Biden HHS Lays Groundwork for Chemical Castration of Kids



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Monday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) laid the groundwork for forcing doctors and hospitals to perform transgender surgery in the name of fighting “discrimination.” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine (a biological male who identifies as a woman) announced that HHS would adopt the Orwellian redefinition of “sex” to force transgender ideology in the medical field, mainstreaming the arguable chemical castration of children.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that people have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex and receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. That’s why today HHS announced it will act on related reports of discrimination,” Becerra announced in a statement. He cited the case Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), where the Court wrongly decided that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex applies to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

“Fear of discrimination can lead individuals to forgo care, which can have serious negative health consequences,” Becerra argued. “It is the position of the Department of Health and Human Services that everyone – including LGBTQ people – should be able to access health care, free from discrimination or interference, period.”

RecommendedBiden Tries to Resurrect HHS Rule Forcing Catholic Doctors to Perform Transgender Surgery

Levine framed the issue as a matter of health care access for regular maladies like a broken bone or a cancer screening.

“The mission of our Department is to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation,” Levine said (emphasis original). “All people need access to healthcare services to fix a broken bone, protect their heart health, and screen for cancer risk. No one should be discriminated against when seeking medical services because of who they are.”

Terry Schilling, president of American Principles Project, exposed this deceptive messaging.

“Make no mistake: the policy announced by HHS today is not about ‘fix[ing] a broken bone’ or ‘screen[ing] for cancer risk.’ No American was being denied access to these treatments for identifying as ‘LGBTQ.’ Rather, this policy is really about forcing hospitals and medical professionals to adhere to leftist ideology regarding sexuality and gender—and in particular to provide sex-change procedures to all comers, including children,” Schilling warned.

Schilling noted that in March, Sweden’s Karolinska University Hospital, which treats minors experiencing gender dysphoria (the persistent condition of identifying with the gender opposite one’s biological sex), announced it would not provide “puberty-blocking” drugs or cross-sex hormones to children under the age of 16. Schilling also cited Britain’s High Court ruling protecting children from such chemical interventions on the grounds that minors cannot consent to procedures that may make them infertile.

“Yet, it is now apparently the policy of the U.S. government that such treatments must be given to children or else healthcare institutions risk losing federal funding and being shut down,” Schilling lamented. “This is a travesty and must be opposed. Lawmakers in Congress and in the states should follow the lead of Arkansas and act to protect the health and well-being of children as well as the conscience rights of medical professionals. Voters will be watching.”

RecommendedBiden HHS Nominee Defended Subjecting Kids to Chemical Castration

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito warned about threats to the medical field from the ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County.

“Healthcare benefits may emerge as an intense battleground under the Court’s holding,” Alito warned in a scathing dissent. “Transgender employees have brought suit under Title VII to challenge employer-provided health insurance plans that do not cover costly sex reassignment surgery.”

“Such claims present difficult religious liberty issues because some employers and healthcare providers have strong religious objections to sex reassignment procedures, and therefore requiring them to pay for or to perform these procedures will have a severe impact on their ability to honor their deeply held religious beliefs,” Alito added.

The Obama administration interpreted Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) — which prohibits certain forms of discrimination in health care — to force Roman Catholic hospitals and doctors to perform transgender surgeries, in violation of their consciences and their interpretation of the Hippocratic oath.

Catholic hospitals will not perform surgeries that remove healthy biological functions, such as reproduction unless such treatments are necessary to solve a worse malady. Some doctors have warned that even the cross-sex hormones — the less invasive “treatment” — give healthy people a disease. The actual surgery often involves sterilizing a patient for life. Mandating such “treatments” would force doctors to carry out procedures that they believe involve harm to a patient, thus violating the Hippocratic oath.

RecommendedAlito: Court’s ‘Preposterous’ Trans Ruling Threatens Religion, Speech, Privacy, and Safety

In Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Azar (2021), a federal court in North Dakota protected Catholic hospitals from the Obamacare transgender surgery mandate, but Becerra has moved to defend the mandate.

The HHS directive Becerra issued on Monday pledges that HHS’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) “will comply with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act… and all other legal requirements.” However, President Joe Biden supports the Equality Act, which would remove the religious freedom law’s protections in cases involving claims of discrimination against LGBT people.

While the HHS directive makes no mention of minors, Schilling was correct to warn that this move bodes ill for health care issues involving children. Levine has previously supported “treatments” to block children from going through “the wrong puberty,” and he refused to reverse his support for what amounts to the chemical castration of children.

While the Biden administration moves to force transgender ideology in medicine, there is no evidence that transgender surgery improves the mental health outcomes of gender dysphoric people. Men and women who formerly identified as transgender and underwent surgery have grown to reject transgender identity and lament the damage they did to their own bodies.

Recommended5 Ways Joe Biden Attacked Americans’ Fundamental Rights in His First 100 Days

While Levine may frame this order in terms of fixing a broken bone or getting cancer screenings, Americans should see through this charade. Fighting “discrimination” against LGBT people involves forcing transgender ideology on the health care profession, even forcing doctors to violate the Hippocratic oath and perhaps even mandating chemical castration for gender-confused children.


CANADA: Rob Hoogland is freed from prison!


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Rob Hoogland is freed from prison!

Powerful new attorney takes over his case and successfully files for appeal.

Hoogland thanks MassResistance for standing up for the truth and not backing down. Describes horrible conditions in prison – just for breaking ‘gag order’ (about his teenage daughter's "sex-change" procedures). Case reverberates across Canada. Rob got a letter of support from a Member of Parliament while in prison.

May 7, 2021
Rob Hoogland's new attorney, Vincent Larochelle, argues a case in a Canadian court. He specializes in criminal appeals.

Two weeks after British Columbia father Rob Hoogland was sentenced to a prison term, he has been freed and is back home! He was imprisoned for violating a “gag order” that barred him from discussing his teenage daughter’s gruesome government-supported “sex-change” procedures.

An angry judge and harsh punishment

As we recently reported, British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Michael Tammen angrily overrode a preliminary plea bargain and sentenced Rob to six months in prison (which would likely have ended up being about 4½ months) and a $30,000 fine. (We have since learned that Rob’s lawyer had rejected the final version of the plea deal, which made it easier for the judge to intervene.)

Tammen was furious that Rob had told MassResistance and others what the government is doing to his daughter – and that MassResistance had subsequently posted incriminating documents exposing the terrible behavior of the “gender clinic.” Tammen said that unless Rob was imprisoned for several months, it would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” This sentence is widely considered overly harsh given that it concerns a relatively minor crime and Rob is a first-time offender.

Tammen’s emotional obsession with this case and with punishing Rob is exhibited in a detailed 18-page “Reasons for Judgment” paper he wrote after the sentencing. Like the punishment he gave out, it seems rather excessive given the relatively mundane nature of the “crime.” (Note that Tammen refers to MassResistance in the document only as "MR" so that no one will look us up and see our posts!)

Rob Hoogland takes a last look outside of the Court building before turning himself in on March 16.

A new attorney takes on the appeal!

After he was jailed, Rob’s friends and family contacted one of the top young criminal-appeal lawyers in British Columbia, Attorney Vincent Larochelle, who has taken the case. Larochelle is a graduate of Oxford Law School, a Rhodes Scholar, and is considered a “rising star” in this field. His fees are coming from the money Rob raised on his GoGetFunding page.

Larochelle successfully filed an appeal for Rob, arguing that his rights were clearly violated under Canada’s Charter of Rights. On April 30, the British Columbia Court of Appeal granted the application for Rob to be released on $1,000 bail until his appeal hearing, which has been scheduled for Nov. 1, 2021.

Strict release order

However, the Court of Appeal’s Release Order has outlined several strict stipulations which Rob is required to obey during this time. These include:

  1. A full and thorough reinstatement of the “gag order”: Rob may not in any way, directly or indirectly, identify himself, his daughter, or anyone else involved with his daughter’s situation by name, nor may he discuss or provide documentation about her medical status, mental health, or treatments. He also may not, through any means, identify himself as the father.
  2. He must keep the peace and be of good behavior, and diligently pursue his appeal.
  3. He must maintain his current employment.
  4. He must remain within the province of British Columbia, and surrender his travel documents to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Rob spoke with us a few days after he got home. It was basically to let us know that he was free because he knew we were very concerned.

He said that he intends to fully abide by all the terms of the Release Order. During the conversation, he did not identify himself by name, nor make any reference to his daughter’s situation or to any of the other people involved.

In the prison

He talked about his experience in the prison since being incarcerated after his initial hearing in March. Rob was a first-time offender who had violated a gag order – a fairly minor, non-violent crime. But Justice Tammen purposefully placed Rob in the North Fraser Pretrial Centre, which is a high-security facility for violent offenders. It has a history of being a brutal place.

The infamous North Fraser Pretrial Centre in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia.

It was horrible, Rob said. He was in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. But during the one hour he was out of his cell, it was even worse. “It’s a very violent place. You had to be very careful because confrontations happened frequently. And the guards would only step in after a person gets beaten up,” he told us.

A letter from a Member of Parliament

What has happened to Rob’s daughter and the grotesque way that Rob was treated by the Court has reverberated across Canada, despite a virtual blackout by the mainstream media. (Only Canada’s alternative press, Rebel News has covered it with any consistency.)

While he was in prison, Rob received a letter from a Member of Parliament, Derek Sloan of Ontario, who is an outspoken conservative. MP Sloan was very supportive. He told Rob:

Stay Strong. The biggest changes come from government overreach like this. This is a tough time, but know that you are in the hearts and minds of many. This is a low point, but it’s things like this that will cause your plight to spread and the government to eventually break. You’re in all of our prayers.

High praise for MassResistance

At the trial, Justice Tammen blamed MassResistance’s refusal to take down the incriminating documents as a reason he was so harsh on Rob. But despite everything that has happened to him, Rob still has high praise for us. Although he was careful to speak in very general terms and not bring up specifics, Rob said that he “absolutely supports what we did” and “is glad that we stood up” to the pressure.

He added that he is angry at the few detractors of MassResistance in British Columbia, particularly the “transgender activist” Jenn Smith. Rob clearly understands the larger fight!

Final thoughts

The government of Canada has become completely out of control in its frightening oppression of citizens who do not submit to the increasingly radical and destructive LGBT movement. The appeals trial starting on Nov. 1 will likely be a landmark event. This time, Rob will have an energetic and skilled attorney with a track record for winning. Will it turn the tide? Rob is personally very upbeat about it! We’ll definitely continue to report this case.

In the meantime, you can donate to Rob’s legal defense fund HERE.

Facebook Twitter Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Finnish Politician Faces Up to 6 Years in Prison For Citing Bible, Criticizing Homosexuality

LGBT Activists Are Taking Aim at Christianity Itself



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Last month, a group of 33 current and former students at federally-funded Christian colleges and universities launched a historic assault on religious freedom. They sued the Department of Education (DoE) under President Joe Biden, demanding that the DoE drop the religious exemption to Title IX. This move would force LGBT orthodoxy on Christian colleges, but it also attacks a central evangelical Christian teaching.

“The law does not recognize ‘love the sinner, hate the sin,'” the students wrote in the lawsuit.

While the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” does not appear in the Old or New Testaments, it follows logically from the Bible and it forms an essential part of evangelical Christian ethics. Since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to redeem humanity. All Christians are redeemed sinners. While Jesus asks His disciples to preach the gospel and “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:18-20), that does not mean Christians are morally superior to non-Christians.

RecommendedFormer Students Sue to Force LGBT Orthodoxy on Christian Colleges

Of course, as Christians make attempts to follow Jesus, with the help of the Holy Spirit, they will improve morally. But that does not give Christians license to look down on non-Christians. We are saved only by the grace of God.

In fact, Jesus commands His disciples to love and to pray for their enemies, whatever their moral state (Matthew 5:43-47). He also commands that we sin no more, and teach others to stop sinning. Christians must love others without condoning their sinful actions.

Therefore, “love the sinner, hate the sin” is a natural application of the gospel in the moral lives of Christians.

Yet the lawsuit takes direct aim at this moral framework, and its argument on this issue is central to the legal claim.

“The law does not recognize an identity/conduct distinction. The law does not recognize ‘love the sinner, hate the sin.’ Policies and laws targeting ‘homosexual conduct’ or ‘transgender conduct’ in fact target LGBTQ+ identity,” the lawsuit claims.

Christian colleges and universities often use the “love the sinner, hate the sin” distinction to explain that they are open to students with LGBT identities even though they ask their students to sign a code of conduct barring homosexual activity (and heterosexual activity outside of marriage).

It is not sinful to experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria (the condition of persistently identifying with the gender opposite a person’s biological sex), but acting on those impulses is sinful. To some degree, a condition/conduct distinction is essential to Christian teaching. The difficulty comes when sexual orientation or gender identity become enshrined as protected statuses and essential identity markers, thus blurring the distinction between impulses and conduct.

Christianity teaches that all identities are secondary to a Christian’s identity as a sinner redeemed by Jesus Christ. This world is not our home, and our ultimate hope is in God, not in fulfillment here on earth. That does not mean we are not male or female, American or Peruvian, Coloradan or Virginian, et cetera. It just means that all lesser identities must yield the key identity at the heart of our being and future.

It is not easy to maintain that kind of perspective, and Christians should be humble about our own failures. But it makes sense for Christian institutions to require students and faculty to follow biblical morality, as that is essential for them to achieve their purposes as Christian colleges and universities.

Christians cannot celebrate sin, and it is difficult to celebrate identities based around sinful dispositions without betraying the Bible’s moral demands. Christians should love and respect people who suffer with same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria, but celebrating LGBT identities crosses an important line.

Recommended VIPHere’s Why Those Stubborn Christians Won’t Just Redefine Marriage

Ultimately, LGBT orthodoxy is at odds with biblical Christianity. There is no escaping it. Christian colleges and universities should have the religious freedom to operate according to their beliefs, and prospective students should make decisions accordingly. If students choose to attend a Christian college with a code of conduct that applies biblical morality, they should not be surprised when the college refuses to kowtow to their sexual identities.

Texas MassResistance parents confront trans activists over “Save James” legislation


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Texas MassResistance parents confront transgender activists trying to intimidate State Rep over his support for pro-family legislation.

“Save James” bills in Texas Legislature would stop ghoulish “sex-change” procedures on children. But LGBT activists demand these continue.

Protest and counter-protest outside Rep’s local office in suburban Dallas/Ft. Worth.

April 26, 2021
Facing the transgender mob outside of Rep. Stukey's local office. You can't mince words with those people.

The LGBT movement’s dark obsession with children has rarely been so blatant. Few pro-family groups are willing to openly confront that – but MassResistance is an exception!

As we’ve recently reported, Texas MassResistance has been lobbying hard for three important bills moving forward in the Texas Legislature (dubbed the “Save James” bills). These would stop “sex-change” procedures on children. People are outraged that children are being disfigured for life and sterilized to please a radical ideology.


The bills have been aggressively opposed by the LGBT movement as well as big business. Children’s “sex-change” treatments are a huge money-maker for big pharma and “gender clinics.”

As LifeSiteNews recently reported, 43 companies – several of them, major national corporations  – have announced their active opposition to this legislation. They are using their immense lobbying power and financial resources to stop it.

One of the opposition’s more distasteful strategies has been to harass and intimidate legislators supporting these bills with loud “protests” by hideous transgender activists at the doors of their hometown local offices.

One target, Rep. Lynn Stuckey (R-District 64), has been a consistent conservative on pro-family issues. But when lobbyists noticed that he was starting to waver over pressure on these bills, they saw him as an easy target. So on April 21, a horde of transgender activists descended on his local office in Denton, TX (a northern suburb of Dallas/Ft. Worth), hoping he’d cave.

The transgender "protest" outside the local office of Rep. Stuckey in Denton. They hoped to intimidate him and his staff.
The usual LGBT dishonesty. In fact, the best way to protect "trans lives" and "trans youth" is to give them the psychological help they need, not cruelly mutilate their bodies.
Not surprisingly, they twist and distort the Bible. Her sign says: "Jesus Loves Trans Kids. Be like Jesus." (If you love trans kids, don't mutilate their bodies!)

But it didn’t quite work out the way they planned. Kevin Whitt, our Texas MassResistance Assistant Director, had caught wind of the demonstration and quickly organized a robust counter-protest just several yards away. The LGBT crowd was clearly rattled. Telling the truth about what they’re doing to children tends to have that effect on them, and our people were not afraid to do it!

Our group was fairly close to them, and definitely raining on their parade!

At one point, one of them came over to “dialogue” with our people. That is a common LGBT tactic when their opposition is resolute; they try to defuse our arguments and energy. But that didn’t work this time, either!

One of the transgender activists (right, wearing mask) came over to "dialogue" with us.

We weren't in to mood to "dialogue." Here is some of the interaction:

MassResistance: Why can’t you wait until these children are adults?

Trans activist: Because their emotional evolving is absolutely at stake.

MassResistance: No. Only an adult can make that choice. The ramifications are huge. It’s castration. It’s genital mutilation.

Trans activist: They’re not doing that surgery at the clinics in Texas.

MassResistance: Yes, they are doing surgeries on 14-year-olds. And that is a proven fact.

Trans activist: Top surgery?

MassResistance: Yes. In Austin. And other places.

Trans activist: OK. I care about it. Any surgery is significant. But I also believe that there are some things that are worth it.

MassResistance: There are people who suffer from identity disorders well into adulthood, and it’s not just a matter of surgery to fix that. Doing this to a child is nuts … Gender dysphoria is a real mental illness.

The police were standing nearby, but didn't need to get involved.

Our efforts were successful! We spoke with Rep. Stuckey’s office today. His staff told us that he is now solidly supporting all three “Save James” bills. We’re pleased that he got the message that the LGBT movement is the wrong group to listen to in Texas!

Final thoughts

Many pro-family people around the country believe that the transgender activists and their allies who fight against this kind of legislation are simply concerned, honest folks who have a misguided opinion on this issue. Our people often think that if we talk it through with them, they will see the truth.

Unfortunately, that is completely wrong. We’ve interacted with the other side many times over the years. They know full well what this does to children. They can see it themselves. And they certainly hear what we’ve been saying. But they don’t care. Their hatred of traditional values and their desire to be accepted by their friends is very powerful. They lie to themselves and to everyone else. And as we’ve all observed, many of the “activists” clearly have their own mental health problems that fuel that behavior. And they’re obsessed with “identity” and sexuality issues.

The only thing that’s effective is to stand up to them and never back down to their lies, anger, and hysteria.

Facebook Twitter Email Print

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Warning Parents: Over 17,300 Teachers Demand Biden Impose Transgender Agenda~Is Your Child’s ‘Educator’ on the list?



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Is your child being indoctrinated by a teacher who signed this letter?

Earlier this month, over 17,000 teachers submitted an open letter to installed puppet Joe Biden asking him to shut down legislation that thwarts the anti-scientific transgender agenda for school children and teenagers.

The letter (embedded below) manages to bash President Trump and “conservatives” who do not believe children can consent to life-altering puberty blockers and self-mutilation. The letter is far from academic, accusing pro-children, pro-family laws currently in varying stages in state legislatures to be “anti-trans”.

Painting legislation broadly as “anti-trans” reminds this author of a quote from Frederick Douglass:

It is a frequent and favorite device of an indefensible cause to misstate and pervert the views of those who advocate a good cause.”

In part, the letter calls parents to be left out of the discussion about their child’s sexuality citing “privacy.”

School personnel should not be mandated to violate a student’s privacy by disclosing their sexual orientation or gender identity to the parents or guardians without the young person’s consent.”

Please read RAIR Foundation USA’s coverage of brave dad Robert Hoogland, whose then-six grader was “encouraged to change from a girl to a boy by her teachers.”

Further, watch RAIR’s exclusive interview with activist dad Chris Elston, whose arm was broken by Antifa as he carried signs that contradict the vision of the gender fluidity mob.

Chris Elston

Written by Harper Keenan, Professor of Gender and Sexuality Research in Education, University of British Columbia, the letter was signed by “educators and scholars”. According to his biography, Keenan “is interested in those social issues that many adults find difficult to talk about with children – things like racism, gender, sexuality, and violence.”

Keenen founded the “Trans Educators Network,” which “consists of a listserv of transgender, genderqueer, and/or non-binary identified educators, primarily those working with PreK-12 populations across the United States…”

Is your child being indoctrinated by a teacher who signed this letter?

17,300+ Teachers Sign Open Letter to Biden in Favor of Child Mutilation by Noyb Nal on Scribd

Communist Lies by Anti-Science Kamala Harris: Climate Change Hurts Areas Impacted Most by ‘Gender Inequality’



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

All citizens of goodwill must start loudly challenging dangerous climate alarmism.

Kamala Harris and Joe Biden made numerous, outrageous, fact-void statements during the virtual “Leaders Summit on Climate” Thursday.

Without evidence of any such thing, Harris claimed that man-made global warming (or is it climate change?) is responsible for worsening storms along the Gulf Coast and California wildfires.

Further, the red diaper baby inexplicably declared:

The communities hardest hit by climate change are the same communities harmed by wealth and gender inequality, toxic air pollution, and so much more.

Imagine if the mainstream media would scratch just a hair below the surface to challenge these ridiculous statements. Are there areas hit hard by “gender inequality”? And why would those areas be more likely to be victims of climate change?

Biden’s inane comments offered no reprieve. He droned on about “investments” in green energy, echoing the same failed policies from the Obama Administration. Further, he warned that the world must take immediate action to “avoid the worst consequences of a climate crisis.”

He said in part:

Scientists tell us that this is the decisive decade.  This is the decade we must make decisions that will avoid the worst consequences of a climate crisis.  We must try to keep the Earth’s temperature and — to an increase of — to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 

And in order to stop disastrous consequences of manmade global warming, evidently, all citizens need to accept a global redistribution of wealth. This author wonders how many decades need to go by before democrats stop believing the “climate crisis” lie. All citizens of goodwill and elected representatives must start loudly challenging climate alarmism.



Read More of RAIR Foundation USA’s Coverage on Climate Alarmism:

CDC Uses Orwellian Woke Transgender Euphemism



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that pregnant women receive a COVID-19 vaccine after a new study suggested it would be safe for them and for their babies. Of course, the CDC did not actually use such clear language, however. Instead, the agency resorted to woke transgender euphemisms.

“CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the agency’s head, announced on Friday. “We know that this is a deeply personal decision and I encourage people to talk to their doctors or primary care providers to determine what is best for them and their baby.”

RecommendedBiden Tries to Resurrect HHS Rule Forcing Catholic Doctors to Perform Transgender Surgery

The CDC web page on COVID-19 vaccines and pregnancy repeatedly referred to “pregnant people,” as if men, as well as women, can get pregnant.

CDC pregnant people woke transgender
CDC website screenshot

This language is far from new to those who have followed transgender activism. Transgender activists insist that “men” can get pregnant and breastfeed — or “chestfeed,” according to the latest lingo.

This is nonsense, of course. Only females can get pregnant, carry children, and (barring rare and unnatural hormone conditions) feed them at the breast. So, why insist on “people” instead of “women” who are pregnant or breastfeeding?

Some of those biological women identify as men, regardless of the fact that they are female from conception and down to the DNA in every adult cell in their bodies. A woman who is pregnant or breastfeeding can claim to be a man all she wants, but that does not mean that men get pregnant or naturally breastfeed.

Transgender activists not only call these women men, but aim to normalize the idea that men can become pregnant. This is an Orwellian redefinition of terms, and it’s dangerous.

Transgender activists claim that this language is “inclusive,” but it is intentionally confusing and destructive.

Transgender identity in medicine has caused real harm. In one particularly tragic case, a pregnant woman who identified as a man went to a hospital with abdominal pain. Because she identified as male and records listed her as male, doctors discounted the idea that she could be in labor. She did not receive the care she needed and her child died.

The transgender movement arguably does harm to the very people it aims to help.

Research shows that there are significant risks with sex reassignment surgery, including heart conditions, increased cancer risk, and loss of bone density. Children with gender dysphoria (the condition of persistently identifying with the gender opposite one’s biological sex) are extremely unlikely to continue in that condition after puberty. Many realize they are not transgender, but instead gay or lesbian — like detransitioner Charlotte Evans, who launched a network for formerly transgender people.

Biden, however, has rushed to embrace transgender ideology, particularly in medicine. He nominated a man who identifies as a woman — and who supported chemical castration for minors — to a key post at the Department of Heath and Human Services, and the Democratic-majority Senate confirmed him. The Biden HHS is trying to force Roman Catholic doctors to perform transgender surgeries against their consciences.

It is not surprising to see the CDC under Biden use euphemisms like “pregnant people,” given Biden’s radicalism on this issue. Yet it is important to note and counter this deceptive language.

RecommendedMedical Expert: Doctors Are Actually Giving Trans Kids a Disease, and It’s Child Abuse

Americans should celebrate the fact that COVID-19 vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women. My wife is breastfeeding our daughter, and she and I just got Moderna vaccines. But the words the CDC uses to make this important announcement matter, and those words are confusing and destructive.

CANADA: Rob Hoogland gets 6 MONTH prison sentence, $30,000 fine~judge rejects plea bargain


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Hostile judge rejects Rob Hoogland’s plea agreement with BC Attorney General in “criminal contempt” case for breaking gag order. Sentences Rob to six months in prison and $30,000 fine!

Judge claims that a lesser punishment would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”

Bizarre 2-day court proceeding after Rob had pleaded guilty (per plea agreement).

Judge angrily berates Rob for giving MassResistance “banned” information.

April 16, 2021
Rob Hoogland, a British Columbia father trying to protect his daughter from sex-change procedures, takes a last look outside of the Court building before turning himself in on March 16.

The radical transgender agenda targeting children has become a national nightmare in Canada. The education system, the medical establishment, and now the courts are brutally enforcing this lunatic movement.

As we reported earlier Rob Hoogland, a British Columbia father, has been jailed without bail since mid-March. He was to go on trial on April 13. His crime: violating a gag order intended to cover up the gruesome “sex-change” procedures his 15-year-old daughter was undergoing – against his will. The court is now the enforcer for those ghoulish medical practitioners.

Plea bargain announced last week!

However, several days before the trial Rob’s lawyer, Carey Linde, announced that he and the Crown (Attorney General) had reached a plea bargain. On April 13, Rob Hoogland would admit to willfully breaching certain orders of the Supreme Court. He would accept 18 months probation and one month for time spent in custody. Thus, Rob would be released from custody on that day!

When the Court convened on the morning of April 13, everyone figured it would all go pretty quickly. Rob’s friends showed up, and were planning to drive him home soon afterward and celebrate his freedom.

British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Michael Tammen got right to business. He put Rob on the stand, had the clerk read the charges, and asked, “How do you plead?” Rob answered, “Guilty.” The judge asked Rob if he understood that he is giving up his right to a trial. Rob answered, “Yes.”

… But then the judge rejected the deal!

Then, in a shocking (and frankly dishonest) move, Justice Tammen harshly announced that he was rejecting the plea bargain! He felt that Rob’s actions required much greater punishment – certainly more imprisonment – than the plea bargain called for. Otherwise, he said, “It would bring the administration of justice into dispute.” Rob’s friends in the courtroom were aghast.

Tammen clearly wanted to make an example of Hoogland, in case other parents got similar ideas of resisting if this happened to their children. So he opened up discussion between the two opposing lawyers to help him decide how much more punishment to give.

The “sentencing” debate begins

Over the next two days, the “sentencing” debate between the Crown, Carey Linde, and Justice Tammen went on. Tammen was clearly hostile toward Rob and Linde, and much of the time it seemed like the judge was playing the part of a second prosecutor.

Justice Michael Tammen was unbelievably hostile and biased.
Attorney Carey Linde, Rob's lawyer, fought hard for him.

The Crown lawyer, Daniel Pruim, spoke first. He was well prepared. It appeared that he had prior knowledge that the judge would do this.

Describing every breach. The Crown started out by describing in lengthy detail every article and interview that Rob had participated in, and every piece of information that Rob had given out. Tammen was very focused on this, following it closely, and took notes.

Denunciation and deterrence required. The Crown went on to cite numerous cases where a “just cause” didn’t justify breaching court orders. The principles of sentencing demand that “denunciation and deterrence” are needed, and that precedents supported this. A court must “uphold the Rule of Law.”

Victim impact statement. Then the Crown announced that he had a “victim impact statement” from Rob’s daughter about how her father’s actions have harmed her. Rob’s lawyer objected, saying that there is no way to determine if the statement was actually written by one of the LGBT lawyers “supporting” the girl’s case. The statement was not allowed to be read in court, but a quote from it appeared in the Toronto Star newspaper the following day. Many people have since observed that it is unlikely this was written by a 15-year-old:

I am out as transgender only in some parts of my life and it terrifies me that I might be outed as a result of my dad’s actions. It would be very embarrassing to be outed as trans to people who know me only as male. Over and over private stuff about me was published online because of my dad. I have lost my faith that the courts can protect me. That makes me feel really vulnerable.

Judge’s angry outburst against MassResistance. The daughter’s impact statement caused Justice Tammen to let loose an angry outburst against Rob and his lawyer over the fact that MassResistance had been given several key documents by Rob, including the original hospital consent form for sex-change procedures signed by the daughter and mother (but not Rob) – and that MassResistance stubbornly refused to take it down. The judge said that this information was hurting the child, and the fact that the doctors’ names were on it was also a major violation of the gag order.

From the BC Children's Hospital "Gender Clinic" website. This is what Justice Tammen wants desperately to protect from being exposed!

This was a bit unnerving since Carey Linde had previously pointed out that all of this “personal” information was already known in the general community, and that the idea that it “harmed” her was an invention of the prior judge in collaboration with the LGBT lawyers. Moreover, the doctors have widely advertised that they do these procedures, so it is no secret.

Linde phones MassResistance. During the lunch break, Carey Linde telephoned MassResistance to get clarification as to why we weren’t taking down the material. We reminded him that Rob has specifically asked us to post it, and that he later said he was glad that it would be there to educate the world about what is really happening. And we obviously agree this needs to happen.

Rob’s fundraising for legal defense costs. After lunch, the Crown lit into Rob’s “GoGetFunding” page raising money for his legal defense. He noted that Rob has raised over $56,000, and had a photo of himself with his daughter (as a young girl) on that page. Thus, he said, that money was “ill-gotten gains” and should be confiscated in some way. Justice Tammen heartily agreed that Rob was “profiting” off his crime, and said that he would take that into consideration. (It is contemptible that Tammen and the Crown actually believe that an accused person should not be able to raise money to pay for lawyers or related expenses.)

Rob takes the stand. Next, Justice Tammen asked Rob to take the stand and explain why he ignored the court “gag orders.” He said he wanted to tell the world how his daughter was tricked by the school transgender program into deciding she should “transition” to a boy. He said his child was too immature and irresponsible to understand the dangers and risks of cardiovascular disease, bone decalcification, cervical cancer, sterility, botched surgery, and perpetual hormone imbalance - all side effects of experimental hormone therapy. He added that so-called transgender people do not find peace, but continue to contemplate suicide at an alarming rate. He knew it was too late to save his own child, but he felt he HAD to tell his story to save other families from this tragedy.

Justice Tammen was unsympathetic. He was angry that Rob’s full story was still displayed on the Mass Resistance website. He claimed Rob could have told his story without naming his daughter. (Actually, Rob did not ever name her; her name was written on a document).

Comparing Rob to Gandhi, etc. Rob’s lawyer ended the first day with an argument comparing Rob’s civil disobedience to Diogenes, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. As one person there told us, “It was very unconvincing. We left the court very, very discouraged.”

What the hospital consent form warned about. The next day, Carey Linde wanted to discuss the hospital consent form for the sex-change procedures that the mother and the daughter had signed. The judge angrily said no, because Rob had given it to MassResistance to post. There was a heated exchange over that, and the judge finally relented.

Linde said that the consent form clearly states that the cause of gender dysphoria is unknown. And if the cause of gender dysphoria is unknown, how is the diagnosis and proper treatment determined? He said the consent form also states that the impact of puberty blockers and testosterone are unknown, and that reproductive organs may need to be removed in the future. “How can a child consent to this?” he asked.

Linde said it’s important that the judge understand why Rob did what he did. But Tammen responded by chastising Linde, basically questioning his ability as a lawyer.

Jenn Smith allowed to address the Court with bizarre rant. Near the end of the second day, Linde asked Jenn Smith, a left-wing transgender activist who has supported Rob Hoogland, to address the Court. Jenn Smith is a very strange cross-dresser – a man who wears women’s clothes in public but still refers to himself a man. Jenn Smith has befriended Rob and Carey Linde in this case. The Crown objected to his speaking, but the judge decided to allow it.

Jenn Smith stood up and gave a bizarre rant attempting to explain why Rob talked to MassResistance and other conservative groups. Smith said that Rob suffered “emotional trauma” and had nowhere to turn but to “right-wing grifters and nut jobs,” and that they’re “contaminating Rob’s brain with right-wing propaganda.” He said that this should be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

Jenn Smith (right), a cross-dressing man, is interviewed outside the courthouse by Rebel Media reporter on April 14. Smith continued his rant against MassResistance, and even our Organization Director Arthur Schaper!

The judge seemed pleased to hear bad things about people helping to expose the case. But the Crown objected to that reasoning, saying that Rob has made it clear numerous times that he did this on his own, and is responsible for his actions.

Rob certainly hasn’t appeared to be “in trauma” up until now. In fact, Rob had been very outspoken and enthusiastic about MassResistance and other groups getting the word out for him. In our March 11 video, he said:

We’ve all got to get behind this. I want to thank MassResistance. You guys are one of the leading examples of how we need to fight this. We’re beyond diplomacy on this matter. We’re at war. And people have to wake up. You can’t negotiate with terrorists who are experimenting with our children. That’s why I love what you do at MassResistance because you recognize that.

As Rob was going into the courthouse on March 16 to turn himself in, he was interviewed by Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson and said:

I’m definitely getting the word out in the United States, because that’s where word travels fast. And I can be more candid there than I can be here in Canada, for obvious reasons. I don’t want Canadians to get in trouble. So let the Americans help me in that way.

Robert Hoogland gives an interview with MassResistance via Skype in early 2020.

Rob responds to Jenn Smith’s remarks – even more bizarre! Then the judge asked Rob if he wanted to respond to what Jenn Smith had said. It was really weird to hear how Rob responded this time. It was completely different than what he had testified the previous day.

Rob said that the first day he was incarcerated he was able to reflect on what he’d done, and that he’s regretting his civil disobedience. He said that he had just wanted to help his daughter, not hurt her. He thinks children should have to wait until they’re eighteen. He acknowledges what he did, and regrets it deeply. He said that “in hindsight" he would "navigate things differently." He wants to close this chapter and move on with his life, he said.

Someone who was there wrote, “This feels like a prisoner confessing under duress.” It certainly looks that way to us – and many others. It was surreal. (People who were there have said all this did more harm than good, in their opinion, given Rob’s sudden switch from the day before.)

At that point, the judge concluded the court proceedings and said he would announce the sentence on Friday, April 16.

The sentencing

Judge goes over the “history.” On Friday morning, Judge Tammen started off by going through the history of the case and the various breaches. He mentioned that the previous judge in the case had stated that if Rob referred to his daughter as a girl that it would constitute “family violence” – and Tammen seemed to agree with that.

MassResistance helping expose the horror is “most serious.” Tammen also recounted that Rob stated in interviews that he felt it was important to break the gag order. And Rob “instructed Americans to keep the story alive.” But in particular, Tammen insisted that the “most serious breech and gross violation” was Rob giving MassResistance the hospital “gender clinic” consent form and the hospital’s memo to Rob where they claim the daughter is “mature enough” to decide to have sex-change procedures. (That’s because these documents reveal how horrible all of this really is – something the government wants covered up.)

Thus, more punishment required. Judge Tammen said that agreeing to the plea bargain and merely giving Rob 45 days in prison is inadequate, and would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”

Shocking sentence. Tammen sentenced Rob to six months in prison. In addition, he fined Rob $30,000 (from his GoGetFunding legal defense) which Tammen said he is giving to the Ronald McDonald House. The courtroom was stunned. (With time served and other factors, Rob is expected to serve about 4½ months in prison. But one never knows for sure.)

From what we’re already hearing it’s likely that the activism in British Columbia on Rob’s behalf is only just beginning. We’ll keep you informed!

Activists across Canada - in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario - are prepared to post thousands of these stickers in public areas to keep Rob's fight alive while he is in jail.
Facebook Twitter Email
Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

SARAH CORRIHER: YouTube’s LGBTQ Hero Grooms Teenage Boys

Rumble — Whenever a homosexual is exposed for pedophilia, the fake outrage immediately quells. Nobody is really shocked. So, when numerous allegations of pedophilia were leveled against YouTube star James Charles, his corporate sponsors stayed mute. They weren't surprised and they didn't care. Nobody was canceled or even condemned. It's business as usual. Most importantly, nobody will mention that the entire LGBTQ movement is about normalizing pedophilia and sexualizing children. Whether it's this case or tranny story hour, the pattern is unmistakable.

View more videos at:

MASS RESISTANCE: Fighting for critical anti-transGENDER legislation in Texas

Texas MassResistance activists up against Corporate America – fighting to pass important “Save James” legislation at the State House.

Goal: To stop ghoulish “gender clinics” from mutilating and sterilizing children in “sex-change” procedures. A big money-maker for clinics and pharma industry.

Lobbying hard in the Capitol – and protesting in Dallas!

Public hearings coming up this week.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

April 10, 2021
Outside the entrance to the infamous "gender clinic" in Dallas. These gruesome "medical" procedures on children must stop!

MassResistance parents and activists across Texas are fighting hard to get their State Senators and Representatives to pass important legislation to protect children from bodily mutilation, sterilization, puberty blockers, and other experimental “sex-change” surgeries and procedures. Texas MassResistance, with help from some other groups, has taken the lead in tirelessly lobbying to get this legislation passed into law this year.

Dubbed the “Save James” legislation, six bills have been filed in the Texas House and Senate that would ban these gruesome procedures on minors. The bills are named for James Younger, a 10-year-old boy whom a judge has ordered to go through “sex-change” treatments against his father’s wishes, but with the blessing of his left-wing pro-LGBT mother. The father, Jeff Younger, has been very outspoken against what is happening to his son – and MassResistance supported him.

But our activists are up against a cabal of wealthy national corporations that are threatening Texas politicians – vowing to take action against the state if any of these bills pass. Performing these procedures on children has become a huge money-maker for hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry. And national corporations, whose leaders are pro-LGBT and have no morals regarding children, want to strongly signal how “enlightened” they are and thus aggressively support their allies in this radical agenda.

Press conference outside the State House

On March 10, Texas MassResistance kicked off the lobbying blitz with a press conference outside the Texas State Capitol. Jeff Younger gave a chilling speech about what the state has done to his son.

Jeff Younger speaking outside the Texas State House on March 10.

Protesting the Dallas “Gender Clinic”

Then on March 19, MassResistance activists converged outside of the notorious Dallas Children’s Hospital “Genecis Clinic” (which performs so-called "gender-affirming" care) to publicly protest the terrible quackery that this “medical facility” is performing on children.

To the consternation of hospital officials, they brought signs and a bullhorn.

Outside the Dallas Children's Hospital "Genecis Clinic" that performs "gender" treatments on children.

Several police cars came to disperse the protesters, but the our people refused to leave and the police ultimately backed down and allowed them to stay until they were finished.

Police were called to break up the demonstration ...
... But when the protesters engaged with the police and reminded them that public money helped fund this hospital, they backed down and let the demonstration continue.

Intense lobbying at the Texas State Capitol

After that, our lobbying at the Texas State Capitol intensified. A number of legislators and their aides are now working with us directly. The word is getting out that the people of Texas strongly support these protections for children.

Outside the Texas State House, Texas MassResistance leader Tracy Shannon holds a sign showing young James with his dad - and the boy dressed as a girl with his pro-LGBT mother.
Tracy and others preparing to go inside and lobby.

Corporations jumping into the battle – against parents and science

On Tuesday, April 6, the Arkansas legislature voted to override the RINO Governor’s veto of the Arkansas “Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act,” thereby becoming the first state to pass a law protecting children from being harmed for life by the LGBT movement. Immediately, the mainstream media began wailing about children being denied “gender-affirming care” – a monstrous corruption of the truth:

Forbes: Arkansas Passes Anti-Trans Health Care Bill After Lawmakers Override Veto

NBC News: Arkansas legislators override veto, enact transgender youth treatment ban

And a warning about Texas:

Chron: Texas could follow Arkansas in passing anti-trans health care bill

Two days later USA Today published an op-ed by a group of national corporate leaders announcing that they are organizing a corporate effort to target the Texas Legislature (and possibly other states) to stop the "Save James" legislation. Citing the recent Arkansas law, they intend to do whatever is necessary to stop similar bills from passing in any other state.


They plan to use not only threats of economic boycotts, but also absurd “studies” that “anti-LGBT” laws would have a negative impact on Texas’ economy totaling in the billions of dollars. And of course, they would bring in medical “experts” to support these lunatic procedures.

Parents fighting back as public hearings start next week

But our activists are pushing forward at full speed. We have just found out that two of the “Save James” bills will have public hearings next week in the Texas State Senate. (We don’t yet know when the other bills will be heard.)

SB 1311 – Hall – Relating to the provision of and professional liability insurance coverage for gender transitioning or gender reassignment medical procedures and treatments for certain children. (Senate State Affairs)

SB 1646 – Perry - Pediatric gender transition creating designation as child abuse. (Senate State Affairs).

We will have a team of true medical experts submit testimony to these hearings, as well as others who have personal experience with this horrible issue. Several will be there personally. We plan to be fully prepared to confront any and all misinformation and bullying that the other side uses.

Final thoughts

Corporate America is horrible enough. But it is truly frightening how thoroughly the medical establishment has bought into this destructive nonsense and complete medical quackery. Below is a letter that appeared in the left-wing Boston Globe on April 8. It’s an example of the toxic Orwellian drivel we get more and more of from the intellectual class. This “pediatrician” should have her medical license taken away.

Letter to the Editor, Boston Globe, April 8, 2021

MassResistance will always stand for the truth, no matter what pressure there is to deny it.

This just in ...

After we posted this article, Jeff Younger, Tracy Shannon, and Robert Oscar Lopez posted this in-depth video explaining: What is happening behind the scenes, which Texas GOP leaders are caving in, and what the public needs to do to help push these critical bills over the finish line.

This video gives you the important background!
Facebook Twitter
Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

261 Transgender Prisoners Request Transfer Under California Law; 255 to Women’s Prison




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Two-hundred sixty-one California state prisoners have requested transfers to facilities that house the opposite gender since a new law went into effect on Jan. 1 — and 255 of them have requested to move from a male to a female corrections facility.

The law, SB 132, provides that a prisoner who self-identifies who is “transgender, nonbinary, or intersex” must be “addressed in a manner consistent with the incarcerated individual’s gender identity,” and be “housed at a correctional facility designated for men or women based on the individual’s preference.” The law applies “regardless of anatomy.” Governor Gavin Newsom signed the law last September, declaring on that occasion that “our march toward equality takes an additional step forward.”

The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that while only a few transfers have been approved thus far, none has been rejected:

Just over 1% of California’s prison population — or 1,129 inmates — have identified as nonbinary, intersex or transgender, according to the corrections department, populations that experience excessive violence in prison. A 2007 UC Irvine study that included interviews with 39 transgender inmates found that the rate of sexual assault is 13 times higher for transgender people, with 59% reporting experiencing such encounters.

So far, the prison system has transferred four inmates to the Chowchilla women’s prison, approved 21 gender-based housing requests and denied none. Of the 261 requests, all but six asked to be housed at a women’s facility.

…Some prisoners are also concerned that inmates are making false claims about their gender identity in order to transfer to women’s prisons and say staffers have told them that this has slowed the process.

The Times adds that several inmates are thought to have applied “under false pretenses” and some female prisoners are afraid.

Women’s groups in Canada held a protest last month to urge the removal of biological males from women’s prison facilities.

School Districts Are Hiding Information About Children From Their Parents




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

American law has long recognized the importance of parental rights. A parent’s right to oversee the care, education, and control of his or her child is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1923, in Meyer v. Nebraska, and as recently as 2000, in Troxel v. Granville.

To raise and educate a child as parents see fit is—and always has been—on a par with the other fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Worryingly, one school district in Maryland is acting like parental rights are no longer valid.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, educators are actively keeping information about something as critical as a student’s gender identity preference hidden from parents—an action in direct contravention of legally guaranteed parental rights, and in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

In response, two families have sued the Montgomery County Board of Education. The suit aims to enforce their rights to access information about their children’s gender identity, which is generated and retained by Montgomery County schools pursuant to a 2019 policy.

This policy enables Montgomery County Board of Education personnel to evaluate minors about sexual matters, allows minors of any age to transition socially to a different gender identity at school without parental notice or consent, and requires personnel to facilitate the transition with the use of the child’s “preferred pronouns.”

It also permits students to use the restroom that aligns with their “gender identity,” stating that while “[s]ome students may feel uncomfortable with a transgender student using the same sex-specific facility,” that “discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.

School administrators and counseling staff members, the policy states, should work with students to “address their discomfort to foster understanding of gender identity and to create a school culture that respects and values all students.”

Certainly, the parents of students made to share sex-specific spaces with students of the opposite sex would want to know this information. But the Montgomery County Board of Education policy forbids it.

Stunningly, the policy prohibits personnel from communicating with parents on any of the above actions and goes so far as to direct teachers and staff to deceive parents by reverting to a child’s birth name and corresponding pronouns whenever a child’s parents are present.

According to court filings, the Montgomery County Board of Education claims it is acting in the best interests of the minors involved by protecting them from the “unsupportive” parents of those children.

In its motion to dismiss, the Montgomery County Board of Education represented that disclosure to parents who are “not supportive … might expose the student to harm” and that “gender-nonconforming students face significant dangers of abuse at home from unsupportive families.”

The Montgomery County Board of Education policy requires that “the principal or identified staff member should speak with the student to ascertain the level of support the student either receives or anticipates receiving from home.”

By cloaking critically important information about one’s child under the guise that unsupportive parents are “dangerous” to their children, schools are given license to effectively label “gender critical” parents as abusive without the benefit of due process protections.

Under some cock-eyed theory of “harm at home,” the Montgomery County Board of Education substitutes schools for parents and deprives all parents in the county school system of their fundamental right to vital information based on nothing but a hunch.

Montgomery County parents not only have the U.S. Constitution and the Maryland Constitution on their side, they have the protections of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act as well. Specifically, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act gives parents of minors rights regarding their children’s education records, with the only exceptions being a court order or specific state law to the contrary.

These rights include a right to access their children’s education records, to seek amendment of those education records, and to consent to disclosure of personally identifiable information. Parents whose Family Education Rights and Privacy Act rights are violated can file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education (in addition to any private legal action).

Montgomery County is not alone in bypassing parental consent and notification when it comes to students’ gender transitions. It’s quite possible the gender transition nightmare that Jay Keck experienced with his autistic daughter—facilitated and concealed by school officials in a Chicago suburb—could happen to other parents who are not informed of their rights.

With full awareness of her mental health challenges, school officials helped Keck’s daughter socially transition by using her preferred pronouns, giving her access to a gender-neutral restroom, and keeping it all from her parents.

When Keck and his wife discovered their child’s secondary identity and requested school officials treat her in accordance with her biological sex, they were continually defied.

For proof of school districts’ increasingly cavalier attitudes toward parental rights, see the Metropolitan School District policy in Madison, Wisconsin, that requires staff to keep a student’s gender identity “confidential” from parents if the student does not consent to the information being shared.

Or, see the New Jersey Department of Education’s guidelines, which instruct teachers how to avoid “inadvertently disclos[ing] the transgender student’s status” to parents.

Or, see the guide on the Los Angeles Unified School District’s website, which instructs teachers to provide whatever “services” they can for transitioning students with unsupportive parents.

Even the National Education Association, a labor union for teachers across the nation, encourages teachers to hide a student’s gender identity from parents unless they are “required to [reveal it] by law.”

While the public school districts and their unions may foolishly assume they know better than parents about what to do when it comes to a child’s “gender identity,” the Constitution and other federal law do not grant them the authority to circumvent parental consent or notification in these matters.

Despite the whims of the board of education, a parent’s rights do not end at the schoolhouse door. But if not eliminated, the unconscionable policy of the Montgomery County Board of Education will be the beginning of a steep and precipitous decline in protections for those rights.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.  

New Data Shows Homeschooling Explosion!

New Data Shows Homeschooling Explosion!



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

New data from the U.S. Census Bureau confirm earlier polling results showing an unprecedented explosion in the number of families choosing to educate their children at home, free from government indoctrination, sexualization, forced masking, and dangerous dumbing down. Homeschooling rates grew fastest among black Americans.

The shift has been enormous. By the fall of 2020, the overall number of homeschooling families doubled, Census data show. In the Spring of 2020, just over 5 percent of families were educating children at home. By the fall, homeschoolers grew to represent over 11 percent of all American households with school-age children.

According to, the number of homeschooling families grew rapidly from 1999 to 2012 but remained relatively steady at around 3.3 percent for years. “However, the global COVID-19 pandemic has sparked new interest in homeschooling and the appeal of alternative school arrangements has suddenly exploded,” wrote the bureaucracy, which tracks population data and more.

Using a nationally representative sample of American households, the Census Bureau’s “Household Pulse Survey” compared data from the spring of the 2019-2020 school year with results from the fall of 2020-2021. In late April and early May, about 5.4 percent of U.S. households with school-aged children reported homeschooling. By late September and early October, that number surged to 11.1 percent.

That enormous growth was an increase of 5.6 percentage points and a doubling in the number of U.S. households that were homeschooling compared with the previous school year. Because homeschool families are often larger on average than government-schooled families, the percent of school-age children being educated at home is estimated to now be well over 11.1 percent — potentially 5 million children or more.

Just to be sure that families doing government school at home did not misreport, the Census included a clarification making clear that virtual learning through a public or private school was not to be considered “true homeschooling.” Experts said that means the surge in homeschooling may have been even larger than reported. Unfortunately, no data from the bureau was available from before the pandemic.

In some states the population of homeschoolers became almost 10 times larger. Massachusetts, for instance, went from having just 1.5 percent of children being homeschooled to more than 12 percent in that short period. In Alaska, the number went from 10 percent to almost 28 percent. And in Oklahoma, the numbers went from about 8 percent to over 20 percent. Florida’s numbers also grew to almost 20 percent of families choosing to educate at home.

Self-described black Americans were far more likely to pull their children from government schools than any other group measured in the data. “In households where respondents identified as Black or African American, the proportion homeschooling increased by five times, from 3.3% (April 23-May 5) to 16.1% in the fall (Sept. 30-Oct. 12),” the Census Bureau revealed. Lower-income Americans were also more likely to pull their children out.

Analysts said more research would be helpful to understand the changes. “Future research will likely reveal what portion of those families who began homeschooling during the past year will continue on with it into the future,” wrote Dr. Brian Ray, who leads the National Home Education Research Institute. “If a significant portion stays with homeschooling, more noticeable changes lie ahead regarding public favor toward homeschooling and parent-led home-based education’s impact on individual children, families, and society.”

The news is not new. In fact, The Newman Report noted in September of 2020 that survey data from Gallup revealed a doubling in homeschool numbers. At the same time, this blog also reported in December that government-school districts across America were seeing catastrophic declines in the number of victims enrolled in their indoctrination centers, with some districts losing over 10 percent or more in one year.

Of course, government and government-school proponents want Americans to believe that the surge in home education is solely due to COVID-19. The reality is far more complex. One of the many things COVID did was expose for parents the madness and child abuse taking place in government schools, while at the same time showing parents the benefits and possibilities of homeschooling.


In a Rebuke to Unions, School Choice Going Gangbusters in the States



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

School districts are slowly beginning to reopen in-person instruction after being closed for nearly a year—or, in many places, for over a year. While this is a wonderful development, it will never erase what parents experienced last year: uncertainty, inconsistency, and, in some cases, ineptitude from public schools.

The events of the last year have demonstrated to many families that public schools are not always the reliable institutions many thought they were. It also opened their eyes to just how powerful the teachers' unions are, and revealed what many already suspected: that their modus operandi is not to support teachers who want to teach but to score political wins.

Thankfully, in response to these disappointments, multiple state legislatures are undertaking one of the biggest expansions of school choice in history. Here are some states to watch:

West Virginia. On March 29, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice signed into law the most expansive school choice program in the country, a nearly universal option for education savings accounts.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

This is monumental. It is the nation’s first universal education savings account program open to all children in the state. Students who choose to participate in the education savings account option will receive 100% of what the state would have spent on their education in their prior public school—or approximately $4,600 per year—which they can then use to pay for private school tuition, online learning, private tutoring, and a variety of other education services, products, and providers.

All incoming kindergarteners will be eligible for an education savings account, as will all first through 12th graders, with the condition that they have previously been enrolled in a West Virginia public school for 45 days.

Kentucky. Kentucky followed suit this week with the Legislature overriding Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto of a bill to create the Bluegrass State’s first school choice program—a tax credit-funded education savings account.

Known as Education Opportunity Accounts, students from families with incomes below 175% of the federal poverty line will have access to education savings accounts. The program is available to students living in counties with more than 90,000 residents and will initially be capped at $25 million.

South Dakota. On March 18, Gov. Kristi Noem signed into law an expansion of South Dakota’s tax credit scholarship program, which provides tax credits to insurance companies that provide donations to scholarship-granting organizations, which in turn provide scholarships to eligible students to offset the cost of private school tuition.

Students from families whose income does not exceed 150% of the qualifying amount for free and reduced-price lunch eligibility (approximately $73,000 for a family of four) are eligible. The Legislature expanded the program to now include students who already attend private school.

Georgia. Gov. Brian Kemp will soon have on his desk a bill that expands eligibility for the state’s existing voucher program for students with special needs. The proposal would expand eligibility to students in public schools with 504 plans (meaning they may need additional help in school due to learning impediments).

Approximately 58,000 Georgia students currently have 504 plans and would be eligible for the expanded voucher program.

Florida. The Florida Legislature is considering a proposal to consolidate the state’s five existing school choice programs into two streamlined education savings account options. One of the education savings account programs would be geared toward students with special needs, and the other would be available to the broader student population.

This proposal would fold the McKay Scholarship Program, a voucher program for children with special needs; the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which provides scholarships to income-eligible students; the Hope Scholarship, which allows individuals to redirect their car sales tax to private school scholarships; and the Family Empowerment Scholarship, which provides scholarships to students to attend a private school of choice who were on the waitlist for the state’s popular tax credit scholarship program, into the existing education savings account structure.

The proposal would bring the flexibility and customization of education savings accounts to the existing voucher and tax credit scholarship programs, updating the current school choice programs.

The proposal also grows program eligibility by eliminating the prior public school attendance requirements and opening the education savings account program to low-income homeschooled students in the state.

Arizona. In Arizona, the Legislature is considering an expansion of the state’s existing (first-in-the-nation) education savings account program to include students who attend a low-income school.

It would also make students who live in the attendance zone boundary of a Title I school eligible for the accounts. An estimated 65% of school districts in Arizona are home to Title I schools.

Missouri. Missouri lawmakers have introduced a bill to create a tax credit-funded education savings account program with broad eligibility. The program would be open to all students who previously attended public school in Missouri, or are entering kindergarteners, or who have an active-duty military parent. The program would initially be capped at $50 million.

New Hampshire. New Hampshire officials are likewise considering an education savings account program that would provide eligible families with $4,500 per year. The education savings accounts would be available to students from families earning less than $77,000 per year for a family of four.

Indiana. In Indiana, policymakers have introduced a measure that would expand eligibility for the state’s existing school voucher program and would create education savings accounts.

Children with special needs, from military families, or from foster families would be eligible for an education savings account worth 90% of what the state would have spent on that child in their public school.

In addition to these nine states, dozens of others are considering measures to expand education freedom and opportunity to students. An unprecedented 29 states have already introduced similar measures this year that will create or expand vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and education savings accounts, according to the Educational Freedom Institute.

According to EdChoice, more than 20 of those states have introduced education savings account options specifically. For families, these proposals represent lifelines to opportunities previously unavailable to them in their public school.

These measures are a swift rebuke to the teachers' unions, who have not only stood in the way of education access during the pandemic but have been the primary obstacles to education choice for decades.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.  

DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA: Residents of LA suburb stop radical push by local government

Residents of LA suburb successfully stop yet another LGBT effort by their local government.

MassResistance helps conservative, minority residents fight back against left-wing politicians.

This is how pro-family victories need to happen!


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

April 1, 2021
The Downey, CA, City Council listens as the clerk reads the angry emails they received from residents against a proposed city-sponsored "LGBT youth picnic."

The pro-family movement far too often fails to realize that when it comes to the Left’s attempt to push their agenda onto society, every battle is important. And seemingly “little” victories are often particularly critical in the larger picture.

Downey, California is a largely minority, working-class suburb of Los Angeles. The residents are also very conservative. Until just six years ago the Downey City Council was entirely Republican.

Downey, CA - a conservative, working-class suburb southeast of Los Angeles.

Then the California Legislature changed the election laws to allow ballot harvesting, mail-in voting, extended voting, etc. The Los Angeles County Democrat machine targeted Downey. They ran progressives and left-wing activists for the various local offices, and aggressively used ballot harvesting and the other fraudulent techniques to make sure their candidates won. Before people realized what was happening, their government had changed radically. Downey’s minority residents, in particular, felt helpless.

The Left appeared to have free reign to change Downey. But it hasn’t been so easy, thanks to MassResistance!

The battle started in 2019

Part of the leftist agenda is to bring extremely graphic and explicit sex-ed programs into the schools. In 2019, the Downey School Board overwhelmingly passed a “comprehensive sex-ed” curriculum for the middle school and high school grades. Right away, parents were upset with the phony “public vetting” process that had revealed little about it. And the school refused to make the details of the curriculum public. So parents asked MassResistance for help.

Our California MassResistance group forced the school officials to reveal what was really in that curriculum – and we exposed it to the public. But we didn’t stop there. We organized parents from across town to storm the School Board and demand that the curriculum be thrown out.

During a School Board meeting. The parents refused to give up!
ALT TEXT MassResistance parents pose for a photo in the hallway just after a School Board meeting.

The fight lasted for six months. The School Board did not want to upset their left-wing allies. But finally, in May 2020, the Downey School Board surrendered and agreed to abandon the curriculum. So far, it hasn’t been replaced with anything.

It was a great victory. As a result, the Downey parents formed one of the most robust MassResistance groups in California!

A pastor talks to a MassResistance gathering at a local church.
One of the door-to-door canvassing teams.

Last month: Another fight, another win!

Last month, the Left tried another tactic. They felt it was time for the City of Downey to begin sponsoring a public LGBT event. The city would organize an “LGBT youth picnic” in a local park. That may seem relatively inconsequential. But it would be made into a very powerful statement – and leveraged into more official events in the future.

As the local media reported on March 20, the LGBT picnic proposal was to be brought up three days later at the March 23 Downey City Council meeting by Council Member Catherine Alvarez, an “openly bisexual woman,” along with Council Member Mario Trujillo, who is “married” to another man.

Council members Catherine Alvarez (left) and Mario Trujillo made it their goal to push the LGBT agenda.

It looked like this proposal would sail through the City Council. The article observed this move is part of Downey’s “transformation away from political conservatism.” (Well – maybe not!)

The people overwhelm the left-wing politicians

Word quickly got out, people across town became very upset, and the Downey MassResistance chapter helped residents get involved. As a result, in the three days leading up to the March 23 meeting, the Mayor and City Council got a flood of calls and emails. Not surprisingly, Trujillo reacted by carrying on about “bigotry” and “homophobia.” But people weren’t intimidated.

At the March 23 meeting when the City Council meeting took up that item, Alvarez began by encouraging the Council to pass it. She didn’t make a very compelling argument:

It’s more likely as a celebration for a Pride Month. I know that last year, the Downey youth organized a Pride march outside of city hall. I think everyone remembers that. They did this because the youth wanted the LGBT people to feel welcome to our community. They wanted to express themselves, that there are LGBT people in this city.

Mayor Claudia Frometa was clearly a bit skittish due to the constituent pressure opposing this, and he countered that argument:

If we approve an event like this, we are setting a precedent, we are opening our city for every group that wants to host something, is going to come knocking on our door, so that we pay for it, Any group is welcome to host whatever event they want, our city’s parks are available. They have to set up their own sponsorship. They do it. It shouldn’t be a city-sponsored anything.

(Of course, setting a precedent is exactly what the Left wants to do!)

Next, Council Member Trujillo spoke at length about the need to publicly fight homophobia and bigotry, not only in Downey but across the country. He listed cities across the country that sponsor “Gay Pride Month” events.

But that didn’t seem to be enough to save it. The other two members of the City Council were not in a mood to go against the flood of opposition to this:

Mayor Pro-tem Blanca Pacheco said she objected to holding an LGBT youth picnic because of the COVID-19 restrictions and also because of the “optics”, given that the city was low on funds, and it would look bad for the city to spend money on something like a Pride event.

Sean Ashton, another liberal on the City Council, said that he supported the idea of an LGBT youth picnic, but did not think that the city should go forward with it because the city needed to address infrastructure issues.

After the Council Members made their remarks, the City Clerk read out comments that were submitted via email. Every single emailed response opposed the LGBT youth picnic! Here are just a few samples that we got via a FOIA request:

Homosexuality and transgenderism are not inherent, genetic traits. These are behaviors that cut the lifespan sort of individuals who engage in them. There are not behaviors to promote to the public, and should not be permitted around children.

Today you have decided to vote whether or not the City should fund an LGBTQ picnic. Did you consider the majority of residents in Downey who would not want this picnic to be funded by the city? Unbelievable that you would even consider it. That’s not why you were voted into office.

Do not bring divisiveness camouflaged as inclusion. Let’s use city funds to promote COMMUNITY, not specific groups. Remember, you are public servants working for the whole community, not just a small minority of the public sector.

If people who identify as LGBTQ want to have a picnic, then they can have a picnic. No one is stopping from gathering at a park and having a picnic. But there is no reason that the city needs to “officially” sanction this activity.

I have lived in this community for almost 20 years now. I like to live in Downey, but I recently informed that Downey is moving forward to have LGBTQ Picnic. I am furious at the members of Downey Council who consider this. We are not paying taxes to promote personal benefits, but for community.

Next, several people testified via Zoom. A few of them spoke out about so-called “homophobia,” but the majority of the Zoom participants were also strongly against it.

Thus, three of the Council Members would not commit to supporting the picnic, and the vast majority of comments from the public opposed the picnic. Relenting to the clear opposition to the idea, Councilmember Alvarez agreed to abandon the picnic proposal, and instead allow for a proclamation in June 2021 to “celebrate Pride Month,” The Council informally agreed to that, and the matter was done. (However, the Downey MassResistance group is planning to demand a resolution also be passed to celebrate natural marriage, life, and family.)

The people won again! The left-wing politicians were again forced to back down.

Final thoughts

We can’t stress how incredibly important it is to give relatively powerless parents and citizens – especially minorities whom the Left often targets – a strong way to successfully fight back in today’s world. The Left is out to subjugate everyone. But they can be stopped. We must remember that every battle is important!

Facebook Twitter Email Print

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

FREE SPEECH VICTORY: 6th Circuit Reaches Right Conclusion on ‘Preferred Pronouns’ OF TRANSGENDERS

Other Courts Should Follow Suit

Nicholas Meriwether

Title: Professor
Area: Philosophy
Office Location: MAS 407
Phone: (740) 351-3447
[email protected]

Jennifer Pauley

Title: Professor
Area: English, British Literature
Office Location: MAS 406
Phone: (740) 351-3330
[email protected]

Jennifer Pauley



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In a victory for free speech, the rule of law, and common sense, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has ruled that a philosophy professor could not be forced to use a transgender student’s “preferred pronouns,” and that his suit against the university for violation of his First and 14th Amendment rights could proceed.

The court’s decision is the first of its kind, and establishes a needed boundary against American culture’s new, brutish sexual orthodoxy.

At least within academia, one can no longer be compelled to say things one doesn’t believe.

The incident that precipitated this suit occurred in January 2018, when Shawnee State University philosophy professor Nicholas Meriwether responded to a male student’s question during a Socratic dialogue in his political philosophy class by saying, “Yes, sir.”

After class at the school in Portsmouth, Ohio, the student approached Meriwether, stated that he was transgender, and demanded that the professor refer to him as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns.

Instead, Meriwether offered to use the student’s last name, or any other name of the student’s choosing, but politely declined to use the transgender student’s pronouns. The student became belligerent and promised to get Meriwether fired.

The student then filed a complaint with the university, which launched a formal investigation through the university’s Title IX office.

Meriwether again offered various compromises in an attempt to protect his rights of conscience while being respectful to the transgender student, but the university rejected any arrangement other than the use of preferred pronouns or the elimination of sex-based pronouns altogether (a virtual impossibility in a scholastic setting).

When Meriwether refused, the university formally charged him with a violation of Title IX, claiming “he [had] effectively created a hostile environment” for the student.

The university placed a written warning in Meriwether’s personnel file and threatened “further corrective actions” unless he articulated the university’s groupthink.

Two years prior, in 2016, Meriwether had received a faculty-wide email from Shawnee State leadership, directing all faculty to refer to students by their preferred pronouns.

At that time, Meriwether, a devout Christian, had approached his department chair, Jennifer Pauley, with concerns about the policy. Pauley was not only dismissive of Meriwether’s concerns, she was patently hostile.

Knowing Meriwether had successfully taught courses on Christian thought for decades, Pauley claimed Christians are “primarily motivated out of fear” and “should be banned from teaching courses regarding that religion.” In her view, even the “presence of religion in higher education is counterproductive.”

Meriwether was told that even if a professor had moral or religious objections to the use of preferred pronouns, the policy would still apply.

Two years later, Meriwether’s spotless record was marred by a disciplinary note, and he was teaching under the threat of further discipline, including suspension without pay or termination unless he agreed to fall in line with Shawnee’s pronoun policy.

In November 2018, Meriwether sued the university in Ohio federal court for violation of his rights of free speech and religious liberty under the First Amendment and violation of his due process and equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott threw out Meriwether’s lawsuit on Feb. 12, 2020, and among other things, held that a professor’s speech in the classroom is never protected by the First Amendment. Meriwether appealed to the 6th Circuit.

In Meriwether v. Hartop et al., an impatient panel for the 6th Circuit wasted no time with perfunctory legalese or institutional pandering. It cut right to the chase in its frustration with Shawnee State’s stamping out of debate and open dialogue vis-a-vis its malignant speech policy.

The opinion, which was written by Judge Amul Thapar and joined by Judge Joan Larsen and Senior Judge David McKeague, begins:

Traditionally, American universities have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom. They have prided themselves on being forums where controversial ideas are discussed and debated. And they have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides. But Shawnee State chose a different route: It punished a professor for his speech on a hotly contested issue. And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment.

The district court dismissed the professor’s free-speech and free-exercise claims. We see things differently and reverse.

The court went on to clarify that the Supreme Court has recognized that the government may not compel a speaker to affirm a belief with which the speaker disagrees. It added that courts have recognized that the free speech clause of the Constitution applies at public universities and that “professors do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the [university] gate.”

Thapar, the first South Asian federal judge in American history and the son of self-made immigrants from India, seemed hard-pressed in containing his displeasure at the university’s looseness with longstanding judicial principles. It’s clear he doesn’t take kindly to Shawnee State’s loutish attempts at conformity.  

In relaying a dizzying body of precedent, Thapar stressed that the court has rejected as “totally unpersuasive” the argument that “teachers have no First Amendment rights when teaching, or that the government can censor teacher speech without restriction.”

Simply put, the judge wrote, professors at public universities retain First Amendment protections at least when engaged in core academic functions, such as teaching and scholarship because the need for the free exchange of ideas in the college classroom is unlike that of other workplace settings.

In a critical discussion on the use of pronouns themselves, Thapar wrote:

 [T]itles and pronouns carry a message. The university recognizes that and wants its professors to use pronouns to communicate a message: People can have a gender identity inconsistent with their sex at birth. But Meriwether does not agree with that message, and he does not want to communicate it to his students.

That’s not a matter of classroom management; that’s a matter of academic speech … Never before have titles and pronouns been scrutinized as closely as they are today for their power to validate—or invalidate—someone’s perceived sex or gender identity. Meriwether took a side in that debate. Through his continued refusal to address Doe as a woman, he advanced a viewpoint on gender identity …

Shawnee State allegedly flouted [a] core principle of the First Amendment. Taking the allegations as true, we hold that the university violated Meriwether’s free-speech rights.

The court’s opinion in Meriwether v. Hartop is long overdue comfort to those who refuse to bend the knee on leftist groupthink—the kind that forces a subjective and manipulable view of one person’s self to become a defining reality for everyone else. It is a stake in the ground on behalf of religious dissenters and academic freedom.

And—with poetic suitability to a Socratic dialogue—the decision reminds us that there are no “personal” truths, but only truths immemorial: realities that exist independent of our wishes to the contrary.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. 

Pentagon Abolishes Trump’s “Transgender Ban”



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On March 31, the International Transgender Day of Visibility, the Pentagon has announced new policies to abolish the Trump administration’s ban on transgender troops serving in the U.S. military, following a 60-day review initiated after President Biden signed an executive order repealing the ban shortly after he took office in January.

At a signing ceremony, Biden said the order reinstates “a position that the previous commanders and, as well, as the secretaries have supported…. What I’m doing is enabling all qualified Americans to serve their country in uniform and essentially restoring the situation that used to be before, where transgender personnel — if qualified in every other way — can serve their government in the United States military.”

On Wednesday, the department announced it has updated two internal policies to make it easier for transgender individuals to join up and access medical treatment while serving. The policies, which go into effect on April 30, also protect transgender individuals from discrimination within the services. The revised policies also “provide a path of service for medical treatment, gender transition and recognition in one’s self-identified gender,” according to Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby.

It is unclear how many transgender people serve in the military, though some advocacy groups assume it could be as high as 15,000 individuals. Stephanie Miller, the Pentagon’s military accession policy director, believes that the number of service members who self-identify as transgender could range from 1,000 to 8,000. She also notes that there are about 2,200 service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria and who are seeking gender-transition medical procedures. The Pentagon would fund and facilitate the procedures for each individual on a case-by-case basis. According to the Pentagon, the department spent about $8 million on transgender care from 2016 to 2019.

Normal or Ill?

The U.S. Department of Defense has a directive that provides a detailed list of the mental health conditions that prevent a person from being in the armed services. According to the Department of Defense, you’re disqualified from serving in the U.S. military if you have a current diagnosis or a history of most mental disorders. Undoubtedly, military service is highly demanding on a person’s physical, mental, and psychological state. If the nation entrusts someone with the crucial goal of providing security and defense, that person needs to be exceptionally fit. Thus, the strict requirements for the recruits. Are transgender people mentally fit to serve?

For a long time, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) defined being transgender — that is, experiencing “an incongruence between assigned sex (i.e., the sex recorded on one’s birth certificate) and gender identity”— as a “gender identity disorder.” In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5, released in 2013), the APA did away with the term “gender identity disorder,” and declared that such “incongruence” was not a “disorder.” However, “the distress that may accompany the incongruence” could be classified as a disorder, now renamed “gender dysphoria.” The new term was still unsatisfactory to trans activists, since “dysphoria,” as a profound sense of unease or dissatisfaction, still suggested a mental illness. Psychologists say that while dysphoria isn’t a mental health diagnosis on its own, it’s a symptom associated with a variety of mental illnesses, including anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, personality disorder, etc. Indeed, it’s been found that people with so-called gender dysphoria have higher rates of other mental health conditions. Some estimates say that 71 percent of people with gender dysphoria will have some other mental health diagnosis in their lifetime. 

In 2019, following the APA and under pressure from the trans lobby, the World Health Organization (WHO) approved an update to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, which is known as the ICD-11 and is widely used in the United States. The WHO also dropped the term “gender identity disorder.” However, the new category that replaced it was “gender incongruence” — the very thing that was declared not to be a disorder in the DSM-5.

Those confusing manipulations with medical terms, definitions, and redefinitions allowed for the benefit of having a diagnosis without the “stigma” of having a “mental disorder.” New York psychiatrist Jack Drescher, who was involved in drafting both the DSM-5 and ICD-11 revisions, reveals the incentive behind the changes:

WHO, a United Nations agency, has a human rights mission, and there is substantial evidence that the stigma associated with the intersection of transgender status and mental disorders contributes to precarious legal status, human rights violations, and barriers to appropriate health care for this population.

It’s hard not to notice that Dr. Drescher sounds more like a politician than a psychiatrist, using terms such as “human rights,” “stigma,” and “legal status” that have nothing to do with an accurate diagnosis of a specific health condition. 

Society certainly should have compassion for people who genuinely feel discomfort with their biological sex and who may be going through a painful struggle. However, the direction in which society is moving raises concerns as to its sanity. We are eager to compromise our national defense; eager to mutilate confused people and even children who need psychiatric help, not the life-altering hormonal treatments and surgeries; willing to sacrifice their lives due to the high risk of suicide among trans people; and willing to change the language and scientific dialogue around the issue to the point of that burying any real solutions to the problem; all in the name of kindness, tolerance, and inclusivity. 


News from Ex-Catholic & Evangelist Mike Gendron 

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Pope Francis has become the most controversial pope in the last 300 years. He has made numerous contentious and disputable statements that not only go against historic Roman Catholicism, but they also violate the infallible Word of God. Tragically, his fatal lies often go unchecked and are leading millions of people down the wide road to destruction (Matthew 7:13). As the first Jesuit pope, he rules over 1.3 billion Roman Catholics, who have been indoctrinated to believe that any man who wears the papal crown is holy and infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra. We must warn Catholics with the sobering words of Christ, "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Mat. 7:15).
Is the Pope Humble?
Pope Francis is loved by many because of the “humility” portrayed by his foot-washings and self-described humble lifestyle. However, can he really be humble when he usurps the honor and authority of the Lord Jesus by stealing His title as the Head of His Church? Francis never suffered the physical torment, the spiritual abandonment and a sacrificial death to save the Church. That he would consider himself to be the Head of the Church is unconscionable. Yet, his arrogance does not end there. He has also usurped the title “Holy Father” from the one and only Holy Father who is the Father of Jesus and all born-again Christians (John 17:11).
Is the Pope a Universalist?
In spite of the clear teaching of Christ and His Word, Pope Francis believes God’s will is to save all people. During a message in St. Peter’s Square, he said, God “wants His children to overcome all particularism in order to be open to the universality of salvation” (CNA, 11/15/19). Years earlier, Pope Francis declared: “The Lord has redeemed all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone…even the atheists. Everyone! The Blood of Christ has redeemed us all” (RNS, 5/22/13). The pope’s belief that everyone will be saved is not only opposed to the teachings of his church but also to the very words of Christ. The Lord Jesus made it clear that very few will enter Heaven, and the greater majority will end up in a place of destruction. He said we must “enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13-14).
Is the Pope a Denier of Hell?
Not only has Pope Francis said everyone will eventually be in Heaven, but he also stated, “There is no hell where sinners suffer for eternity.” He added to his heresy by saying: “After death, those who do not repent cannot be pardoned, and they disappear.” Then he declared, “Hell does not exist but what does exist is the disappearance of sinful souls.” One can only conclude that the pope is calling Jesus a liar because He spoke of hell more than thirty times in the New Testament. God’s Word describes hell as a place of torment where unbelievers suffer pain and thirst from a burning fire. The horror and hopelessness is so great that they want to warn their loved ones who are still alive. The punishment for their sins is irreversible; there is no second chance and no escape (Luke 16:19-31). The pope’s denial of hell also opposes Roman Catholicism, which affirms the existence of an eternal fire in hell where sinners suffer (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1035).
Is the Pope Against the Sanctity of Marriage?
The recent endorsement of same-sex civil unions by Pope Francis has been criticized by conservative Catholics throughout the world. God's timeless Word reveals His holy intentions for marriage, family and sexuality as well as His clear condemnations for those who violate His intentions. No one, not even a pope, has the authority to redefine marriage, family and sexuality. The first family consisted of a male husband and a female wife, along with their children. 
Is the Pope Ever Right?
Pope Francis was wrong again when he said, “All of us are God's children.” The Lord Jesus exposes the pope’s lie by revealing some people are children of the devil. To the apostate religious leaders He said, “You are of your father the devil” (John 8:44). Later, the apostle John wrote: “It is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother" (1 John 3:10). The pope was also wrong biblically when he declared Mary is the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). He said, "Mary is not only the bridge joining us to God; she is more. She is the road that God traveled to reach us, and the road that we must travel in order to reach Him. 
Pope Francis blasphemed God by attributing the work of Jesus Christ to Satan when he declared that the “Division [among evangelicals and Catholics] is the work of the Father of Lies who does everything possible to keep us divided.” The pope's statement opposed and denigrated God's infallible Word. The Lord Jesus is the One who divides believers from unbelievers by the truth of His Word (Luke 12:51-53). 
The pope also blasphemed God by saying He is going to destroy the world again because of global warming. He said this time the Genesis flood won't be mythical, (like he seems to believe of the Genesis flood); it will be real. His distortion of Genesis continues with his statement: “The Big Bang Theory does not contradict the role of God as the divine creator.” He said, “God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life."
Is There Anything Christians Can Do?
Pope Francis has become the most influential and dangerous false teacher in the world today. It is my prayer that Christians will recognize the Roman Catholic religion is a huge mission field and rescue Catholics from Pope Francis. Only the truth of God's Word can set Catholics free from the bondage of religious deception (John 8:31-32). We must speak the truth in love and pray for the salvation of these precious souls!
Some Will Come and Preach Another Jesus
Christians will often tell us they know a Catholic is saved because they love Jesus. However, which Jesus do they love? The Jesus of the Bible is gloriously revealed as the all-sufficient Savior who finished the work of redemption (Heb. 7:25, 9:12). The Eucharistic Jesus does not save sinners completely and forever, but instead continues the work of redemption on an altar (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], para. 1405, 1471). The true Jesus paid the complete punishment for sin and canceled the eternal debt for sin (Col. 2:13-14). The false Christ of Rome did not pay the complete punishment for sin as Catholics are taught they must suffer temporal punishment for sin in purgatory (CCC, 1471).
The Bible tells us Jesus offered Himself once for all sin for all time and there are no more offerings for sin (Heb. 10:12,14,18). The counterfeit Christ of Roman Catholicism is offered 200,000 times each day on altars throughout the world as a sacrificial "victim" for past sins (CCC, 1367). God's Word tells us Jesus will return a second time the same way He left, after the tribulation in wondrous glory (Acts 1:11; Mat. 24:27-30; Heb. 9:28). The Catholic Jesus returns every day at the command of a priest who transubstantiates wafers into his body and blood, soul and divinity (CCC, 1374). The Catholic Church robs Christ of His glory as the only sinless mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) by declaring Mary holds the same glorious position.
When Catholics worship and trust the false Christ of the Eucharist, they are committing the most serious sin of idolatry and must be warned. Furthermore, another Jesus always leads to another gospel which has no power to save (Rom. 1:16; Gal. 1:6-9). It is because of our love for Catholics we have published a Gospel tract, Which Jesus Do you Trust? Order them here.


Transgender Female Complains TSA Scanners Set Off Alarms for the ‘Anomaly Between My Legs’

Misgendered: Montoya told the TSA officer she was trans and offered to be pat down, but she was asked if she wanted to go through the male scanner instead



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A transgender female’s video rant about the “transphobic” Transportation Security Administration went viral after the individual complained that the airport scanning devices triggered an alarm for the “anomaly between my legs.”

It’s true. The imaging technology scans all passengers and looks for “anomalies” based on the sex of the passenger that the TSA screener is presented with. Is a machine “transphobic” for doing what it was designed to do?

I’ve heard the male penis described many different ways — some flattering, some not — but I’ve never heard it referred to as “an anomaly.”

But why is the TSA “transphobic”? The woman, a model and content creator named Rosalynne Montoya, is apparently unaware of the imaging technology used by the agency.

You will be screened by walk-through metal detectors or advanced imaging technology.

Advanced imaging technology uses automated target recognition software that eliminates passenger-specific images and instead auto-detects potential threats by indicating their location on a generic outline of a person. The generic outline is identical for all passengers.

AIT Screening Process: When you enter the imaging portal, the TSA officer presses a button designating a gender (male/female) based on how you present yourself. The machine has software that looks at the anatomy of men and women differently. The equipment conducts a scan and indicates areas on the body warranting further inspection if necessary. If there is an alarm, TSA officers are trained to clear the alarm, not the individual. Additional screening is conducted to determine whether a prohibited item is present.

Montoya could have requested a pat-down instead of a scan. The fact that she didn’t suggest that she wanted to make a point about how terribly unfair it is for a woman to have an “anomaly between her legs.”

“Can we talk about how horrible it is to travel while being transgender sometimes? I always have immense anxiety leading up to going through security. And this means that I totally recognize the privilege of having all of my documents correct. So, the gender marker on my license, for example, says female,” Montoya said in the video.

That means that the TSA employee pressed the correct button that set up the machine to scan a female, right? Not exactly.

“The scanners at TSA checkpoints are made with only two settings, forcing the TSA agents to make a split-second decision on whether to scan travelers as male or female,” Montoya added, according to Buzzfeed, adding, “Afterwards, I took a deep breath, grabbed my things and bought myself a cookie butter latte and a snack. I felt dysphoric and disrespected, but remembered how much worse this experience used to be. I FaceTimed my boyfriend, who listened to my story and calmed me down.”

The solution?

“I am not a second-class citizen,” Montoya told Buzzfeed. “I’m deserving of the same rights and the same respect as cisgender people. The TSA security machines should account for trans and non-binary people.”

“And the agents should understand that misgendering me and outing me as a trans person in public could be potentially dangerous,” Montoya continued. “Trans people are attacked at alarming rates when we are outed — especially Black trans women.”

TSA procedures are plainly and clearly written. She knew exactly what to expect walking into the scanning machine. I can’t see any reason for this rant except to draw attention to a political issue. Instead of the grievously injured passenger mistreated by the “transphobic” TSA, we have a political activist looking for attention.

Canadian judge jails father for opposing ‘trans’ procedures on daughter, threatens MassResistance

Amazon Is Blocking Therapy Books

As the largest book publisher in the world, Amazon has the strangulation power to prevent information from ever being published. It is actively wielding that power to suppress therapeutic books that relate to curing "transgenderism" (gender dysphoria) and homosexuality. The number of genres that it buries will continue increasing over time. Leftists are never satiated as perpetual conflict is another aspect of their associated disorders. The establishment has been working to suppress cures for a variety of diseases for over a century, so in a sense, nothing in this is new. Get reliable notification options and further information at Sarah's home site:

2 Massachusetts Towns Create Legal Polyamorous Partnerships



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

What could the left possibly want after same-sex marriage and transgenderism? Try polygamy.

The media laughed off groups like the Family Research Council when we warned about that 15 years ago. Now, a decade and a half later, with American parents in the fight of their lives over girls' sports and city councils endorsing three-person relationships, it turns out we were right.

The LGBT’s fight was never about marriage—it was about every sexual and social norm.

Justice Antonin Scalia predicted as much in 2003. With prophetic insight, he pointed to the threat to state laws “based on moral choices” against “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution … adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity” in his dissent from Lawrence v. Texas.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

People thought he was being dramatic or exaggerating. But they don’t think so anymore. An astounding 20% of Americans now think polygamy is “morally acceptable”—tripling the number who held those beliefs when Scalia issued that warning.

America’s slippery slope is even icier now, with the news that another city council has officially recognized polyamorous relationships as an acceptable form of domestic partnership. Somerville, Massachusetts, was the first to do so last summer—followed by the Cambridge City Council this month.

In the same town that’s home to Harvard University, The Christian Post’s Brandon Showalter points out, a relationship of “two or more persons” who are not related and “consider themselves to be a family” are now considered legitimate partnerships in the eyes of the local government.

Massachusetts was the first state to usher in same-sex marriage, so it only makes sense that it would also be the first to tear down the barriers to open relationships too.

After all, if “love” and “consent” are all that define a relationship, then proponents of incest, pedophilia, and group marriage can follow the LGBT playbook all the way to legitimacy.

“If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners,” Fredrik deBoer wrote in Politico right after Obergefell in 2015, “how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?”

It was a surprisingly candid look at where this debate was headed. These days, the movement that promised to quit once it won marriage through the courts doesn’t bother pretending anymore. The only limits that exist are your own reality—unless you’re a Christian. And then it isn’t “live and let live.” It’s conform or be punished.

Even the American Psychological Association is fighting to give open relationships “protected legal status” because, as far as it’s concerned, monogamy is “bigotry.”

Once a culture rejects God’s design, basic biology, and thousands of years of civilization, there are no boundaries. Regardless of what the extremists say, they’ll never be satisfied until society acquiesces to what they want: a complete and total surrender of all moral standards.

Originally published in Tony Perkins’ “Washington Update,” which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.

Equality Act Could Become Classroom Bully With Unscientific Curriculum

How Equality Act Could Become Classroom Bully With Biased, Unscientific Curriculum

BY Sarah Parshall Perry 


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings Wednesday on the so-called Equality Act, a piece of legislation unparalleled in its hostility to religious liberty and that elevates sexual orientation and gender identity to a protected-class status alongside race, sex, and national origin in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Equality Act also expands the definition of “public accommodation” under federal law, and recipients of any federal funding—such as schools—would be directly affected by the act if it becomes law. It has already passed the House of Representatives.

Plenty of ink has been spilled on the disastrous consequences the Equality Act would have on the administration of school sports, locker rooms, and bathrooms.

But what of the curriculum the Equality Act might force schools to teach? Could it compel teachers to peddle unscientific notions that gender is “fluid,” or that a student’s subjective self-identity is superior to the biological reality of his or her chromosomal makeup?

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

Unfortunately, due to some legal sleight of hand, the answer is very likely “yes.”

As a general matter, the federal government is prohibited from meddling with school curriculums, something better left to local and state education associations as part of the 10th Amendment’s assurance that the powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

The federal Department of Education Organization Act states:

No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system … except to the extent authorized by law.

However, federal courts have recognized that in certain circumstances, federal involvement in education is warranted. To remedy past segregation, for example, some federal courts have required schools to remove educational materials considered racially-biased, or to expand curricula to include black history. Both are reasonable means to meet the congressional goal of eliminating discrimination against blacks as articulated in the Civil Rights Act.

Those cases stem from a body of law focused on “equity jurisdiction.” Under this principle, once the legal right of an individual (or class of individuals) and a violation of that right have been proven, a federal court’s power to remedy past wrongs is quite broad.

It can include (and has included) changes to curriculums and teaching materials in order to eliminate both actual (“de facto”) and legal (“de jure”) segregation of school students.

In United States v. School District 151 (1968), a federal district court concluded it had the power to decide all issues concerning alleged discrimination in public education, including school board policies, the allocation of faculty and staff, the location and construction of schools, the transportation of students, and the general educational structure and process.

In order to remedy ongoing discrimination, another federal district court judge in Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2000) “ordered that remedies for the constitutional violation proceed along several fronts … [and] ordered a comprehensive redesign of curriculum and testing, so that the curriculum would be appropriate for heterogeneous, multicultural, sidetracked classrooms and that the effectiveness of [the] redesigned curriculum would be carefully monitored through proper assessments.”

While—thus far—federal courts have yet to flex their “equity” muscle within the context of LGBTQ students and rectifying ongoing discrimination, the Equality Act would amend Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to give sexual orientation and gender identity the same legal protections as immutable characteristics like race, sex, or national origin. Those have been historically recognized as nothing more than due to an accident of birth, and therefore deserving of heightened protection and stricter analysis.

Now substitute the words “gender identity” for “race,” and there’s nothing to prevent a court from ordering the same kind of equitable remedy—curricular or otherwise—with respect to what a student might argue is a discriminatory educational setting.

Neutral education policies don’t always cut it, either. In Adams v. United States (1980), the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc held that a “racially neutral” assignment plan proposed by school authorities was inadequate because it failed to “counteract the continuing effects of past school segregation.”  

Organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign have cleverly drawn unflinching parallels between LGBTQ and black youths, using the buzzwords of American jurisprudence on anti-discrimination law, likening the struggle of pre-Civil Rights Act segregated blacks to LGBTQ individuals who are themselves segregated and denied equal protection under the law.

In so doing, they’ve teed up a post-Equality Act legal challenge for students whose educational environment isn’t sufficiently desegregated. (That is, it still teaches the “discriminatory” scientific notion that male and female are unchanging biological distinctions.)

In a pre-Equality Act era, educational dissenters—who, like millions of Americans holding faiths that dictate a gender binary and heterosexual marriage as a societal ideal—would have had the right to object to forced action or offensive curriculum pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 

Indeed, Congress expressly applied the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to all federal law, statutory or otherwise, whether adopted before or after its enactment—including all laws governing education programs, such as Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Higher Education Act. 

However, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act contains a critical exception: It does not apply if the statute explicitly excludes its application.

As is all too evident now, the Democratic drafters of the Equality Act took careful measures to make sure that under the bill, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be used as a shield by the millions of individuals—whether teachers, students, parents, or school administrators—holding sincere objections of conscience based on their religious beliefs.

How about religious schools? Surely, students in parochial schools won’t be subjected to dogma eliminating any recognition of male and female, right?

Wrong again. The Equality Act could very well steamroll propaganda touting the political agenda of sexual orientation and gender identity advocates through the schoolhouse doors if the religious schools accept any funding under federal law.

Take, for example, free and reduced-price lunch programs for low-income students, or admission of students on federally funded scholarships according to Title VI.

Therein lies another Equality Act “gotcha.”  

Liberal University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock (in whose class I once sat) has recognized the breathlessly slim religious liberty exemptions that could still be maintained by religious schools post-Equality Act:

Schools would still have the ministerial exception … which should protect them with respect to teachers teaching a religion class, or leading chapel services, but courts have generally held that other teachers are not ministers for purposes of the exception.

Think a federalized sexual orientation and gender identity curriculum would be too hard to implement?

Arne Duncan, secretary of education under President Barack Obama, used a carrot-and-stick funding approach to incentivize states to adopt the Common Core state standards and oversaw development of two testing consortia to assess whether uniform standards were being met. The result? Equivalent teaching geared toward the same outcomes across the country.

The Equality Act doesn’t just rewrite the entire canon of American law on discrimination. It takes a swing at long-standing protections for religious liberty and local control of education.

Just like the bully it is.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.      

1 2 3 7