The Rise of Skywalkerwasn't exactly an airtight movie. There are more holes in this plot than a slice of Bantha milkswiss cheese, but an upcoming Star Wars comic could solve one of them — even if it's one of the few mysteries that didn't need solving.Forget Palpatine's unexplained return, how any of the Snoke stuffmakes sense, or the mystery of Luke's lost lightsaber, Star Wars#6 may instead reveal how Rey got that yellow lightsaber at the end of The Rise of Skywalker. Cover art for the upcoming comic, which takes place shortly after Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, debuted on Tuesday on th...
Stories Chosen For You
WASHINGTON — Conservative Republicans gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to commit to bringing legislation to the floor that would make it a felony to perform gender-affirming care on transgender youth, should the GOP take control of the U.S. House following the November midterm elections.
“How on earth can this be happening in America? It’s hard to even understand,” said Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the main sponsor of the bill, referring to gender-affirming medical treatments sometimes used by transgender and nonbinary people, including minors.
The group touted the bill’s 37 GOP co-sponsors in the House, though that number is less than 10% of the chamber’s members, far short of the backing it would need to move on to the U.S. Senate even if Republicans take control of the House.
Greene’s office said the co-sponsors include Lauren Boebert and Doug Lamborn of Colorado. They also include Jim Banks of Indiana; Matt Gaetz, Byron Donalds and Greg Steube of Florida; Clay Higgins of Louisiana; Andrew Clyde and Barry Loudermilk of Georgia; Diana Harshbarger and Chuck Fleischmann of Tennessee; Paul Gosar of Arizona; Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin; Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina; Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey; Fred Keller, Dan Meuser and Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania; Matt Rosendale of Montana; Vicky Hartzler of Missouri; and Tracey Mann of Kansas.
Conservative Republicans across the country have been seizing on the issue of gender-affirming care for transgender youth and attempting to limit it. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “numerous states have implemented or considered actions aimed at limiting LGBTQ+ youth access to gender-affirming health care,” and some have enacted restrictions. The foundation says that 15 states in 2022 are considering 25 similar bills.
Numerous medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American Osteopathic Association have voiced opposition to laws restricting gender-affirming care.
Lee Savio Beers, American Academy of Pediatrics president in 2021, said in a statement this year that it’s “critically important for every child to have access to quality, comprehensive and evidence-based care — transgender and gender-diverse youth are no exception.”
“As pediatricians, we will continue to speak up and advocate for our patients. We also want transgender and gender-diverse youth to know that not only do we care for them, we care about them, we value them and we will do all we can to ensure they have access to the care they need and deserve,” Beers added.
A federal appeals court in August upheld an injunction blocking Arkansas’ ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender children, the Arkansas Advocate reported.
Felony for gender-affirming care
The legislation proposed in the U.S. House would make it a felony to perform more than a dozen gender-affirming medical procedures on someone under the age of 18 and would allow people who had that care as minors to file a civil lawsuit against each person who provided that care.
The legislation would also prevent federal dollars from going to gender-affirming care and would bar any federal employee from performing such a procedure, or procedures.
Higher education institutions would be prevented from offering instruction in gender-affirming care.
The measure includes exceptions for people who don’t have “normal sex chromosome structure, sex steroid hormone production, or sex steroid hormone action” as well as people with “both ovarian and testicular tissue,” the bill text says.
Anyone experiencing a disease, disorder, infection, or injury related to a previous gender-affirming procedure would be allowed to get care under the bill’s provisions.
There’s also an exception for anyone with a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness who would experience “imminent danger of death or impairment of a major bodily function” without one of the procedures or treatments.
Unlikely Senate passage
The bill is unlikely to get past the U.S. Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster even if Republicans take back that chamber following November’s midterm elections and the bill is able to pass the U.S. House. And the legislation would be certain to face a veto from President Joe Biden, who in June signed an executive order that seeks to safeguard LGBTQ+ health care.
The House GOP measure includes the phrase “gender-affirming” nearly 50 times throughout the bill text and Greene used the phrase on Tuesday before arguing that type of care doesn’t truly exist.
“States like California, Washington, New York and other Democrat controlled states want to fast track kids and tell parents they have no right to take away their children’s desire for gender-affirming care. There’s no such thing as gender-affirming care,” Greene said.
Rep. Bob Good, a Virginia Republican and a co-sponsor, questioned why more members of Congress weren’t at the press conference to support the legislation.
“Why wouldn’t every member of Congress be here?” Good asked.
Colorado Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Colorado Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Quentin Young for questions: firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow Colorado Newsline on Facebook and Twitter.
Following the lawsuit filed in New York state Wednesday against former President Donald Trump, political analysts from across the aisle weighed in on what would happen to the former president, as his legal troubles continue to build.
One such person was Maggie Haberman, a White House correspondent for the New York Times. Haberman has covered Trump extensively throughout his rise in politics, presidency, and post-presidency.
Appearing on CNN following news of the lawsuit, Haberman told host John King that, while the investigations into his presidency may look bad, it is the New York lawsuit - the one that is charging his personal brand with fraud - that will hurt him personally.
When King asked Haberman how Trump would take the lawsuit, she replied, "Not happily. Trump has spent decades trying to build up this image as a successful businessman, and has tried to prevent any effort to suggest otherwise...this is something he's tried to bat away for a long time."
"There are many investigations into him. On the one hand, I heard some relief from some people around Trump that there's no criminal charge involved right here," Haberman added. "But they recognize that this goes to Trump's self-image, and Trump's projected image, and this one's going to sting in ways that investigations related to his presidency, frankly just don't bother him as much.
Indeed, Trump has often used his own name and brand to market himself as an extremely successful businessman. However, numerous investigations, including reports from The New Yorker, Esquire, and more, have found that he has often failed in the majority of these businesses.
This includes filing for at least six bankruptcies, according to the Washington Post. The list of companies that have filed for Chapter 11 includes many former Trump casinos, at least three of which were in Atlantic City.
New York Times reporter Susanne Craig was anonymously mailed Donald Trump's tax information during the 2016 election after the candidate pledged that after he was audited he would turn over everything. Trump never turned over anything and it was only thanks to years of lawsuits that even the House Oversight Committee was finally able to see the information. She has become among the go-to people when it comes to investigating the finances of Trump and his businesses.
Speaking to MSNBC on a panel of reporters and experts about the New York attorney general's announcement Wednesday, Craig explained that the piece of AG Letitia James' investigation that will be difficult for Trump to explain is his appraiser.
Typically when someone buys a property or asks for a loan there is an appraiser who calculates the value of the property or any assets being put up for collateral. Trump got appraisals from the company commercial real estate brokerage Cushman & Wakefield, but went on to ignore their numbers, the court filing says.
"You hear a lot of hyperbole, 'I've got the best building, I've got the best golf course,'" she said of Trump's brags. "And he says that a lot. So, why has this become a criminal issue? And in these case, I got to tell you, they are very hard to prove with valuations. And the reason why, is people like Donald Trump and other people when they come in, they have a valuation that's usually been prepared by an outside company. Cushman & Wakefield in this case. It could be any company that you go to and get an appraisal. You can say I relied on outside advice."
Appraisal groups walk through the way that they were able to estimate the value based on comparable properties, etc, which puts the burden on them if it proves to be radically different from reality. But in Trump's case, he essentially crafted his own appraisals.
"What I found powerful" Craig continued, "the attorney general mentioned it in her remarks, which is he had professional advice and he ignored it. And went with another number. And that's where they got that over and over and over. I'm still going through it, but I found cases already, where you're seeing that. That's where he gets into big trouble, where he had an appraiser come in and say, this building's worth $100 million, and he said no, it's worth $180, and that's the document that went to the bank. That's the sort of stuff that I was getting excited about when I was reading it."
See the conversation below.
Trump is in big trouble -- here's why youtu.be