And the hate continues and the attacks on trans people will increase. There is no reason for this other than othering and demonizing these people. I wish the public would see what the Republicans are doing and look how historically they have done it over and over through history. It has been done about gays, Catholics, Muslims, ethnic Irish people, blacks, the Mexicans, and anyone not straight white males that fit the majority has been treated to this hate and attempt to stir up hate against groups all for political advantage because they know their base followers are racist bigots and will endorse / vote for politicians that hate the same people they do. I am tired of the rising hate, it is time consuming and emotionally draining to see normal good people and children attacked because they are born different from the hateful majority. But as long as I can I will stand up for those that are not able to stand up to defend themselves. Hugs
Critics say the legislation could make it even more difficult for transgender people to access health care that’s recommended by major medical organizations.
Kevin McCarthy attends a House Republican Conference news confernce on Capitol Hill, in Washington, on Jan. 20, 2022.Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images file
By Reuters
U.S. Republicans in Congress are lining up behind legislation that critics say would roll back protections for transgender people, setting a playbook for action on a divisive social issue should they take control of Congress this fall.
Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced a bill that would block federal funding to colleges where transgender women are allowed to participate in sports with cisgender women. A separate bill would allow transgender people to sue medical personnel who helped them transition as minors.
Another bill would block funding to schools that disobey state laws regarding “materials harmful to minors,” mimicking state laws that have been used to remove books discussing history around race and LGBTQ themes.
The bills have support from key Republicans in the House and Senate. Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has promoted the sports bill at a press conference and in a conservative newspaper. It is backed by 127 of 211 House Republicans.
**Editor note. There is a video here of the exchange between the professor that I can not post. To view it please go to the link of the article. Thanks, hugs. **
In the Senate, five Republicans have sponsored a version of the bill targeting medical providers, including Senators Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio.
Republicans would be in a position to advance those bills next year if they win control of the House or the Senate in the Nov. 8 midterm elections, which analysts say is likely.
“I hope these are legislative initiatives that we can pass when we get the majority back,” said Rep. Jim Banks, who sponsored the medical providers bill and represents a district in Indiana, which banned transgender students from playing on girls’ sports teams at schools this May.
Fears of discrimination
Critics say the legislation proposed by House Republicans would reduce access to care needed by transgender people to transition. Transgender people are significantly more likely to attempt or commit suicide, often due to lack of access to gender-affirming medical care, according to the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group.
Banks called such criticism “outrageous” and said he did not see how his legislation would contribute to an unsafe environment for transgender people.
Violence against LGBTQ people has also increased fourfold between 2020 and 2021 in the United States, according to ACLED, a nonpartisan organization that tracks violence globally. The increase occurred during a three-year uptick in anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
“There has always been fringe voices who oppose LGBTQ equality, but now, unfortunately, that fringe has grown loud and is being given national platforms,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, president of GLAAD, a LGBTQ advocacy group.
** Another video **
Sixty-four percent of Americans support protecting trans people from discrimination, according to a June poll from Pew Research Center; 10% oppose protections.
Eighteen Republican-led states have enacted bans on trans girls and women participating in publicly funded women’s sports, while more than a dozen have introduced legislation mimicking Florida’s law limiting classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
Advocates are pushing Democrats to do more to enshrine protections into law before the November elections, but they face uncertain prospects in the evenly divided Senate.
“If we lose the House or the Senate I think it’s really unlikely we’ll be able to prevent discrimination” at the federal level, said Fran Hutchins, executive director of Equality Federation.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is trying his best to provide cover for the right-wing’s horrible record in dismantling family and social services by pitching a “pro-family” social spending program. Too bad Rubio’s plan includes a child tax credit program that gives no benefits to parents earning less than $30,000, a parental leave program that forces parents to ‘borrow’ from their Social Security benefits at retirement, docking checks until you die, or docking checks for only five years of retirement. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss on The Young Turks.
“Late last month, Marco Rubio released what he described as a “pro-family framework following the Dobbs decision.” The actual content of the framework is recycled policies Rubio put out many years ago, but they perhaps deserve a second look, especially in light of Rubio’s new framing of them as pro-life benefits.
The Rubio framework has two main welfare benefits in it, the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and a parental leave program, which I will discuss in order below.”
In a recent analysis on world politics, Jordan Peterson suggested that maybe the reason Russia invaded Ukraine was because of the “deranged wokism” coming out of the United States. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss on The Young Turks.
“1/ So… Jordan Peterson thinks that not only is Russia attacking Ukraine because the US is ‘degenerate,’ but that they are justified in doing so. This is getting kind of scary, and not just because of the supervillain routine he’s doing in his vids lately.”
U.S. Representative Lauren Boebert voiced her confusion about Ilhan Omar’s being allowed to wear a hijab recently in a horribly thought-out argument advocating for no separation between church and state in the United States. Ana Kasparian and John Iadarola discuss on The Young Turks.
“Boebert: “If there really is this separation of church and state like they believe, then what is Ilhan doing with her hijab on? Why is she able to go in there with that?””
I know she is trying to make this a threatening action but I want to thank her for getting me interested in seeing the movie. Sounds far more interesting than I figured it would be and I personally would love to see a superhero move where to main male characters had a romance or were dating. Star lord and Thor would give a lot of material if they were dating in a movie about Thor courting a woman at the same time. Now that would blow the conservatives minds right off their shoulders. But these right wing people have to be made to understand that other people have needs and desires that form relationships different from the one man / one women with the man having illicit affairs when possible restricted conservative model of how relationships should be formed. I am so tired of her kind thinking only they should be shown or displayed in media and public. Others exist, and they want to see themselves represented in videos and media. Hugs
Via email from hate group leader Monica Cole:
WARNING! Thor: Love and Thunder just released in theaters on July 8, and this new movie from Marvel Studios includes blatant LGBTQ content.
One Million Moms needs your help to make sure as many people as possible are aware that Marvel Studios is pushing the LGBTQ agenda on families in their newest superhero movie. Parents should also know that Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is distributing Thor: Love and Thunder.
Rated PG-13, Thor: Love and Thunder includes many LGBTQ innuendos and an abundance of euphemisms, but a few scenes are not downplayed at all.
The alien character named Korg mentions having two dads, and he has hand sex with another member of his species.
The bisexual goddess, King Valkyrie, kisses another woman’s hand to show interest. An Asgardian kid insists on going by a gender-neutral name. And the gay romantic tension between Thor and Star-Lord is apparent but played off as a gag.
There have been numerous attempts by the entertainment industry to indoctrinate families with the LGBTQ agenda discretely and now more overtly.
1MM wants parents to be forewarned, so they are not caught off guard by this new Marvel film. Otherwise, Thor: Love and Thunder might surprise most conservative families.
Consequently, 1MM needs your help in getting the word out to as many people as possible. Marvel has decided to be politically correct instead of providing family-friendly programming. But Marvel should stick to entertaining, not pushing an agenda.
Please share this information with your friends and family to make sure they are aware of the gay content in Thor: Love and Thunder and are not blindsided by it. As moms, we all want to know that Marvel is attempting to desensitize our family by normalizing the LGBTQ lifestyle.
TAKE ACTION: Sign our petition to Marvel and Disney stating that your family will not watch Thor: Love and Thunder since its inclusion of an openly gay superhero and its LGBTQ content go against your beliefs and values.
“…this new movie from Marvel Studios includes blatant LGBTQ content.”
They are routinely horrified when a movie even acknowledges that LGBTQ people exist. Monica and the dozens of women who comprise One Million Moms are hateful bigots who find meaning in their lives by denigrating and oppressing others.
In case a million moms don’t know, PG-13 films are not for children. Uh, not for children under 13. And speaking as a former 13 year old, I knew I was gay by that age. I’d also certainly have figured which adults around me were gay two especially if they lived together and had children. LOL
She’s not OK with anything available to anyone, regardless of rating. She’s gone off on pasta sauce and salad dressing commercials airing on broadcast TV as being too explicitly heterosexual.
None of it has anything to do with accomplishing anything. It’s all about harvesting names for grifting. There is no organization named One Million Moms. It has no board, no president, no membership. They don’t raise money.
Monica Cole is just an employee of the American Family Association. They just harvest people’s information for use in grifting.
Gosh. I watched the trailer, and it seemed to me the movie is all about the straight lifestyle. Isn’t it about Thor’s ex-girlfriend and getting back together? I don’t understand why the straight people in Hollywood keep trying to shove their lifestyles down our throats.
I am so glad I took my 6 year old son to see the newest Thor movie where he could see a diverse set of characters who have the freedom to express their sexuality and attractions to people openly and without bias. Hopefully he will learn acceptance of people for who they are and will find more families like his own with 2 fathers that love each other. Thanks 1MM for the heads up on where I should be taking my son to see these expressions of love and attraction!!
And the gay romantic tension between Thor and Star-Lord is apparent but played off as a gag.
I saw the movie and enjoyed it… and this never happened.
Being offended by normal LGBTQ behavior is one thing… but being offended by things that never actually happened is sorta proof that you need professional help.
Sign our petition! Get on our mailing list! Receive multiple daily fundraising emails and texts for the rest of your natural life and please remember us in your will!
At a congressional hearing held on Tuesday, University of California, Berkeley law professor Khiara Bridges dismissed Senator Josh Hawley’s transphobic questions. Ana Kasparian and John Iadarola discuss on The Young Turks.
“University of California, Berkeley law professor Khiara Bridges reprimanded far-right Sen. Josh Hawley during a congressional hearing on Tuesday, accusing the Missouri Republican of asking transphobic questions.
“You’ve referred to people with a capacity for pregnancy. Would that be women?” Hawley asked Bridges during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on abortion rights titled, “A Post-Roe America: The Legal Consequences of the Dobbs Decision.”
“Many cis women have the capacity for pregnancy. Many cis women do not have the capacity for pregnancy,” Bridges responded. “There are also trans men who are capable of pregnancy as well as nonbinary people who are capable of pregnancy.”
Apparently unsatisfied with Bridges’ answer, Hawley fired back: “So this isn’t really a women’s rights issue, it’s a… it’s what?”
Bridges said, “We can recognize that this impacts women while also recognizing that it impacts other groups—those things are not mutually exclusive, Sen. Hawley.””
The religious feelings of the clerk took priority over the woman’s being equal to a man and able to determine her own sexual / medical needs. This is what the SCOTUS has created, a place where the Christian religion which views women as inferiors who must submit to the rules of the males, she is basically own by men. It strips women of the rights of life, liberty, and happiness and any equality rights of the constitution. Thomas made a mistake because many think mixed race marriages like his are against their religion. But think on this, in the TYT video I posted a woman was denied the right to birth control her doctor prescribed and a company was losing sales due to the religious beliefs of one woman in the pharmacy that refused to fill or sell the medications the doctor prescribed. Women welcome to the discriminations trans people have experience for years. But what this comes down to is these religious people feel they have a right to push their religion on to other people and the religious person has the right to regulate the personal behavior of the other person. They really feel they have the right to tell you how to have sex, when you can have sex, and also tell you who you can have sex with. Think of that. They feel their religion allows them the right to tell you, to control your sexual activity when they are not even involved. It creates a ruling religious class that all people are required to obey. Will dress standards for modestybecoming next, will religious people be able to tell others that the skin they are showing in public offend their religious moral convictions and require they change or go inside? The US Christian Taliban. Hugs
Walgreens says the employee followed company policy. But what about people who need access to condoms?
A woman named Jessica Pentz has shared her story of an employee of a Walgreens drugstore refusing to sell her a box of condoms. The employee told her that selling condoms was against his religious beliefs.
In response, a Walgreens spokesperson said that its employees are allowed to “step away from completing a transaction to which they have a moral objection.” The company’s policy has troubling implications considering that the U.S. Supreme Court may soon reconsider its decision guaranteeing people’s rights to contraception.
While vacationing in Wisconsin with her husband, Pentz realized she left her oral contraceptives at home, she told the Star Tribune. So she visited a Walgreens store in the city of Hayward to purchase condoms.
When she arrived at the checkout register, a clerk named John told her, “I can’t sell those to you.” When she asked for clarification, the clerk allegedly replied, “We can sell that to you. But I will not, because of my faith.”
Pentz said, “That’s none of your business.”
The clerk responded, “Well, I’m sorry, this is what my faith demands.”
“You’re not sorry,” Pentz replied.
She said that during their interaction, a line of customers began forming behind her. She then realized she was the only woman in the store. She began wondering if the clerk would’ve refused to sell her the condoms if she were a man.
The clerk called over a manager who signed the clerk out of the register, and the clerk reportedly left the area with a smirk. The manager then proceeded to sell Pentz the condoms.
When Pentz left the store, another customer named Alec Jeffery followed her into the parking lot. He had overheard her conversation with the clerk, had seen the clerk’s smirk, and told Pentz, “It was complete bulls**t, and you handled that way better than I would have.”
Pentz was shocked that a store clerk would refuse to sell her a product carried in their own store. She also felt bad for any younger or less confident person who might experience similar pushback from an unwilling sales clerk.
When asked about the incident, a Walgreens spokesperson said, “Our company policy allows team members to step away from completing a transaction to which they have a moral objection and refer the transaction to a fellow team member or manager who will complete the customer’s request.”
The policy is troubling considering that Walgreens, the second-largest pharmacy chain in the U.S., may serve as the only source for contraceptives in some communities.
The store’s policy is even more alarming considering that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently stated wish to overturn previous Supreme Court decisions, including Griswold v. Connecticut, the ruling that recognized the right to access to contraceptives.
Even if the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn that ruling, it could still issue a “religious freedom” ruling that would empower employees of any business to refuse to sell just about any item to an LGBTQ customer or any other customer under the guise of “religious beliefs,” even if a state bans discrimination in public accommodations.
A married woman was refused by a religious Walgreens employee from purchasing a box of condoms, saying that the sale goes against their religious beliefs. If that wasn’t startling enough, Walgreens sided with the employee, saying that there’s a company policy that protects employees from “completing a transaction to which they have a moral objection.” Ana Kasparian discusses on The Young Turks.
“A woman named Jessica Pentz has shared her story of an employee of a Walgreens drugstore refusing to sell her a box of condoms. The employee told her that selling condoms was against his religious beliefs.
In response, a Walgreens spokesperson said that its employees are allowed to “step away from completing a transaction to which they have a moral objection.” The company’s policy has troubling implications considering that the U.S. Supreme Court may soon reconsider its decision guaranteeing people’s rights to contraception.
When she arrived at the checkout register, a clerk named John told her, “I can’t sell those to you.” When she asked for clarification, the clerk allegedly replied, “We can sell that to you. But I will not, because of my faith.””
Scottie's Playtime 