Tired of ads? Want to support our progressive journalism? Click to learn more.
JOIN FOR $1
Enjoy good journalism?
… then let us make a small request. The COVID crisis has slashed advertising rates, and we need your help. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and legal efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. And unlike other news outlets, we’ve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.
Raw Story is independent. Unhinged from corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.
We need your support in this difficult time. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click to donate by check.
Value Raw Story?
… then let us make a small request. The COVID crisis has slashed advertising rates, and we need your help. Like you, we believe in the power of progressive journalism — and we’re investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We need your support to do what we do.
Raw Story is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.
Report typos and corrections to: corrections@rawstory.com.
The GOP's latest culture war is focused squarely on the nation's transgender community, specifically transgender youth. It isn't a new war, simply a new front in an old war that can be traced back to the famed "bathroom bills" from some years ago that spread across dozens of states. Those bills were introduced in tandem with former President Donald Trump's targeted federal government-led attacks that included the overturning of anti-discrimination statutes protecting trans people and an outright transgender ban in the U.S. military.
Now, in the wake of Trump's humiliating electoral loss, Republicans have accelerated the state-level attacks to a breathtaking level. In just the first three months of 2021, GOP-led state legislatures introduced more bills aimed at transgender people, especially youth, than they did over the entire previous year. There are now more than 80 bills introduced this year alone that, according to Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, "are not addressing any real problem, and they're not being requested by constituents. Rather, this effort is being driven by national far-right organizations attempting to score political points by sowing fear and hate."
<p>I recently spoke with <a href="https://www.jgillpeterson.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Jules Gill-Peterson</a>, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh and the author of the award-winning book <a href="https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/histories-of-the-transgender-child" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Histories of the Transgender Child</em></a>, in an <a href="https://www.risingupwithsonali.com/2021/03/31/how-the-gops-anti-trans-bills-target-children/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">interview</a>, and she echoed this claim, saying, "A lot of authoritarian political movements are using trans people as their scapegoats." She called the latest wave of anti-trans legislation "an unprecedented assault in terms of just the magnitude of the bills and the severity of what they propose to do in terms of criminalizing basic access to health care and equal access to education."</p><p>She explained that "due to perhaps their general political incompetency, a lot of [Trump's attacks on transgender people] didn't really end up making it into practice." However, "on the state level, as is often the case, the GOP is much more successful at pursuing an anti-trans agenda than they ever are at the federal level." Gill-Peterson sees this as a culmination of efforts that can be traced back to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/north-carolina-gender-bathrooms-bill/index.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">North Carolina's</a> 2016 passage of a bill banning transgender people from using facilities of the gender they identify with.</p><p>On April 5, North Carolina Republicans continued what they began five years ago, introducing a bill called the "<a href="https://ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/Senate/PDF/S514v0.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Youth Health Protection Act</a>," which blocks transgender minors from accessing the health care they need upon deciding to transition. Just as the GOP has often couched its attacks on communities under the guise of protecting them (think of anti-abortion legislation presented as "fetal personhood" bills), this bill, like several others in states like <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/04/05/trans-healthcare-arkansas-governor-veto/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Arkansas</a>, purports to protect trans youth.</p><p>Republicans also claim they want to protect "<a href="https://twitter.com/GovBillLee/status/1375558428702220289?s=20" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">fair competition</a>," in the words of Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, by banning transgender kids from sports. Lee, along with the governors of Arkansas and Mississippi, signed bills into law this year <a href="https://www.si.com/high-school/2021/03/25/arkansas-governor-signs-bill-transgender-girls-ban-school-sports" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">banning trans youth</a> from playing sports in school. These transphobic bills are based on a theory that transgender kids, especially girls, have an unfair biological advantage over non-transgender girls.</p><p>Just as the GOP's stated war on voter fraud is based on an imagined assault on the nation's democracy in order to disguise the real war on voting, the conservative party's stated reason for going after transgender children's access to health care or participation in sports is based on an imagined crisis. Gill-Peterson said, "most of these lawmakers will admit, they've never heard of any issue with transgender participation in sports in their state, and they've never heard of any issue around trans health care in their state, and they don't actually know any trans children."</p><p>The GOP's war on voting offers another analog. If the GOP really cared about democracy, they would make voting easier, not harder. Similarly, if the party were truly interested in the safety of girls, it would offer up bills that protect transgender girls in particular, who face very real dangers. Gill-Peterson said, "young trans girls and trans women are extremely vulnerable to sexual harassment and violence because it's not taken seriously." Instead, the bills banning access to health care and sports only fuel greater violence against them. Every year, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-community-fatal-violence-spike/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">dozens of trans women</a> are killed, and <a href="https://transequality.org/blog/murders-of-transgender-people-in-2020-surpasses-total-for-last-year-in-just-seven-months" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">more transgender people were killed in the U.S.</a> in the first seven months of 2020 than all of the previous year. It's no surprise that the spike in violence has coincided with legislative attempts to dehumanize the community.</p><p>Just as with anti-voter and anti-abortion bills, the GOP's tactic of pursuing transphobic legislation involves wasting legislative time and money by passing clearly unconstitutional bills that are invariably legally challenged, remain tied up in the courts for years and ultimately end up at the Supreme Court. Last summer, justices <a href="https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/6/15/21291542/supreme-court-trans-people-rights-discrimination-hope-again" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">ruled against an attempt to legalize workplace discrimination</a> against transgender employees, and then in the winter, they left in place a public school's <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-transgender/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-transgender-student-accommodations-idUSKBN28H2A2" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">accommodation of transgender students</a> to use the bathroom of their choice.</p><p>Whether the GOP wins or loses on this issue in the nation's highest court is almost beside the point because the party's goal is to distract its anxious base from the fact that their leaders do little to nothing about pervasive problems around inequality and depressed wages, a stagnant job market and the ever-rising cost of living.</p><p>Moreover, the GOP's anti-trans bills fulfill part of a larger conservative agenda to create evermore exceptions to government-provided services such as health care and education, whittling away at the state's responsibility for resources to be available to all and rights to be respected universally. If hormone treatments, abortions, and medical treatments for immigrants are exceptions to government-provided health care; if public education is for everyone but transgender kids; then those services are weakened in service of libertarian fantasies of how society should function.</p><p>How to combat this brutality and inhumanity? Gill-Peterson pointed out, "the folks who are on the same side of this debate as the Republican legislators include a wide swath of extremist groups: white nationalists, anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, anti-immigrant groups." To meet this threat will require an equally broad coalition of progressives to stand guard against attacks on transgender people.</p><p>The state of South Dakota has been a <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/south-dakotan-anti-transgender-legislation/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">testing ground</a> for state-level legislation aimed at trans rights. Bill after bill has <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/south-dakota-anti-trans-bill-s-defeat-part-larger-pattern-n1135741" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">failed</a> in that state, thanks largely to a coalition that has stood firm at every turn to protest them. Alongside <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/transgender-movement-finds-unlikely-hub-in-south-dakota/2020/02/10/3d9465f2-4b71-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">transgender activists</a> are parents, teachers, and doctors as well as national organizations like the <a href="https://www.aclu.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/transgender-rights" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">ACLU</a> and the <a href="https://transequality.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">National Center for Transgender Equality</a>. Having a president like <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/03/31/a-proclamation-on-transgender-day-of-visibility-2021/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Joe Biden</a> who has reaffirmed the humanity and dignity of transgender people, rather than targeting them for violence as Trump did, is also a huge help. "We need to see trans rights as integral to a broader agenda for democracy, justice, and public good in this country," said Gill-Peterson.</p><p><br/></p><p><em>Sonali Kolhatkar is the founder, host and executive producer of <a href="https://www.risingupwithsonali.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">"Rising Up With Sonali,"</a> a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. She is a writing fellow for the <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/economy-for-all/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Economy for All</a> project at the Independent Media Institute.</em></p><p><em>This article was produced by </em><a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/economy-for-all/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Economy for All</em></a><em>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></p>
CONTINUE READING
Show less
The Supreme Court just ‘radically altered’ the law — and ignored normal procedure to do so: report
April 12, 2021
The United States Supreme Court is receiving criticism not only on the merits of a new decision, but for the process used to reach it.
"Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Tandon v. Newsom, which blocked California's COVID-related ban on religious gatherings in private homes. Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, as did the three liberal justices, making Tandon yet another COVID decision in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett's vote made the difference," Slate's Mark Joseph Stern reported Monday.
<p>"Although the conservative majority's decision was unsigned and ran just four pages long, it radically altered the law of religious liberty. Since 1990's <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213" target="_blank"><em>Employment Division v. Smith</em></a>, the Supreme Court has not interpreted the First Amendment's free exercise clause to require religious exemptions to laws that don't discriminate against religion. In <em>Tandon</em>, however, the majority effectively overturned <em>Smith</em> by establishing a new rule, often called the 'most favored nation' theory. Under this doctrine, any secular exemption to a law automatically creates a claim for a religious exemption, vastly expanding the government's obligation to provide religious accommodations to countless regulations. In <em>Tandon</em>, for instance, the Supreme Court held that California had to let people gather indoors for Bible study because it allowed them to gather indoors to get a haircut, eat, or take a bus; if Californians can get pedicure, they must also be permitted to spend hours in close quarters discussing the Bible," Stern explained.</p><p>"And the Supreme Court created this sweeping new rule through its <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/supreme-court-shadow-docket.html" target="_blank">shadow docket</a>—those cases decided with minimal briefing and no oral argument outside the court's normal procedure," he noted.</p><p>Stern interviewed University of Texas School of Law Professor Steve Vladeck about the use of the shadow docket.</p><p>"I think Friday night's ruling drives home exactly why the rise of the shadow docket is so problematic. To be a little nerdy for a second, what the Supreme Court did on Friday was issue an injunction pending appeal. This is an extraordinary form of relief. Unlike when the court issues a stay—where it says, hey, lower courts we're putting your decision on hold—here the court is acting <em>directly</em> against the government. It's directly enjoining Gov. Newsom when lower courts have refused to do so," Vladeck explained.</p><p>"As the Supreme Court has said for decades, its authority to issue that form of relief is very limited. There's a very widely cited in-chambers <a href="https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1381409204498485254" target="_blank">opinion</a> by Justice Antonin Scalia from 1986 where he says the court is only supposed to issue such relief "sparingly, and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances," where 'the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.' It's the 'indisputably clear' part that makes what Jim said so important. Everyone understands that the court made new law on Friday, that the court changed the scope and meaning and applicability of the free exercise clause," he explained. "Folks are going to disagree about whether or not this new approach is a good one. My point is, this is not something the court is allowed to do in a shadow docket ruling like this. Its own precedents preclude it from making new law in this context because, by definition, a newly minted right cannot have been 'indisputably clear.'"</p><p>Read the <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/supreme-court-religious-liberty-covid-california.html" target="_blank">full report</a>.</p><p><em>(EDITOR'S NOTE: The author of this piece worked campaigns for Gavin Newsom when he was on the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco.)</em></p>
CONTINUE READING
Show less
A potential fix to police violence is staring us in the face
April 12, 2021
Look, I'm no expert on, well, pretty much anything! But there is one thing I do know. There is one thing anyone can know if they are willing to see. It's that the people we all trust to keep the peace in this country aren't doing a good job of it. What's more, the people we entrust to keep the peace are often themselves responsible for the violence. It's getting to the point where I'm thinking it's a good idea to take away their guns.
This article was originally published at The Editorial Board
<p>Yes, I know. Taking guns away from local law enforcement officials sounds <em>crazy</em>. But think about it. Is it any more absurd than what we are seeing right now? How many times does a Black man have to die at the hands of a police officer who is looking for a reason—<em>any</em> reason—to use legitimate force during a routine traffic stop? How many times does that have to happen before we start distrusting people with such power?</p><p>The crazy is worse than you think. After Daunte Wright, 20, was <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/12/daunte-wright-police-shooting-near-minneapolis-protest-what-to-know/7185768002/?utm_source=usatoday-News%20Alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alerts&utm_term=news_alert" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">shot and killed</a> Sunday by a cop in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, the community was outraged. People started organizing. They started protesting outside the police station. They started demanding justice. Cops responded by arming themselves in riot gear and forming a thin line around the building as if civilization itself would collapse if it didn't hold.</p><p>There's more. Not only did police come out ready for battle, the mayor ordered a curfew, which was just the excuse the "warriors" needed to start assaulting unarmed American citizens with tear gas and "pepper bombs" and other "non-lethal" weaponry that can tear human flesh and cause serious injury. And that made the people who were demanding justice even more pissed off, which in turn provided another excuse to these militarized agents of the state to commit what would otherwise be felonies.</p><p>And this is only the beginning of the crazy. At some point, it's nearly certain, the family of Daunte Wright will bring the city of Brooklyn Center to court, claiming damages of a certain dollar amount. While criminal juries almost never hold police officers criminally accountable, civil juries are far more likely to award civil damages. That costs the city money that cities usually do not have. So they sell debt to Wall Street. In order to repay Wall Street, cities must raise revenues, which means raising taxes on city residents, which include members of the family of Daunte Wright. Seriously, is taking cops' guns away more absurd than all of this? I don't think so.</p><p>If we're not going to take their guns away (and we won't), then we should take away some of the power we have given them. Why? Because no one should be trusted with that much power. Police departments across the country have become, in effect, small occupying armies unaccountable to the democratic will that can, and that do, <em>extract tribute</em><a href="https://stoehr.substack.com/p/maybe-we-should-take-cops-guns-away#footnote-1" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><sup>1</sup></a> in the form of loan repayments from residents they claim to serve and protect. This isn't just institutional racism. It's institutional racism that neuters republican government. It's institutional racism that, in the end, puts every one of us in a cage.</p><p>If we're not going to take their guns away (and we won't), then we need to rethink the amount of public trust we give them. We need to demand police officers understand what the 21st century demands on policing services. I'd say we should indoctrinate cops into believing in truth, justice and the American way, but since that's probably asking too much, political communities can do the next best and practical thing.</p><p>If they can't stop cops from acting like "warriors," then they outlaw these "warriors" weapons of war. Take them all away except a sidearm. Give them back to the federal government. If you can't stop police unions from being organized crime syndicates, then cities and states, with the right moral leadership, can ban pepper-spray, tear gas, body armor and other materiel. They can ban "routine traffic stops" if need be, except under strict, narrow and legally defined circumstances enforced under penalty of law. They can and should make lying on incident reports a crime deserving prison time.<a href="https://stoehr.substack.com/p/maybe-we-should-take-cops-guns-away#footnote-2" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><sup>2</sup></a></p><p>These would be pipe dreams if most cities were run by Republicans who believe police power is the solution to most social problems. But most cities are run by Democrats. Most cities are in states run by Democrats. Even Brooklyn Center's mayor, though independent, is a Liberian-American. His city is <em>minority white</em>. The political power is available if he's willing to find it democratically. It will take hard work, though.</p><p>And there's the rub. It's easier to give in to police departments, as Hizzoner did when he ordered a curfew, which gave armored cops an excuse to assault citizens legally. It's harder to push against entrenched interests however absurd they might be. Taking cops' guns away would be hard, too, but don't tell me it's crazy, because <em>now</em> is crazy?</p>
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Trending Topics
Trending
Latest
Videos
Copyright © 2021 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email corrections@rawstory.com.
Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Raw Story Investigates and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.
Subscribe Annually
$95 / year — Just $7.91/month
Subscribe Monthly
$1 trial
I want to Support More
$14.99 per month