Also, a question. On Kids Baking Championship, one of the items required is a chocolate-dipped item. One young baker decided to use butterscotch instead of chocolate. They tempered it, they dipped their item, and presented it. When asked about it, since it wasn’t chocolate, they stated that their technique was the same, and the item was dipped; also, that the butterscotch right there among the chocolate in the same area of the pantry.
So. While chocolate is not butterscotch and vice-versa, does this item count as a chocolate-dipped item? Discuss in comments.
Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson for November 08, 2024
By just do something … everything he says is tell them what progressive policies you will push to help them in their lives. That is what the people needed to hear, progressive polices to take the country back from the wealthy and lift up the hurting lowering incomes. Again as he mentions the first openly trans person was elected to the US congress. Democratic candidates need to stop following the right ever more to the right moving to a mythical center and go openly and decisively to the progressive helping the working / low income people that they used to champion. Hugs
This video goes over the data and shows how when the democratic candidates shift to the right to appeal to republican voters they lose left wing voters and do not gain the republicans ones. When presented with a choice between full republican and republican lite the republicans go full republican. The data proves that if democrats run to the left and stay there, they win. If democrats run left and then shift right, they lose. Twice a democrat has done that running against tRump, and both times they lost. The people on the left want a clear difference and want a candidate that shows they will fight for policies that are progressive in helping the lower incomes not one who is a little bit for both sides. Left leaning candidates that ran those types of campaigns won their elections, the ones who vocally protected the LGBTQ+ including trans people won. Attacking trans people was not a big draw for the right, those people already had other reasons to vote tRump. But defending trans people was a big draw for the left. Look at how Biden ran in 2020, he openly courted the progressive members of the party, he embraced the LGBTQ+. He implemented Warren and Sanders ideas, and gave Mayor Pete a cabinet position. When he turned to more austerity policies in 2022 he lost support. Hugs
it’s too cold here for butterflies. As it should be, in November.
Oooookay. I’ve got little to offer right now. We lost, we seem to have lost by not much numbers-wise, but big as to our government. So there are likely to be changes coming. I’ve got very little because while most of the ones who won lie constantly, sometimes they don’t lie. It’s easy to take all the very bad things they’ve said and decide they weren’t telling lies then, but they were otherwise. But, one could choose to take the opposite outlook, as well, deciding that they said the very bad stuff to get the ugly vote, but didn’t mean it. Or, we can just take care of ourselves now and for the future instead of worrying about changes that aren’t here yet. I hope we decide to retain our power to put ourselves in good positions to withstand any adversities that might be on the way.
In Italy on Wednesday, the Italian Senate pushed forward the West’s most restrictive ban on international surrogacy, making it a crime punishable by prison time for Italians to use surrogates in another country. The move closes the door on same-sex couples’ last, best option to start a family in the country.
The far-right government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had already banned both surrogacy and domestic or international adoption by same-sex couples in Italy.
The legislation amending existing Italian law would classify surrogacy as a universal crime transcending borders and impose a two-year prison sentence and a million-euro fine for defying it. The law also criminalizes work by Italian doctors, nurses and technicians in foreign fertility clinics that provide surrogacy services.
Last year, Meloni’s government barred Italian cities and towns from accepting birth certificates that list same-sex parents, denying their children access to citizenship, public schooling and healthcare. That edict is tied up in court.
The Senate’s passage of the anti-surrogacy law, 84 to 58, follows approval by the government’s lower house last year, virtually assuring its enactment.
Meloni has made “traditional values” a cornerstone of her tenure leading the Brothers of Italy party, despite being a single mother who never married. The far-right populist league was founded on the ruins of Benito Mussolini’s Republican Fascist Party in the aftermath of World War II.
“It’s like a truck hitting us in the face,” Pierre Molena, a gay man pursuing surrogacy abroad with his partner, told The New York Times.
“We are worried about our future and that of our children,” he said.
“It is nature that decides this, not us,” Sen. Susanna Campione, who voted in favor of the law, told the The Washington Post.
“This is a civilized law that safeguards the child but also the woman, since we believe that surrogacy essentially reduces a woman to a reproductive machine.”
While most U.S. states and Canada allow the practice, surrogacy has become a flashpoint in Europe. Germany and France ban domestic surrogacy, while it’s legal in the United Kingdom and Greece under certain circumstances. Pope Francis has labeled the practice “womb renting,” and called for a global ban.
About 250 couples a year in Italy pursue international surrogacy, according to legal experts. Ten percent of those couples are same-sex.
“This law is disgusting,” Salvatore Scarpa told the The Post. The gay dad and his partner had a daughter with a surrogate based in California last year and plan to have a second child with the same woman. They have an implantation planned for this month.
“They cannot stop our family. How dare they judge us,” he said.
Alessandra Maiorino, a member of Italy’s anti-establishment Five Star Movement, said the new law stigmatizes children already born to gay couples as well, telling lawmakers who voted for it: “It looks like you don’t realize these people already exist.”
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
The stakes in United States v. Skrmetti are even higher than most Americans realize and could have wide-reaching consequences if the court rules to keep the ban on gender-affirming care in place.
This piece was published in partnership with The 19th, a nonprofit newsroom covering gender, politics, and policy. Sign up for their newsletter here.
A Supreme Court case that will decide whether Tennessee can continue to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth could imperil the ability of all Americans to make decisions about their health care, experts say. The outcome depends on how far the court is willing to stretch its ruling that overturned federal abortion rights.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the court has agreed to take up the question of whether gender-affirming care bans for trans youth are unconstitutional, in response to the Biden administration petitioning on behalf of trans youth and their families in Tennessee — one of 26 states that has bannedsuch care for minors. The outcome of the case will grant much-needed clarity in a political landscape that has thrown the lives of trans people across the country into turmoil, as hospitals turn patients away, pharmacies deny prescriptions and families travel hundreds of miles to find care.
But with the case set for oral arguments on December 4, the stakes are even higher than most Americans realize, legal and policy experts say. Tennessee has banned gender-affirming care, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, for a specific demographic — trans youth — while allowing those same treatments for cisgender youth. If the Supreme Court allows the state to keep its ban in place, that could imperil everyone’s access to health care.
“What the state of Tennessee is arguing is really dangerous for any person who has any sort of medical condition,” says Ezra Young, a civil rights lawyer and constitutional scholar. Tennessee is dictating what medical treatments people should or should not be allowed to have, Young said; that goes well beyond states’ authority to regulate medicine, specifically because giving health care to trans people is not a public health concern.
“The state can make sure that the doctor you see has a medical degree and has an active medical license, for instance,” he says. “What the state can’t do is micromanage the medical decision-making of patients or doctors, and that’s for good reason. Bureaucrats or lawmakers aren’t medical experts.”
Yet in half of U.S. states, Republican lawmakers have banned or restricted medical care that many trans people need to live, over the protests of the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and other leading medical groups. Federal judges have attempted to block these bans from taking hold, finding them to be likely unconstitutional. Appeals court judges have disagreed and overturned those decisions. Now, the Supreme Court will have the final say.
“If we don’t win here, it’s going to be open season on any health care related to transgender people,” says Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. If the Supreme Court holds that banning gender-affirming care is not discriminatory, then trans people would no longer be protected under the Affordable Care Act, he argues. States and private insurers would be able to exclude gender-affirming care from coverage plans.
“It would be devastating. I mean, absolutely catastrophic,” Minter says.
Ultimately, the outcome of this case will have a wider impact beyond gender-affirming care. A Supreme Court ruling endorsing Tennessee’s argument that the state can ban safe medical care — just because it disagrees with who that treatment is being given to — would enable the government to control people’s health decisions and enact other blatantly discriminatory policies, legal experts say.
“I think this case has bigger and broader implications than a lot of people realize, even frankly within the legal community,” says Michael Ulrich, an associate professor of health law, ethics and human rights at Boston University’s School of Public Health and School of Law. If the Supreme Court agrees with Tennessee’s ban, there’s nothing stopping states from banning or restricting other kinds of health care, he said — like what gets covered under Medicaid.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s office, representing the Biden administration, will split argument time before the Supreme Court with Chase Strangio, co-director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.
The United States v. Skrmetti case is focused on whether Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The state insists that its ban has nothing to do with sex and that it does not target trans people. Instead, the law “sets age and use-based limits,” Tennessee’s attorney general argues. Minors can still access hormones and puberty blockers for medical purposes, as long as those treatments are not being used as part of a gender transition or to alleviate gender dysphoria. The state claims such a distinction is not based on sex because “neither boys nor girls can use these drugs for gender transition.”
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court found that there is no constitutional right to an abortion in the United States. This ruling overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that had guaranteed the right to an abortion since 1973. When writing the majority opinion in Dobbs, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito briefly addressed a theory that suggests abortion could be covered under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. This idea is not part of Roe, or at issue in Dobbs, but was invoked in a separate “friend of the court” brief. Alito dismissed it, saying that state regulations on abortion do not discriminate based on sex.
“So that’s what the state of Tennessee is now latching on to, this passing reference, this brief statement in Dobbs, and they’re pinning their whole argument on it,” says Minter. “Everything hinges on it.”
In Dobbs, Alito wrote that abortion cannot be protected under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, citing the arcane Geduldig v. Aiello — a case about pregnancy-related disability benefits — and Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, a case dealing with the rights of anti-abortion protesters. These rarely cited cases found that state regulations on abortion and pregnancy, or opposing abortion, are not sex discrimination. Tennessee is now using this framework to argue that “any disparate impact on transgender-identifying persons” caused by its law does not single trans people out for discrimination in ways covered by the 14th Amendment.
If the state’s gender-affirming care ban is found by the Supreme Court to be discriminatory under the 14th Amendment, it is subject to heightened scrutiny — a more rigorous review to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. In that scenario, Tennessee is more likely to lose.
Using abortion case law to support bans on gender-affirming care is especially dangerous, experts say. Tennessee is taking the Supreme Court’s own decision in Dobbs out of context, according to lawyers who have worked in LGBTQ+ rights cases for decades. And, if the justices read Tennessee’s law, it is obvious that banning gender-affirming care for trans people is discriminating based on sex, they say.
The United States v. Skrmetti case is focused on whether Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The state insists that its ban has nothing to do with sex and that it does not target trans people. Instead, the law “sets age and use-based limits,” Tennessee’s attorney general argues. Minors can still access hormones and puberty blockers for medical purposes, as long as those treatments are not being used as part of a gender transition or to alleviate gender dysphoria. The state claims such a distinction is not based on sex because “neither boys nor girls can use these drugs for gender transition.”
But, although the question before the court has become more specific, this ruling still has the potential to broadly set back LGBTQ+ rights.
Tennessee argues that the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that employment discrimination against LGBTQ+ workers is sex-based discrimination prohibited under the Civil Rights Act, has nothing to do with this case. But going down this road leads to more questions, Ulrich says: Is discriminating due to sexual orientation also not considered sex-based discrimination?
“Then you can see just a proliferation of discriminatory laws that are coming out thereafter,” he says. “That’s a really dangerous proposition for the entire LGBTQ+ community and it’s setting us back significantly.”
Sruti Swaminathan, an ACLU staff attorney who has been counsel in this case from the beginning, said United States v. Skrmetti will test how far the Supreme Court is willing to stretch its Dobbs decision. They are well aware that the outcome of this case could curtail bodily autonomy for everyone. And taking this challenge before a conservative-majority Supreme Court has stoked fears among trans people of worst-case scenarios.
“We’re already at the place where half the country has banned this care. We need to not let the 6th Circuit decision stand idly and be utilized in the way it has,” Swaminathan says.
But Tennessee’s tactics, and the consequences that they could have during a time when laws targeting reproductive and transgender health care are proliferating, still worry them.
“I’m terrified. What we learned from Dobbs is that these attacks won’t stop with abortion,” Swaminathan says. “Banning abortion seems to be one pillar of an effort to write outdated gender norms into the law.”
U.S. v. Skrmetti began as a lawsuit against Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
Tennessee’s argument in this case illustrates a larger coordinated effort to attack abortion access alongside gender-affirming care, says Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit that tracks LGBTQ+ legislation.
States across the country have attempted to define sex based on reproductive capacity at birth. These efforts open transgender people up to discrimination and ignore the realities of intersex people, as well as cisgender women with conditions like primary ovarian insufficiency. Proponents of gender-affirming care bans inaccurately portray the effects of hormone replacement therapy on trans people’s reproductive ability by conflating the treatment with sterilization.
This Supreme Court case exemplifies a much larger argument that’s been a through line across attacks on transgender care and trans issues across the country, Casey says: What is sex, and who is protected when we think about that?
“Many of these state actors and politicians and extremists are clearly very invested in the concept of sex and defining sex in a very restricted and extraordinarily old-fashioned way that focuses only on people’s reproductive capacity, and then they use that argument in whatever context they can to advance the policies that would match that worldview,” he says.
There is so much I want to do. I really want to get back to videos, that will become my main passion while Ali and Randy do other content. But just as Ron started working on a camera setup to make the camera adjustable but straight on, we had a circuit breaker problem and wires burning in our wall. As always in our home it is one crisis after the other. Ron calls it management by crisis.
Ron was born in 1955. He will be 70 years old next year. I will be 62. Today he told me he feels it. Yesterday he had to take apart our very large king size storage bed because the thing is only rated for 300 pounds and the Purple mattress Ron wanted weighs that itself. Add two adults … So he added supports to it when we first got it. But it was not enough. I won’t apologize for us being active in bed at our age and Ron often says when I am having bad memories or times I thrash and struggle in bed. So the thin plank boards they sent with it were all warped and the supports had all been twisted or feel off.
Ron had to take the 300 pound mattress off the bed and lay strips of plywood he had left over from projects plus add new 2X4 leg supports below each brace that runs longways. No he refused to let me help at anything except to get him batteries from the Pink Palace for his drills. I begged him to let me help but he was not having it. He says the next time he buys plywood for a house project he is going to get a sheet for the bed and never have to worry about this again.
The bed is more flat and better than it has been for a long time. It did not really bother me as I am much lighter than Ron by 40 or 50 pounds but his side was so destroyed he couldn’t turn over in bed. Don’t tell him I told you this. We both mentioned how softer the bed had gotten but what we did not realize was that was because the entire support system for the mattress had collapsed.
Scary turn. Ron went out this morning after our walk to do the grocery shopping. I started to do the dishes. I got a call from Ron. He was very upset. He said I am coming home, I have to, I can’t do it. I was shocked he was very foggy this morning but that is normal for him. But he went to one store and simply did not go in and went to the store next door and found he did not have the strength to get out of the car. That is when he called me. I asked him if he needed me to come for him but he said no. He came home and went for a nap. Then he wanted to start projects but I only let him put up a small clip for my canes then I insisted he sit for the rest of the day and do fun stuff. Just as he tells me. Yesterday he had to stand split on the supports and lift his one leg that doesn’t respond well over the supports to fix the bed. He laughs that he got his stretching excessing in, but the truth is he way over did. My he man always taking care of Scottie hates to admit he needs care now also.
On the videos that is where I want to go with my content on the blog. Ali and Randy have the content they like to post. I could have knocked this written post out in 5 minutes and it has taken me 45 minutes to write out and correct. But every time Ron gets to fixing the camera and background issues we have a crisis. He has a list of things he wants to repair in the Pink Palace but other crisis come and he has to deal with them. Please hang on we will eventually get it all worked out, like five years from now … but we have a plan.
One last thing to bring people up to date. Kamyk’s O2 returned to a more normal range this morning. Over the night (when he called me) his O2 and blood pressure had dropped dangerously low, but like I said the ICU is the place he needed to be. They gave him IV drugs to help both and he is sating at 93 to 96 which is great. Side note if everyone took their O2 levels they would be surprised by the results. One thing you do not want is 100% as that is a bad sign that the lungs are not exchanging co2. So his readings are great. Love everyone, hope you understand why I am not on the blog more. I am either with Ron, doing housework, or with the family of my friend. I just need to find a way to add 20 more hours to each day. Oh speaking of that, my wonderful friend / brother Randy who works normally 60 hours a week or more, took a panicked phone call from me at like 10 PM. He not only was wonderful but got me to laugh and see a side of the world I had forgotten existed. He is so grand words don’t do justice. Hugs.
Republicans really hate people voting. They know they are unpopular and they know the more votes the more democrats win. So this is 1930s Germany brownshirt stuff, this is gang thug rule that the maga want. We need to understand what these people really are. In their world might makes right. In their world the most violent person wins. They grew up idolizing Rambo type movies. They are stunted child school yard bullies. Hugs.
A Vancouver ballot box was burned in an arson Monday morning, authorities report – with possibly hundreds of ballots damaged in the fire.
KATU was on the scene at Fisher’s Landing Transit Center in Vancouver shortly after 4 a.m., where heavy smoke was seen coming from inside a dropoff ballot box.
Our photographer Evan Bell captured grey smoke steadily billowing out of the Park and Ride ballot box at Fisher’s Landing Transit Center near Southeast 162nd Avenue just after 6 a.m.
Multiple police units were in the area, and the ballot box was cordoned off by police tape as it continued to smoke.
Around 6:30 a.m., KATU captured footage of first responders releasing a pile of actively burning ballots onto the ground, which continued to smolder and smoke heavily even after the flames were put out.
The Clark County elections auditor told us that the last ballot pickup at that location was 8 a.m. Sunday. Hundreds of ballots were inside at the time of the burning, and KATU was told there were maybe only a few that could be saved.
Voters who dropped off ballots at that location after 11 a.m. Saturday need to contact the Election Auditor’s Office IMMEDIATELY for a new ballot.
A link to the Clark County Elections page, with contact information for the Auditor’s Office, can be found HERE.
Ballot Box Fire – A Clark County Elections ballot drop box at the Fisher’s Landing Transit Center is smoking heavily. Police are on scene. #LiveOnK2pic.twitter.com/40E09hZolz
Vancouver Police released the following statement at 9 a.m.:
This morning at about 4:00 a.m., Vancouver Police responded to an arson at a ballot box located at 3510 SE 164th Ave. It was reported that the ballot box was smoking and on fire. Officers arrived and located a suspicious device next to the box. The ballot box was smoking and was on fire. Members of the Metro Explosive Disposal Unit (MEDU) arrived and safely collected the device, and the fire was extinguished. Detectives from the Vancouver Police Arson team and the Vancouver Fire Marshals also responded.
The FBI is continuing the investigation of this incident.
Just a few hours earlier, Portland police had responded to an arson at a SE Portland ballot box.
Investigators say that an incendiary device was set off inside the box, causing a fire.
The fire was extinguished and the device was cleared, and the PPB is investigating the incident. The status of the ballots in the burned box has not been provided.
Scottie's Playtime 