This clip was with a reporter detailing the abuses in ICE detention facilities and the illegal actions of ICE agents and for profit prison staff. Profit over people as these ICE and prison staff do not see the detainees as humans like themselves. What is concerning is ICE is learning how to use existing laws to make the local law enforcement work against the will of the people. This young man wont admit he was attacked by ICE agents instead saying he thinks he hit a tree limb in the confusion but I showed Ron the video and he said the guy looks to him like he was hit repeatedly and hard in the head and possibly the body as well. When will we as a people see that these abuses are so very similar to the abuses suffered by the minorities in 1930s Geermany. Hugs
Category: Abuse
Platner Smear Flops | Jeet Heer | TMR
Sam points out that the times interviewed at least four women. Only one had anything bad to say about Platner and the rest had only positive things to say about him. The Times couldn’t collberate the claims of the woman who accused Platner of being physically rough with her. The woman making the accusations is a republican operative and one of the co-founders of the group Ladies for Kavanaugh. A group that supports Justice kavanaugh who was very credibly accused of rape. This woman accusing Platner of abusing women is a longtime Republican operative who helped Susan Collins write the speech she gave supporting Kavanaugh. She used a lot of the same language in the Times smear article as she has used in in other republican-supporting articles and events. It seems the majority of the attacks aimed at Platner are being driven / created by centrist and pro-Israel groups. These attacks include hints of far more serious crimes to come to light but they can’t substantiate them. Hugs
Smears Against Platner Are Getting Desperate…
I am finding the coverage of this story an interesting example of the open bias and deliberate slanting of the story depending on who or which side is covering it. The same reports are covered with drasticly different tones, phrasing and include or exclude details depending on which group the reporter is either trying to promote or degrade. For example on This Week Martha Raddatz reported the story in the darkest most impassioned way to present Platner as an out of control phycotic abuser of women and repeatedly elaborated on his sexting of women while dating and slightly after he was married to his wife as a great moral failing making him not worth or qualified to serve in Congress. Yet she never faulted Ken Paxton or tRump the same way. During her report on this story she talked up Janet Mills praising her repeatedly while mentioning that she was the needed alternative to Platner. Her report made it sound like the entire state of Maine and all the Democrats did not want Platner but the majority of people she interviewed were supporting him. In the reporting of this by The Majority Report they take a different tact in the reporting on Platner. They report the facts in a less sensational manner and put everything in context to modern society. Below is just a clip of the transcript of the show. For those not wanting to watch this I recommend at least reading the transcript. There might be details, facts, or context not reported elsewhere. Sam askes where are the other accusers and their stories. Hugs
Um, and I’m also fascinated by the way this story has developed, like who is doing this? Uh, because the the timing of this stuff is strange. Um, and suggests that it’s not just a question of Republicans because Mhm. If the Republicans had this stuff, they would drop it uh you know in October. But why or or it could be about Republicans taking a different tact here and saying we need to get him out of the race as opposed to try and beat him because we may not be be able to beat him. The best thing is for us to get him out of the race. Yeah. And now is the most opportune time to do that. But uh regardless. So let’s put up this tweet from Lindsay Fitfield. She is the only person to suggest uh any type of physicality uh and again uh she wouldn’t have called it like abuse but any type of physicality from Platner and she also suggests that he knew uh what his tattoo
And the reason why she does that is because she wants the Times to carry the story as opposed to another outlet. And she is strategizing. The Times is are going to hit the audience. I want them to hit. If you wanted this on the uh, you know, on the right, you wouldn’t go to the Times. That’s what comms professionals do. We have this story. Where are we going to go? And she went to the Times and made a deal with them. You’ll get an exclusive when you write this.Uh after the story went up, I began to ask them, “Wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs uh dedicated to detailing my work history?” Which is that hilarious because it was such a footnote in the story. It obscures the true nature of her collaboration with Republican operatives and her work in Republican politics. And she’s asking, “Where are their accusations of sexual assault?” Yeah, they probably just wanted to embarrass themselves by leaving those out like as if they actually existed.Yeah. because in that instance it the whole thing sounds like a total hit job uh by these reports. Remember they’ve been working on this story for months according to her, right? I mean the dragged on and um and that’s just when they had her stuff. Keep put u why does uh it say nobody corroborate could corroborate when I offered them sources that could corroborate. They obviously went to these sources and those sources could not corroborate.
Indiana’s Lt Gov says Christians need to HATE…
As I have written about before I had to remove hate from my system. Because of what I experienced growing up and the toxic nature of those I was raised by / around I developed a deep anger building to intense hate. It was consuming me as I had no outlet for that poison it was ruining the being I was / could be. I saw Ron starting to pull away from me as he saw the effects of my inner struggle with hate even as he did not know why I had such deep emotions and intense reactions. I had a choice. I could go with the hate, give into it and make it all I was. That would make me like those I grew up with. Or I could excise it, leave it behind, look for and crave something far different that might be like cold water on blistered skin. A balm to help me heal and to build the person I wanted to be, not that they wanted me to be. I went from the “slave” name they called me to being Scottie. It was not easy, it still is not. I am not and never will be perfect. I struggle not to be easily angered, to look for the good in others, to not to imagine faults. But by making those first steps I was able to keep Ron and he guided me forward not even understanding he was doing it. Happy hugs. Scottie
Family Togetherness, Slush, J6 Creepers: Clay Jones + Open Windows
Slushy Intel
The insurrectionist slush fund has been canceled, but maybe there’s another way Trump can compensate his homegrown terrorists.

During congressional testimony, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said that Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund, which his J6 insurrectionists/terrorists could have applied for, is dead. In the Oval Office today, Donald Trump said that he doesn’t know if it’s dead. He is lying.
The one thing that we do know for sure is that the immunity for Trump and his family from IRS audits is still alive and well. But more on that tomorrow.
The slush fund was not popular, even with Republicans, with one calling it “stupid on stilts.” Another unpopular thing, even with Republicans, is the appointment of Bill Pulte as acting Director of National Intelligence. Pulte is currently the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
When asked if he has concerns that Pulte would “weaponize” the position, given the role he has played during Trump’s second term in digging into mortgage records to see whether Trump’s political adversaries have committed fraud, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said: “We don’t need a weaponized DNI; we need professionals there.” (snip-MORE)
The family who grifts together…
hopefully is convicted together
Recently I posted a cartoon after reading this Propublica story about the connections between a Don Jr. linked company and a $620 million Pentagon loan. We haven’t heard as much in the news during the second presidential term about the Trump family and their various grifts (probably due to Trump taking the oxygen out of the room with his various vanity projects), so I’m posting some cartoons from the first as a reminder the entire Trump family is in it all for themselves.





(snip-there are 7 MORE, and they are fantastic-go see!)
J6 Creepers
Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund for white nationalist insurrectionists is dead (maybe), but MAGA pedos can still find a silver lining.

Andrew Paul Johnson was one of the insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021. He pleaded guilty to multiple nonviolent charges for breaching the Capitol, and was just a few months into his year-long sentence when Donald Trump gave him a pardon. Last March, he was sentenced to life in prison after a Florida jury found him guilty of five criminal charges, including molestation, lewd and lascivious exhibition, and transmission of material harmful to a minor.
Police reported that Johnson, 45, tried to keep the children quiet by telling them he would share millions of dollars in restitution money he expected to receive from the Trump regime in connection with his Jan. 6 case. Don’t worry, kids, he told them. Uncle Donald will take care of you. (snip-it’s disgusting that there is MORE just like this)
TV & FCC News
Disney Finds Its Spine
In normal times, in a normal Federal Communications Commission, Anna M. Gomez’s job might be described as wonky. But now is not that time.
“A large part of my role is to call out this administration’s abuses of the First Amendment, particularly when it chooses to weaponize the FCC in trying to shut down any voices that it doesn’t like,” said Gomez. “And we see this constantly, there is a constant infringement on the free press and on the First Amendment and on the rights of viewers and listeners to see and hear what they want to see.”
Gomez is the sole Democrat on the commission. Her term is set to end on June 30. Normally, there would be five commissioners at the FCC, but right now, there are only three. Two resigned last year, and the Trump administration has not nominated their replacements. Gomez is on a First Amendment tour of sorts—telling Americans that the actions of the FCC chair, Brendan Carr, are egregious. Disney seems to agree. Unlike other media companies, it’s lawyered up to fight against the FCC’s latest demands.
On a recent episode of What Next: TBD, host Lizzie O’Leary spoke to Gomez about the FCC and why ABC isn’t folding like CBS did. This transcript has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Lizzie O’Leary: How do broadcast affiliates work?
Anna M. Gomez: Although Disney owns and operates only eight stations nationwide, there are hundreds of ABC affiliates because there are hundreds of markets all over this country. They are owned independently by other broadcasters. Some of those broadcasters are quite large, and some of them are very small.
The FCC manufactured a complaint against a Disney station in Texas that carried The View. And although multiple ABC stations carried that particular program, it had the Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico on it.
There were tons of other ABC affiliates that also could have had this complaint lodged against them. But the FCC went to the nonowned affiliates in the market and said to them: “We want you to file with us, and we’re not going to hold it against you because of this alleged violation.” They didn’t go to Disney.
The FCC then used the fact that other affiliates filed as a reason to initiate this investigation against the one Disney-owned station. That to me is a setup. Some would call that entrapment. It’s where the FCC manufactures an issue and coordinates with the other stations so that only the Disney-owned station is the outlier. And this is why it is so egregious what this FCC is doing, because it is clearly targeting Disney in retaliation for its viewpoints.
How is that legal?
It’s not. It’s absolutely unlawful. Not only is it unlawful, it is also unconstitutional. The FCC is challenging the First Amendment rights of the broadcasters, the talent, the press, through all of these actions. We are explicitly prohibited from censoring broadcasters, but this is censorship.
This feels like a shakedown. This feels like the emperor doesn’t like these comedians, whether it’s Jimmy Kimmel or Joy Behar, and if you don’t do something, we’re going to take away your affiliate licenses. Is that a fair reading?
Absolutely. This administration cannot tolerate anything that is critical of it, that doesn’t mention its worldview. And it is weaponizing any tool in its toolbox, whether it’s the FCC, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Defense, in order to go after the press and to go after the media.
It is clear that this is absolute harassment in order to get Disney to capitulate. The good news is that Disney is not capitulating. It has actually shown courage. It has decided to stand up for its First Amendment rights and to push back. And if this gets carried out to its conclusion, and by that I mean it goes to court, the FCC will lose.
Is Disney finding a spine, or can Disney read a poll?
Disney has, in fact, found its spine. Part of that, of course, is that we saw Disney capitulate very early on when it settled the case against ABC because of the George Stephanopoulos interview. And legal scholars said there is no basis for this case, but it went ahead and settled it. And that opened the door to all of these future actions against the media. I think what Disney learned is that capitulation doesn’t buy you protection; it might buy you some time, but they will keep coming back and coming back for more because what they demand is absolute allegiance to this administration and nothing else.
I’m curious about where this impacts TV. How much of this campaign is about pressuring tech platforms?
There’s an absolute campaign by this administration to censor and control any media outlet using whatever levers it has at its power. Look at social media. The Federal Trade Commission used the fact that there were two ad agencies merging to force them to carry ads on Twitter, which they had stopped doing because of some of the content that they found to be harmful to their clients’ interests. And that is forced speech. That is a First Amendment violation.
I do believe that this administration is sending a signal. We have seen media companies win time and time again against this administration when they go to court. But litigation and regulatory investigations are costly, and a lot of companies, corporate parents, make the decision that it is actually less painful to settle and to capitulate than it is to fight. So the process is the point, the pain is the point, the threat is the point. They don’t want this to be carried out to its fruition. They want it to just force the companies enough pain so that they will capitulate. Now, I think this is a signal to every part of the media that they would do this to them, whether it’s to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, universities, law firms, or broadcasters. They will go after anyone who speaks out against them.
Erin Brockovich & Data Centers
I’ve been trying to get this posted the past couple of days. It’s still pertinent.
Erin Brockovich Asks Americans for Help as She Launches Data Center Map
updated May 29, 2026 at 12:27 PM EDT
Environmental activist Erin Brockovich is appealing to the public for help after launching a website to report data center concerns as the rapid expansion of AI-driven facilities across the United States increasingly clashes with local communities.
The appeal threatens to thrust an iconic anti-corporate activist into the heart of the battle to expand AI infrastructure at a time of growing public skepticism about the technology’s impact on jobs, safety and the environment.
The website, brockovichdatacenter.com, lists several “key concerns” surrounding such data centers, including high energy consumption that drives environmental impacts and costs, substantial water use for cooling that can strain local supplies, increased e‑waste from frequent hardware upgrades, exposure to location risks such as natural disasters or geopolitical instability, growing scalability pressures that can outpace local infrastructure, and constant noise from cooling systems and generators that can disrupt nearby communities.
“These challenges highlight the need for sustainable, secure, and efficient AI data center practices,” the website says. “Self-reporting is the best way we can get this information out to the public!”

A map on brockovichdatacenter.com shows major AI data centers in the U.S. that are either operational or under construction, overlaid with locations w…Read More
| brockovichdatacenter.com
There are now more than 4,200 data centers—built to train, deploy and deliver AI—across the U.S., according to Data Center Map.
According to the website’s statistics, more than 2,716 reports have been submitted, with the most in Texas (612), as of Monday. The state is home to more than 460 data centers, according to Data Center Map.
The greatest concern among communities was water, followed by electricity, health and wildlife.
“The race to build AI infrastructures is unfolding town by town across America. In some places, data centers are welcomed. In others, they are delayed, contested or abandoned altogether. This map captures the real-world footprint of that race—revealing patterns of growth, conflict and uncertainty,” Brockovich said.
Who Is Erin Brockovich?
(snip-we know who she is. Or, please click through to read on the Newsweek page)
The States Becoming America’s AI Engine Room
As data centers become more visible across America’s landscape, some states are seeing more than others.
- Virginia
Long a hub for government contractors and cloud infrastructure, Virginia—particularly Northern Virginia’s “Data Center Alley”—offers proximity to federal agencies and one of the world’s densest fiber networks. Established infrastructure reduces build times and attracts hyperscalers looking to scale quickly. - Texas
Texas combines vast, inexpensive land with a deregulated energy market that gives companies flexibility in securing large power loads. Cities like Dallas and Austin also bring a growing tech workforce and business-friendly policies that appeal to major AI investors. - Ohio
Ohio has positioned itself as a Midwestern data hub, with strong incentives and central geographic access to U.S. population centers. Its legacy industrial sites are often repurposed for data centers, offering space and existing infrastructure at competitive costs. - Arizona
Arizona’s dry climate is favorable for certain cooling technologies, while its abundant land and aggressive economic development incentives have drawn major tech firms. Phoenix, in particular, has become a key destination for new AI and cloud infrastructure builds. - Georgia
Georgia, anchored by Atlanta, offers strong connectivity as a Southeast internet exchange hub. State and local tax breaks, combined with access to both talent and transport infrastructure, have made it increasingly attractive for large-scale data operations. - Utah
Utah benefits from lower real estate costs, a stable regulatory environment, and access to renewable energy sources. Its growing tech sector, known as “Silicon Slopes,” provides an emerging talent pool to support AI-focused expansion.

Why companies are choosing these states:
- Cheap land: Large-scale AI data centers require vast footprints; these states offer space at significantly lower costs than coastal markets.
- Power access: Reliable, high-capacity energy grids, often with options for renewable sourcing, are critical for AI workloads.
- Tax breaks: State and local governments are competing aggressively with incentives to attract long-term infrastructure investment.
- Fewer regulations: Streamlined permitting and business-friendly policies enable shorter development timelines and reduced compliance burdens.
That Public Notice About NDA’s for Government Workers:
We have 29 more days to make our views known in regard to the executive wishing all federal workers to sign a very broad NDA. This will crush transparency and notice of abuse, and there will likely be no more whistleblowing.
Anyway, here it is, along with the link so we can make our comments (of course it is not hyperlinked on the page, we need to copy it and paste it into our browser. WP has made it a live link in this post, but it doesn’t work.) It’s our duty and a right we still have; if we do not use it, we will most certainly use it. I found out about this yesterday on MPS’s post; it just took me a bit to get to this.
You can find this here. (This hyperlink is good; I made it myself and it works.) It is a .pdf. The NDA notice begins in the lower right-hand column.
From within the public notice, here is the info for submitting our comments:
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for sending comments.
The general policy for comments and
other submissions from members of the
public is to make these submissions
available for public viewing at https://
http://www.regulations.gov without change,
and including any personal identifiers
or contact information. Before finalizing
the NDA, OPM will consider all
comments received on or before the
closing date for comments. OPM may
make changes to the NDA after
considering the comments received.
And a little more:
Request for Comment
OPM welcomes public comments on
all aspects of the draft NDA, including
whether the Privacy Act statement’s
description of the authority, principal
purposes, routine uses, and effects
provide sufficient notice to employees.
The draft NDA is available in the docket
for this notice on regulations.gov. See
https://www.regulations.gov/document/
OPM-2026-0100-0003. OPM specifically
requests comment on the following
issues.
- What scope of information should
be covered by the NDA? Should it cover
only unclassified information? How do
you understand the terms confidential
and confidentiality in the context of this
NDA? What customization of the NDA,
if any, may be necessary for agencies to
ensure it covers the appropriate
information? - Does the NDA clearly communicate
the types of information that would be
subject to non-disclosure requirements?
If not, how could OPM better describe
what information can or cannot be
disclosed to ensure employees have
appropriate notice of their
responsibilities? - Are there other statutes to which
OPM should cite in Appendix A of the
NDA when describing the nondisclosure
requirements applicable to individuals
working for or on behalf of the Federal
government? - Do you have suggestions regarding
the layout or formatting of the NDA? - Does the Privacy Act statement in
the NDA provide sufficient notice to
employees of the authorities, principal purposes, routine uses, and effects of - the form?
- Does the OPM/GOVT–1 system of
records notice provide sufficient notice
that the government-wide system of
records would maintain records related
to the signing of, or failure to sign, the
NDA? - What are the appropriate actions, if
any, for agencies to consider taking if
existing employees choose not to sign
the NDA? - What are the appropriate actions, if
any, for agencies to consider taking if
new employees choose not to sign the
NDA? - Does the NDA clearly communicate
the potential consequences of refusal to
sign the form for both existing and new
employees, along with whether signing
the form is voluntary or mandatory? - What else should OPM consider
with regard to the NDA??
OPM will consider comments
received before finalizing the NDA.
There are several other things there, if you have some time and want to see what the exec is doing besides trying to hide all they do and finally/fully cut off our representation, even as we are taxed for government work. I don’t believe we can let this slide, but maybe that’s only me. Anyway, if you also don’t like this, please go, read the bit, and write what your conscience tells you. I’m certain you will not be alone in doing so. The thing is, our government, for which we all pay, is not a business. The only parts that should not be public are those that actually shield the actual security of the country, things such as when we go after Osama Bin Laden, and locations of items that other countries might like to drone. There should be no covering of regular day-to-day government business-that is our business and we have the right to know.
White Lion – When The Children Cry (Official Music Video)
I hate the YouTube algorithm and and myself more for giving into it and saving all the hateful abuse videos I get. I am crying now trying not to alert Ron who is in the next room with the door between us open. I had two open windows. In one I had so many tabs of abuse that the algorithm pushed them to me because I occasionally watch them. I deleted 8 of them before switching to the other open window. What does YouTube think I need to see / hear after all that deleting and not watching all those videos? The two videos below.
Am I the one to blame but if so what does that say about all the vulnerable children who are led down hate rabbit holes? At least the harm happening here is to me done myself aidded by the shit pushed into my feeds and I am so stupid that I click on them and leave the tab open while I try to move onto something else. But eventually I end up coming back to the ones that hurt me so much. Who is to blame? As always in my life, as in my childhood … I am, and I have always been according to those that hurt me. Goodnight. Scottie. Hugs
Go Figure-Did They Cheat?
Maine Trans Sports/Bathroom Ban Referendum Invalid Over Signature Forgery Concerns And Improper Gathering
The initiative was funded by billionaire anti-trans donor, Richard Uihlein, and used out-of-state paid signature gatherers.
On Tuesday, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows ruled that a proposed ballot initiative banning trans students from school sports and bathrooms will not appear before voters this November. The billionaire-funded campaign initially submitted 79,692 signatures—well over the 67,682 required to qualify—and the Secretary of State’s office certified the question for the ballot in March. But indications soon emerged that the signature-gathering process was riddled with improper procedures and, in at least one documented case and potentially many others, outright forgery. After a court remand, an evidentiary hearing, and a sworn-testimony review of the petitions, 12,542 signatures were invalidated, leaving the campaign 532 short of the threshold. Barring an appeal—which is likely though its success is far from certain—transgender students in Maine can rest a little easier this election cycle.
The infractions are striking. One out-of-state circulator left his petition forms unattended at a Topsham polling place on Election Day—twice—allowing voters to sign without a witness present, in direct violation of Maine law. Another circulator did the same at a Saco polling place, leaving her table for extended periods while crowds of voters signed unwitnessed petitions. When asked under oath whether she had destroyed the unwitnessed forms as required, she said yes—but a photograph submitted into evidence showed one of those forms was in fact turned in for validation. Most troubling of all, an out-of-state signature gatherer paid per signature submitted forms that appear to contain outright forgeries: one voter listed on her petition testified under oath that she had never signed it and had never even heard of the initiative. After the Oxford town clerk flagged additional suspicious signatures, an Elections Division review compared every name on the circulator’s forms against voter registration applications—and concluded that every single one of her validated signatures should have been thrown out as signed by another person.
Based on the evidence, Bellows ruled Tuesday that the initiative had failed to qualify for the November ballot. The decision marked a reversal of her own March certification, when her office initially determined that the petition contained enough valid signatures to move forward. That earlier ruling was challenged in Cumberland County Superior Court by three Maine voters, who alleged that thousands of signatures had been collected in violation of state law. In April, Justice Deborah Cashman agreed that the original review had been incomplete and remanded the case back to the Secretary of State’s office for further factfinding, ordering a new determination of validity within thirty days. That process produced the May 12 evidentiary hearing—where witnesses, including town clerks and voters whose names appeared on petitions, testified under oath—and ultimately the decision invalidating thousands more signatures than the initial review had caught. Bellows adopted that recommendation in full.
The initiative would have done far more than what its sports-focused branding suggested. It would have defined a person’s sex for school purposes as “a person’s biological status as male or female recorded at birth on the person’s original birth certificate”—a definition that would have stripped transgender students of legal recognition in Maine schools. It would have required public schools to “maintain separate restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, and other private spaces for each sex,” extending the ban well beyond athletics and into every gendered space in a school building. It would have created a private right of action allowing any student to sue their school for “direct injury” suffered from a violation of the act, effectively turning every transgender student’s presence in a bathroom or on a sports team into potential litigation. And it would have specifically carved transgender students out of the Maine Human Rights Act.
The anti-trans signature drive was not a grassroots effort. It was bankrolled by Illinois billionaire Richard Uihlein, the co-founder of Uline office supplies, who donated $800,000 to fund the entire effort. Uihlein has given more than $250 million to political causes since 2016, and is a major funder of the American Principles Project, which routinely spends tens of millions on anti-trans campaign ads during election years. He is not alone: an independent analysis published by Atmos and HEATED found that 80% of 45 major anti-trans organizations in the U.S. have received funding from fossil fuel companies or billionaires. The Maine initiative was part of that broader pattern—an attempt by a small handful of extraordinarily wealthy donors to use direct democracy as a workaround in states where elected legislatures have refused to engage in anti-trans legislation.
The decision was greeted with relief by the LGBTQ+ coalition that has fought the initiative since the day it was filed. “Maine has strict rules in place to protect the integrity of our elections and our system of direct democracy. The paid, out-of-state signature gathers and the billionaire who paid to try to put this question on the ballot failed to follow the rules,” said David Farmer, campaign manager for the Campaign for Free and Fair Schools, the coalition led by EqualityMaine, GLAD Law, and the Maine Women’s Lobby. “We believe that the appeals process and the reviews by the Secretary of State are working as the law intends. They are protecting the integrity of our elections.”
The Maine ruling is not the end of fight. Similar billionaire-backed initiatives have been certified for the November ballot in Washington and Colorado, where voters will decide whether to bar transgender students from sports as well as medical care restrictions. Both efforts are also funded by conservative megadonors, and both are part of the same strategy that produced the Maine initiative: use ballot initiatives to roll back trans rights in states whose elected legislatures have refused to do so. The Maine anti-trans campaign is expected appeal Bellows’ decision to Maine Superior Court within the ten-day window the law allows.