is Joe Manchin, who is conservative but doesn't vote with the Republicans all the time. Or Joe Republican, who always votes with the Republicans.
West Virginia isn't a place that's going to return a socialist firebrand.
There's a big gulf between Joe Manchin and this hypothetical socialist firebrand you've introduced, and the not-evil side starts a fair ways before you get to where the socialist firebrand is standing.
this is true. I also don't really see how "he's the best we're going to get from West Virginia" is a response to the assertion that joe manchin sucks and makes the senate and the party worse. there are other seats to win.
No, my post right after Manchin being an idiot where Alabama is banning trans healthcare for kids and 18 year olds.
I'm hoping that falls afoul of Bostock. Thankfully that was a 6-3 decision, so in theory Barrett can only make it into a 5-4 decision that would still be right. Especially since they explicitly have gender conforming/ perception as part of the language which... is directly afoul of Bostock.
Maybe we should strive to hold our elected officials to a higher standard than "less evil than the Republican candidate." "Less evil" is still evil.
I don't vote in West Virginia.
Our choice is Joe Manchin, who is conservative but doesn't vote with the Republicans all the time. Or Joe Republican, who always votes with the Republicans.
West Virginia isn't a place that's going to return a socialist firebrand.
There's a big gulf between Joe Manchin and this hypothetical socialist firebrand you've introduced, and the not-evil side starts a fair ways before you get to where the socialist firebrand is standing.
this is true. I also don't really see how "he's the best we're going to get from West Virginia" is a response to the assertion that joe manchin sucks and makes the senate and the party worse. there are other seats to win.
"Focus on winning other seats so that Manchin is not the sole line between a Republican Senate and Democratic one" is a good, constructive way forward imo. It's been discussed here before, and I think everyone agrees.
The American transgender community cannot afford for the Democrats to tolerate transphobes in their ranks.
Period.
That is the line. That is the firm human rights line for a community as marginalized and precarious as ours. Especially when the GOP is renewing their attacks against us in force after their federal powers have been weakened.
The American transgender community cannot afford for the Democrats to tolerate transphobes in their ranks.
Period.
That is the line. That is the firm human rights line for a community as marginalized and precarious as ours. Especially when the GOP is renewing their attacks against us in force after their federal powers have been weakened.
And in demanding such you will harm the LGBT community by handing control of the Senate to the GOP. That's the price of 50/50 Senate.
Manchin is a transphobic ass but the appointees and judges he votes to confirm? Won't be. Neither will the SCOTUS judge(s).
+11
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I really don't think you can say that with any certainty
The American transgender community cannot afford for the Democrats to tolerate transphobes in their ranks.
Period.
That is the line. That is the firm human rights line for a community as marginalized and precarious as ours. Especially when the GOP is renewing their attacks against us in force after their federal powers have been weakened.
And in demanding such you will harm the LGBT community by handing control of the Senate to the GOP. That's the price of 50/50 Senate.
Manchin is a transphobic ass but the appointees and judges he votes to confirm? Won't be. Neither will the SCOTUS judge(s).
There’s plenty of action they can take against him on this.
Manchin can vote for Garland and get censured for his anti-civil rights bullshit
Censure is a vote so they literally can't. It wouldn't surprise me if he ends up the Dem Ted Cruz though
(Edit also your definition of cannot tolerate that and mine appear to be different as I read that as "yeet him from party" and from here i'm taking my own advice)
(In the "I like Ted Cruz more than most here, and I hate Ted Cruz sense)
No, my post right after Manchin being an idiot where Alabama is banning trans healthcare for kids and 18 year olds.
I'm hoping that falls afoul of Bostock. Thankfully that was a 6-3 decision, so in theory Barrett can only make it into a 5-4 decision that would still be right. Especially since they explicitly have gender conforming/ perception as part of the language which... is directly afoul of Bostock.
We'll see. It hasn't actually passed, so I'm hoping this ends up a bridge too far ala HB2 and causes serious backlash.
The American transgender community cannot afford for the Democrats to tolerate transphobes in their ranks.
Period.
That is the line. That is the firm human rights line for a community as marginalized and precarious as ours. Especially when the GOP is renewing their attacks against us in force after their federal powers have been weakened.
And in demanding such you will harm the LGBT community by handing control of the Senate to the GOP. That's the price of 50/50 Senate.
Manchin is a transphobic ass but the appointees and judges he votes to confirm? Won't be. Neither will the SCOTUS judge(s).
He’s already doing that kind of harm, and being upset about it has nothing to do with whether he votes for Garland or not. That a republican would do worse is kind of moot at this point.
Edit: All that said, I did miss the part where it needed a 60 vote majority, so I’m slightly less angry since it wasn’t all riding in Murkowski crossing the aisle
Neco on
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I really don't think you can say that with any certainty
Think Mcconnell is letting anyone who wants to put the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ back on it's actual job?
Meanwhile Garland wants to do just that. And Manchin will vote for him.
this isn't relevant to what you said.
what you said was that the appointees and judges Manchin votes for won't be transphobes. and that's not really knowable either in the strict sense or the casual sense. manchin is a transphobe with leverage, he could easily demand appointees who agree with him on this issue, and his presence in the party indicates that it is a negotiable one. biden and schumer will fold on this if they think they have to, and we know that's true because they already have.
if you find this to be a frustrating point, well, it's not the people making it you should be upset with.
I really don't think you can say that with any certainty
Think Mcconnell is letting anyone who wants to put the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ back on it's actual job?
Meanwhile Garland wants to do just that. And Manchin will vote for him.
this isn't relevant to what you said.
what you said was that the appointees and judges Manchin votes for won't be transphobes. and that's not really knowable either in the strict sense or the casual sense. manchin is a transphobe with leverage, he could easily demand appointees who agree with him on this issue, and his presence in the party indicates that it is a negotiable one. biden and schumer will fold on this if they think they have to, and we know that's true because they already have.
if you find this to be a frustrating point, well, it's not the people making it you should be upset with.
With both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Manchin was the only Democrat to vote Yea to their confirmations.
I really don't think you can say that with any certainty
Think Mcconnell is letting anyone who wants to put the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ back on it's actual job?
Meanwhile Garland wants to do just that. And Manchin will vote for him.
this isn't relevant to what you said.
what you said was that the appointees and judges Manchin votes for won't be transphobes. and that's not really knowable either in the strict sense or the casual sense. manchin is a transphobe with leverage, he could easily demand appointees who agree with him on this issue, and his presence in the party indicates that it is a negotiable one. biden and schumer will fold on this if they think they have to, and we know that's true because they already have.
if you find this to be a frustrating point, well, it's not the people making it you should be upset with.
With both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Manchin was the only Democrat to vote Yea to their confirmations.
He did vote Nay on Coney Barrett's confirmation.
Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Bostock extending Civil Rights Act Title VII protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
I really don't think you can say that with any certainty
Think Mcconnell is letting anyone who wants to put the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ back on it's actual job?
Meanwhile Garland wants to do just that. And Manchin will vote for him.
this isn't relevant to what you said.
what you said was that the appointees and judges Manchin votes for won't be transphobes. and that's not really knowable either in the strict sense or the casual sense. manchin is a transphobe with leverage, he could easily demand appointees who agree with him on this issue, and his presence in the party indicates that it is a negotiable one. biden and schumer will fold on this if they think they have to, and we know that's true because they already have.
if you find this to be a frustrating point, well, it's not the people making it you should be upset with.
With both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Manchin was the only Democrat to vote Yea to their confirmations.
He did vote Nay on Coney Barrett's confirmation.
She's a lady. He seems to have a problem with that.
I really don't think you can say that with any certainty
Think Mcconnell is letting anyone who wants to put the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ back on it's actual job?
Meanwhile Garland wants to do just that. And Manchin will vote for him.
this isn't relevant to what you said.
what you said was that the appointees and judges Manchin votes for won't be transphobes. and that's not really knowable either in the strict sense or the casual sense. manchin is a transphobe with leverage, he could easily demand appointees who agree with him on this issue, and his presence in the party indicates that it is a negotiable one. biden and schumer will fold on this if they think they have to, and we know that's true because they already have.
if you find this to be a frustrating point, well, it's not the people making it you should be upset with.
With both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Manchin was the only Democrat to vote Yea to their confirmations.
He did vote Nay on Coney Barrett's confirmation.
Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Bostock extending Civil Rights Act Title VII protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
This doesn't guarantee he's going to come down on the correct side of things if any of these anti-trans bills being pushed in state legislatures end up being passed and challenged all the way up to SCOTUS.
I wonder why WV of all places has the highest percentage of trans teens. I'd think if anything they'd be undercounted in red states. (Not that it's important; I'm just curious!)
I wonder why WV of all places has the highest percentage of trans teens. I'd think if anything they'd be undercounted in red states. (Not that it's important; I'm just curious!)
Looking at the article, the methodology isn't peer-reviewed yet and is based on making predictions based on the adult population in that state reported as being trans, which doesn't seem like the most accurate way of projection? I mean, adults living in a state doesn't mean they grew up there.
*shrug* Whether or not West Virginia has the highest population of trans teens doesn't change any of the other facts listed in that tweet thread.
DarkPrimus on
+3
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Apparently Arkansas decided they had to be on top of the evil Olympics. This bill notably doesn't apply to emergency care, but
A. How many bigoted providers will care with this type of backing?
B. How many patients will know that?
C. Lack of non emergency care can still kill you
Trans man is diagnosed with malignant ovarian cancer and refused treatment. Not just once, but multiple times. Reports are also that the first doctor to notice it didn't even bother telling him, but I haven't found confirmation of *that* horror.
According to the legislation's summary of the bill, "LEAs (local education agencies) and public charter schools are prohibited from locally adopting or using in the public schools of this state, textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles."
+4
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
I wish I was more confident about Bostock holding here rather than the Court's conservatives being happy to let 'religious freedom's trample the freedom to, you know, live.
+5
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Apparently Arkansas decided they had to be on top of the evil Olympics. This bill notably doesn't apply to emergency care, but
A. How many bigoted providers will care with this type of backing?
B. How many patients will know that?
C. Lack of non emergency care can still kill you
Trans man is diagnosed with malignant ovarian cancer and refused treatment. Not just once, but multiple times. Reports are also that the first doctor to notice it didn't even bother telling him, but I haven't found confirmation of *that* horror.
According to the legislation's summary of the bill, "LEAs (local education agencies) and public charter schools are prohibited from locally adopting or using in the public schools of this state, textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles."
I mean it can't possibly apply to emergency care because there are literally no circumstances under which an emergency care provider can refuse to provide emergency care if they have the capacity to do so.
Apparently Arkansas decided they had to be on top of the evil Olympics. This bill notably doesn't apply to emergency care, but
A. How many bigoted providers will care with this type of backing?
B. How many patients will know that?
C. Lack of non emergency care can still kill you
Trans man is diagnosed with malignant ovarian cancer and refused treatment. Not just once, but multiple times. Reports are also that the first doctor to notice it didn't even bother telling him, but I haven't found confirmation of *that* horror.
According to the legislation's summary of the bill, "LEAs (local education agencies) and public charter schools are prohibited from locally adopting or using in the public schools of this state, textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles."
I mean it can't possibly apply to emergency care because there are literally no circumstances under which an emergency care provider can refuse to provide emergency care if they have the capacity to do so.
Big oooof right there.
I can imagine the same lawsuits that the anti-abortion "conscience bills" have caused without any conclusion or ordering of the law being struck.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Apparently Arkansas decided they had to be on top of the evil Olympics. This bill notably doesn't apply to emergency care, but
A. How many bigoted providers will care with this type of backing?
B. How many patients will know that?
C. Lack of non emergency care can still kill you
Trans man is diagnosed with malignant ovarian cancer and refused treatment. Not just once, but multiple times. Reports are also that the first doctor to notice it didn't even bother telling him, but I haven't found confirmation of *that* horror.
According to the legislation's summary of the bill, "LEAs (local education agencies) and public charter schools are prohibited from locally adopting or using in the public schools of this state, textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles."
I mean it can't possibly apply to emergency care because there are literally no circumstances under which an emergency care provider can refuse to provide emergency care if they have the capacity to do so.
What if an emergency care giver believes they still have the right and withholds the treatment... and therefore the person dies?
Who determines what is emergency care?
What about the issue we already have with private insurance companies, where they deny care that would prevent the necessity of emergency care were it treated?
DarkPrimus on
+1
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Apparently Arkansas decided they had to be on top of the evil Olympics. This bill notably doesn't apply to emergency care, but
A. How many bigoted providers will care with this type of backing?
B. How many patients will know that?
C. Lack of non emergency care can still kill you
Trans man is diagnosed with malignant ovarian cancer and refused treatment. Not just once, but multiple times. Reports are also that the first doctor to notice it didn't even bother telling him, but I haven't found confirmation of *that* horror.
According to the legislation's summary of the bill, "LEAs (local education agencies) and public charter schools are prohibited from locally adopting or using in the public schools of this state, textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles."
I mean it can't possibly apply to emergency care because there are literally no circumstances under which an emergency care provider can refuse to provide emergency care if they have the capacity to do so.
What if an emergency care giver believes they still have the right and withholds the treatment... and therefore the person dies?
Who determines what is emergency care?
What about the issue we already have with private insurance companies, where they deny care that would prevent the necessity of emergency care were it treated?
1) that would be flatly against both medical ethics and the law. Like even under this law. It would be awful but it would still be definitely illegal.
2) EMTALA. This is very settled federal law.
3) this is a real and very important issue and it's fucking awful as it is now
Apparently Arkansas decided they had to be on top of the evil Olympics. This bill notably doesn't apply to emergency care, but
A. How many bigoted providers will care with this type of backing?
B. How many patients will know that?
C. Lack of non emergency care can still kill you
Trans man is diagnosed with malignant ovarian cancer and refused treatment. Not just once, but multiple times. Reports are also that the first doctor to notice it didn't even bother telling him, but I haven't found confirmation of *that* horror.
According to the legislation's summary of the bill, "LEAs (local education agencies) and public charter schools are prohibited from locally adopting or using in the public schools of this state, textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles."
I mean it can't possibly apply to emergency care because there are literally no circumstances under which an emergency care provider can refuse to provide emergency care if they have the capacity to do so.
What if an emergency care giver believes they still have the right and withholds the treatment... and therefore the person dies?
Who determines what is emergency care?
What about the issue we already have with private insurance companies, where they deny care that would prevent the necessity of emergency care were it treated?
In order:
Open to a lawsuit, revocation of Medicare license, fairly large fines ($50k for the provider, 100k for the hospital), if the patient went somewhere else, the other facility can sue to recover the entire cost of treatment. But the patient is still hurt.
Biden has already warned states off doing shit like this, citing Bostock and the EOs signed early on. So the DoJ will most likely sue to halt implementation of the health care related laws at the minimum. The sports ones also violate Bostock but I'm less confident of a suit or a good outcome there with RBG dead.
Apparently Arkansas decided they had to be on top of the evil Olympics. This bill notably doesn't apply to emergency care, but
A. How many bigoted providers will care with this type of backing?
B. How many patients will know that?
C. Lack of non emergency care can still kill you
Trans man is diagnosed with malignant ovarian cancer and refused treatment. Not just once, but multiple times. Reports are also that the first doctor to notice it didn't even bother telling him, but I haven't found confirmation of *that* horror.
According to the legislation's summary of the bill, "LEAs (local education agencies) and public charter schools are prohibited from locally adopting or using in the public schools of this state, textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles."
I mean it can't possibly apply to emergency care because there are literally no circumstances under which an emergency care provider can refuse to provide emergency care if they have the capacity to do so.
What if an emergency care giver believes they still have the right and withholds the treatment... and therefore the person dies?
Who determines what is emergency care?
What about the issue we already have with private insurance companies, where they deny care that would prevent the necessity of emergency care were it treated?
1) that would be flatly against both medical ethics and the law. Like even under this law. It would be awful but it would still be definitely illegal.
2) EMTALA. This is very settled federal law.
3) this is a real and very important issue and it's fucking awful as it is now
To be clear, I was asking those questions rhetorically. Because the legitimate answers don't mean shit for the intent of this bill, which is to cause harm in the moment because bigots will use the law as a means to deny care regardless of whether or not they are supposed to provide the care.
DarkPrimus on
+1
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Good news!
Once again, again, the US will protect people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity for health care!
The HHS reversed a decision made last year that removed those protections.
The announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services concerns one of the most notable parts of the Affordable Care Act — the provision in Section 1557 that prevents health care providers and insurance companies from discriminating on the basis "race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in certain health programs and activities."
Effective immediately, the agency says it will interpret that provision to encompass discrimination against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity in health care.
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited May 2021
I'm not clear why Bostock would be controlling with respect to "conscientious objection" laws for medical care; afaict Bostock litigated nondiscrimination rights for employees under title VII, which doesn't speak to either medical care or conscience claims.
Masterpiece Cake Shop seems like a more relevant and more dismal precedent
I'm not clear why Bostock would be controlling here; afaict Bostock litigated nondiscrimination rights for employees under title VII, which doesn't speak to either medical care or conscience claims.
Masterpiece Cake Shop seems like a more relevant and more dismal precedent
Masterpiece was decided just on procedural grounds, that the commission had a bias against the cake shop, and sorta ignored the 'is this anti-discrimination statue valid' and even beyond that was centered on "is for contract creative work speech".
Bostock was more recent and basically did a find+replace for "sex" to "sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation" in an anti discrimination law, so certainly seems more relevant.
I'm not clear why Bostock would be controlling here; afaict Bostock litigated nondiscrimination rights for employees under title VII, which doesn't speak to either medical care or conscience claims.
Masterpiece Cake Shop seems like a more relevant and more dismal precedent
Masterpiece was decided just on procedural grounds, that the commission had a bias against the cake shop, and sorta ignored the 'is this anti-discrimination statue valid' and even beyond that was centered on "is for contract creative work speech".
Bostock was more recent and basically did a find+replace for "sex" to "sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation" in an anti discrimination law, so certainly seems more relevant.
It also might allow for a quicker path through the Administrative Practices Act or similar. We aren't rewriting regulations or statutes in an arbitrary or capricious manner. No, no, no. Perish the thought. We are just coming into compliance with how we interpret this new Court ruling. That's the ticket.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I'm not clear why Bostock would be controlling here; afaict Bostock litigated nondiscrimination rights for employees under title VII, which doesn't speak to either medical care or conscience claims.
Masterpiece Cake Shop seems like a more relevant and more dismal precedent
Masterpiece was decided just on procedural grounds, that the commission had a bias against the cake shop, and sorta ignored the 'is this anti-discrimination statue valid' and even beyond that was centered on "is for contract creative work speech".
Bostock was more recent and basically did a find+replace for "sex" to "sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation" in an anti discrimination law, so certainly seems more relevant.
My thinking is that Masterpiece found a cognizable first amendment claim in refusing to provide service, even if the supposed bias of the commission resolved the case before testing that claim against public accommodations law. And afaict Bostock didn't say anything to modify or overrule Masterpiece, and had justices in the majority for both opinions, which suggests that those who signed on to both think that including sexual orientation under sex does not itself decide the public accommodation of sexual orientation versus first amendment question.
It's also worth noting that there are already existing refusal laws for e.g. abortion, which have withstood judicial scrutiny Roe v Wade nonwithstanding. According to NARAL, these laws can even cover refusal to provide HIV testing, despite HIV being counted as a disability and consequently protected under the ADA. Idk, I'm skeptical that state level refusal laws are clear violations of federal nondiscrimination law (or even constitutional rights a la RvW), but I'm also very much not a lawyer so I don't claim to really understand the byzantine glory of our legal tapestry
Posts
Are you referring to this?
Because I wrote to all my Congress critters and tried to keep track of it at the time. So far as I could tell months ago, and re-upping the search just now, it never actually got finalized. So it died January 20th.
Title and Tracking Number:
Amendment of Title VI Regulations (RIN 11190-AA75)
Yes, but you’re also not our spokeswoman either. I’m glad there are people pissed at this shithead on our behalf. We can’t afford for this shit to fly, not even a little, especially when those who would dehumanize us already are practicing on dividing us from the rest of the queer coalition. So I’d rather a bunch of people post about what a shithead Manchin is, because that means those are people who have our backs when the bigots array against us.
this is true. I also don't really see how "he's the best we're going to get from West Virginia" is a response to the assertion that joe manchin sucks and makes the senate and the party worse. there are other seats to win.
I'm hoping that falls afoul of Bostock. Thankfully that was a 6-3 decision, so in theory Barrett can only make it into a 5-4 decision that would still be right. Especially since they explicitly have gender conforming/ perception as part of the language which... is directly afoul of Bostock.
"Focus on winning other seats so that Manchin is not the sole line between a Republican Senate and Democratic one" is a good, constructive way forward imo. It's been discussed here before, and I think everyone agrees.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Period.
That is the line. That is the firm human rights line for a community as marginalized and precarious as ours. Especially when the GOP is renewing their attacks against us in force after their federal powers have been weakened.
And in demanding such you will harm the LGBT community by handing control of the Senate to the GOP. That's the price of 50/50 Senate.
Manchin is a transphobic ass but the appointees and judges he votes to confirm? Won't be. Neither will the SCOTUS judge(s).
There’s plenty of action they can take against him on this.
At least censure his transphobic ass
Think Mcconnell is letting anyone who wants to put the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ back on it's actual job?
Meanwhile Garland wants to do just that. And Manchin will vote for him.
Censure is a vote so they literally can't. It wouldn't surprise me if he ends up the Dem Ted Cruz though
(Edit also your definition of cannot tolerate that and mine appear to be different as I read that as "yeet him from party" and from here i'm taking my own advice)
(In the "I like Ted Cruz more than most here, and I hate Ted Cruz sense)
We'll see. It hasn't actually passed, so I'm hoping this ends up a bridge too far ala HB2 and causes serious backlash.
He’s already doing that kind of harm, and being upset about it has nothing to do with whether he votes for Garland or not. That a republican would do worse is kind of moot at this point.
Edit: All that said, I did miss the part where it needed a 60 vote majority, so I’m slightly less angry since it wasn’t all riding in Murkowski crossing the aisle
this isn't relevant to what you said.
what you said was that the appointees and judges Manchin votes for won't be transphobes. and that's not really knowable either in the strict sense or the casual sense. manchin is a transphobe with leverage, he could easily demand appointees who agree with him on this issue, and his presence in the party indicates that it is a negotiable one. biden and schumer will fold on this if they think they have to, and we know that's true because they already have.
if you find this to be a frustrating point, well, it's not the people making it you should be upset with.
With both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Manchin was the only Democrat to vote Yea to their confirmations.
He did vote Nay on Coney Barrett's confirmation.
Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Bostock extending Civil Rights Act Title VII protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
She's a lady. He seems to have a problem with that.
This doesn't guarantee he's going to come down on the correct side of things if any of these anti-trans bills being pushed in state legislatures end up being passed and challenged all the way up to SCOTUS.
Is pretty much not an isolated instance, Manchin is neck deep on anti-trans.
Looking at the article, the methodology isn't peer-reviewed yet and is based on making predictions based on the adult population in that state reported as being trans, which doesn't seem like the most accurate way of projection? I mean, adults living in a state doesn't mean they grew up there.
*shrug* Whether or not West Virginia has the highest population of trans teens doesn't change any of the other facts listed in that tweet thread.
Part of general nonsense fiesta of anti-LGBT laws popping up recently, most focusing on trans kids. A substatial chunk ban healthcare for trans kids: 17 states have bills proposing this. Some have bit the dust already, most are in committee, AL's is close to passing.
Apparently Arkansas decided they had to be on top of the evil Olympics. This bill notably doesn't apply to emergency care, but
A. How many bigoted providers will care with this type of backing?
B. How many patients will know that?
C. Lack of non emergency care can still kill you
For a particularly fucked up example of C:
https://blog.timesunion.com/transgender/when-doctors-kill/3136/
Trans man is diagnosed with malignant ovarian cancer and refused treatment. Not just once, but multiple times. Reports are also that the first doctor to notice it didn't even bother telling him, but I haven't found confirmation of *that* horror.
Tennessee is also trying to ban books that mention LGBT people in a non hateful way, because as always conservative complaints about cancel culture are projection
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/545035-tennessee-gop-bill-would-ban-textbooks-with-lgbtq-content
Summary pretty much covers it; his name was Robert Eads if you want to Google him.
I wish I was more confident about Bostock holding here rather than the Court's conservatives being happy to let 'religious freedom's trample the freedom to, you know, live.
I mean it can't possibly apply to emergency care because there are literally no circumstances under which an emergency care provider can refuse to provide emergency care if they have the capacity to do so.
Big oooof right there.
I can imagine the same lawsuits that the anti-abortion "conscience bills" have caused without any conclusion or ordering of the law being struck.
What if an emergency care giver believes they still have the right and withholds the treatment... and therefore the person dies?
Who determines what is emergency care?
What about the issue we already have with private insurance companies, where they deny care that would prevent the necessity of emergency care were it treated?
1) that would be flatly against both medical ethics and the law. Like even under this law. It would be awful but it would still be definitely illegal.
2) EMTALA. This is very settled federal law.
3) this is a real and very important issue and it's fucking awful as it is now
In order:
Open to a lawsuit, revocation of Medicare license, fairly large fines ($50k for the provider, 100k for the hospital), if the patient went somewhere else, the other facility can sue to recover the entire cost of treatment. But the patient is still hurt.
Law
Exactly what this law is designed to make worse
Biden has already warned states off doing shit like this, citing Bostock and the EOs signed early on. So the DoJ will most likely sue to halt implementation of the health care related laws at the minimum. The sports ones also violate Bostock but I'm less confident of a suit or a good outcome there with RBG dead.
To be clear, I was asking those questions rhetorically. Because the legitimate answers don't mean shit for the intent of this bill, which is to cause harm in the moment because bigots will use the law as a means to deny care regardless of whether or not they are supposed to provide the care.
Once again, again, the US will protect people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity for health care!
The HHS reversed a decision made last year that removed those protections.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995418963/u-s-will-protect-gay-and-transgender-people-against-discrimination-in-health-car
Masterpiece Cake Shop seems like a more relevant and more dismal precedent
Masterpiece was decided just on procedural grounds, that the commission had a bias against the cake shop, and sorta ignored the 'is this anti-discrimination statue valid' and even beyond that was centered on "is for contract creative work speech".
Bostock was more recent and basically did a find+replace for "sex" to "sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation" in an anti discrimination law, so certainly seems more relevant.
It also might allow for a quicker path through the Administrative Practices Act or similar. We aren't rewriting regulations or statutes in an arbitrary or capricious manner. No, no, no. Perish the thought. We are just coming into compliance with how we interpret this new Court ruling. That's the ticket.
My thinking is that Masterpiece found a cognizable first amendment claim in refusing to provide service, even if the supposed bias of the commission resolved the case before testing that claim against public accommodations law. And afaict Bostock didn't say anything to modify or overrule Masterpiece, and had justices in the majority for both opinions, which suggests that those who signed on to both think that including sexual orientation under sex does not itself decide the public accommodation of sexual orientation versus first amendment question.
It's also worth noting that there are already existing refusal laws for e.g. abortion, which have withstood judicial scrutiny Roe v Wade nonwithstanding. According to NARAL, these laws can even cover refusal to provide HIV testing, despite HIV being counted as a disability and consequently protected under the ADA. Idk, I'm skeptical that state level refusal laws are clear violations of federal nondiscrimination law (or even constitutional rights a la RvW), but I'm also very much not a lawyer so I don't claim to really understand the byzantine glory of our legal tapestry