'The game is over, but we won the game'

'Law enforcement has secured the scene'

'Get the phones out of school'

'I don‘t understand'

'As officers went ahead and took him into custody he basically spontaneously told the officers, 'yeah, I know what I did, I needed to teach him a lesson'

'What are you talking about, Peter?'

'My surgeon wasn’t one of them that does the pose-for-a-picture-right-after-surgery thing'

Officers allegedly found the baby placed in the stroller on top of live maggots

A federal court is declaring that employers must cover gender transition surgeries for their employees in their health insurance plans. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled last week that a refusal by an employer to cover gender transition surgeries in an employee’s health insurance violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.” In the court’s majority opinion, Clinton-appointed Judge Charles R. Wilson wrote, “Generally, discrimination in the Title VII context occurs when an employer intentionally treats an employee worse than other similarly situated employees.” Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, he then explained that “an employer who discriminates based on transgender status is intentionally treating that employee differently ‘because of their sex.’” The case began when Anna Lange, a biological male who identifies as a woman, sought a gender transition surgery in 2018. Lange had at the time been employed by the Houston County Sheriff’s Office in Georgia for more than 10 years. Houston County’s health insurance plan, which also covers employees of the Sheriff’s Office, excludes coverage of “[d]rugs for sex change surgery” and “[s]ervices and supplies for a sex change and/or the reversal of a sex change … .” Lange filed an appeal with Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the organization which administers Houston County’s health insurance plan, but was denied. Lange also petitioned the Houston County Board of Supervisors to remove the exclusion before finally filing a lawsuit against Houston County and the Sheriff of Houston County, claiming violations of Title VII, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. A district court ruled in Lange’s favor regarding the Title VII violation, but determined that Houston County did not violate the ADA. At trial, a jury awarded Lange $60,000 in damages and the court permanently barred Houston County and the Sheriff’s Office from enforcing or applying the exclusion in its health insurance plan. Houston County and the Sheriff’s Office then sought a stay of the order from the 11th Circuit Court, which was denied. In his opinion last week, Wilson wrote, “[W]e conclude that the district court was correct in finding that the Exclusion violated Title VII. There is no genuine dispute of fact or law as to whether the Exclusion unlawfully discriminates against Lange and other transgender persons.” He continued, “The Exclusion is a blanket denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery. Health Plan participants who are transgender are the only participants who would seek gender-affirming surgery. Because transgender persons are the only plan participants who qualify for gender-affirming surgery, the plan denies health care coverage based on transgender status.” Trump-appointed Judge Andrew L. Brasher dissented from the majority, arguing that the exclusion of gender transition surgeries from the health insurance plan was not discriminatory toward employees who identify as transgender but “is consistent with the pattern in the rest of the insurance plan: it covers medically necessary treatments, but excludes particularly expensive, top-of-the-line procedures.” Brasher wrote, “Lange argues, and the majority holds, that excluding sex-change operations on the face of this policy necessarily means that the County is intentionally discriminating against transgender people because of sex. I disagree.” He continued, “Although the policy does not cover sex-change surgeries, it doesn’t treat anyone differently based on sex, gender nonconformity, or transgender status.” “Unlike the employees in Bostock, who were fired because they identified with a gender different from their natal sex, this health insurance plan does not deny medical coverage to participants ‘simply for being … transgender,’” Brasher reasoned. “The County’s insurance plan covers transgender people and provides treatments for gender dysphoria. Lange’s sex is not relevant to the County’s insurer at all. All that matters is whether Lange is asking the insurer to pay for the constellation of medical procedures known as a ‘sex change.’” “The exclusion for sex change surgery is consistent with other exclusions for treatments for sexual dysfunction, cosmetic surgery, bariatric surgery, and the like. And the exclusion applies equally to sex change reversals,” Brasher further argued (emphasis in original). “If the plan discriminated against participants because of gender stereotypes, it would cover procedures to align a participant’s physical characteristics with those of his or her natal sex. Instead, the plan refuses to pay for a suite of medical procedures whether the goal is to align with natal sex or differ from natal sex.” The majority opinion says that it doesn’t matter that the insurance plan covers transgender people and gender dysphoria because an employer “is not shielded from liability when it engages in discriminatory practices concerning some treatment and not others.” But the majority is missing the point. The point is that, on the face of the plan, it does not draw a line between procedures transgender people need and procedures that other people need. Instead, the plan draws a line between sex-change operations and other operations. In his majority opinion, Wilson attempted to address Brasher’s argument. “According to the dissent, ‘the plan draws a line between sex-change operations and other operations.’ … But this kind of line-drawing is precisely what makes the plan discriminatory,” Wilson claimed. “By drawing a line between gender-affirming surgery and other operations, the plan intentionally carves out an exclusion based on one’s transgender status. Lange’s sex is inextricably tied to the denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery.” Wilson further argued, “An employer is not shielded from liability when it engages in discriminatory practices concerning some treatment and not others. Each instance of discrimination presents an independent violation. … If we were to find otherwise, Title VII would be rendered obsolete.” He concluded, “The Exclusion is a facially discriminatory policy, and its harmful effects are not mitigated by the existence of other nondiscriminatory policies.” In his dissent, Brasher noted the flaws he saw in the majority’s opinion, claiming that Wilson’s reasoning doesn’t “equalize fringe benefits,” but instead “treats certain people more favorably than others. Under the majority’s view, an insurance policy can exclude coverage for obesity. It can decline to cover cosmetic procedures to hide scars and repair mastectomies. It can even decline to cover expensive, lifesaving cancer treatment.” Brasher added, “But an employer-provided insurance plan must always cover every treatment for gender dysphoria. There is no basis in the text of Title VII for that result.” “For this policy to facially discriminate against transgender people, coverage under the policy must turn on sex, a gender stereotype, or transgender status. It doesn’t,” Brasher concluded. “Because the exclusion is not facially discriminatory under Title VII, I would reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment, vacate the permanent injunction, and remand for further proceedings.” In a news release, the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund touted the majority ruling as a “historic win.” Of note, the fund boasted that the Civil Rights Office of the U.S. Department of Justice had filed an amicus brief in support of Lange. Originally published at WashingtonStand.com The post Health Insurance Plan Can’t Exclude Gender Transition Surgeries, Court Rules appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Next month, companies will add rainbow flags to their icons and logos, the White House will hold events celebrating LGBTQ individuals, and Target and other stores will likely promote rainbow-themed merchandise. Amid all this “Pride,” the men and women who rejected a homosexual lifestyle will be forgotten. Why should “Pride” have the entire month of June? That’s a question Jennifer Roback Morse, president of the Ruth Institute, asked herself. She came to the conclusion that if so much of America’s culture is going to celebrate people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, she might as well highlight the Americans who rejected those identities. Morse has christened the first Sunday in June (which is June 2 this year) “Ex-Gay Visibility Day,” in a fitting response to the White House’s commemoration of “Transgender Day of Visibility.” “It’s not politically correct to talk about ex-LGBT people,” Morse says in a press release provided early to The Daily Signal. “To the gay lobby, they don’t exist, or they’re just lying to themselves or were never really gay in the first place. But I have met many people who have journeyed away from an LGBT identity and are living happy, fulfilled lives with opposite-sex partners.” Morse mentions research from Father Paul Sullins, a Roman Catholic priest, senior research associate at The Ruth Institute, and former sociology professor at Catholic University, who found that sexual orientation is more malleable than LGBTQ activists claim. The “born this way” narrative doesn’t match up with the results of Sullins’ research. Sullins previously told The Daily Signal that he doesn’t encourage lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to try to change their sexual orientation unless they feel uncomfortable about it. He emphasized that efforts to change sexual orientation don’t always work, but—contrary to the LGBTQ narrative—they do occasionally succeed. “When people attempt to change sexual orientation, it is fully successful in my studies about 17 to 20% of the time,” Sullins said. “Most persons who undergo it, meaning about 60 to 65%, report that they are less caught up in homosexual attractions and behaviors and activity.” Sullins noted that about 30% of the 1,500 lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in a 2020 study on sexual orientation said that they have tried to change their sexual orientation and about 10% said they agreed with this statement: “If I could be completely heterosexual, I would want to do that.” “So there is a minority of the gay population who wants to change, is not happy with living the way that they’re living,” Sullins said. As Roman Catholics, both Morse and Sullins consider homosexual activity to be a sin, but they’re not supporting Ex-Gay Visibility Day to shame those who identify as LGBTQ. They say they merely intend to highlight the fact that there are options for people who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria (the painful and persistent feeling of identifying with the gender opposite one’s biological sex), even if they are uncomfortable with their feelings. The White House is so dedicated to the LGBTQ movement that it chose Good Friday (the day Western Christians commemorate Jesus’ Crucifixion) as the day to release a statement commemorating Transgender Day of Visibility, which coincided this year with Easter Sunday, the holiest day on the Western Christian calendar. The White House played off this timing as a coincidence, but it shocked many Americans, especially Roman Catholics. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns the ideology behind the transgender movement.) President Joe Biden is unlikely to celebrate Ex-Gay Visibility Day, however, even though it doesn’t coincide with a more popular holiday. Biden touted “transgender leaders” whom he appointed to serve in the federal government, but he is unlikely to mention any ex-gays or detransitioners. These heretics give the lie to the LGBTQ movement’s claim that it offers the only solution for those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. They are living proof that it is possible to reject the movement and they’re often dismissed as irrelevant, so a day of visibility arguably makes far more sense for them than it does for transgender individuals, who enjoy a chorus of support from companies, stores, and government bodies. The Ruth Institute will release videos about ex-gays and detransitioners over the coming month, but especially June 2, to present hope for anyone who wants another answer. Sadly, it seems Biden, Target, and their allies would prefer that these people remain invisible. The post Finally, a ‘Visibility Day’ For the People the LGBTQ Movement Finds Inconvenient appeared first on The Daily Signal.