“Listen to the Science!”
I’m definitely left wondering what the responses would be. Especially if these responses address recent policy recommendations being heralded from many of the Democrats most-admired government institutions.
Cutting Off The Tap…Literally!
Recently the World Health Organization (WHO), a group that Donald Trump left and Joe Biden rejoined, signaled for the end of the party. In fact, it’s ‘no more nightlife’ just as bars are beginning to reopen, post-Covid. The WHO recommends banning women from consuming alcohol, in general.
The UK Daily Mail reports:
Its latest Global Alcohol Action Plan calls on countries to raise awareness of alcohol-related harm and its harmful use.
Women of childbearing age should be banned from drinking alcohol, says the World Health Organization.
A first draft of the plan says ‘appropriate attention’ should be given to the prevention of drinking in children, pregnant women and women of childbearing age.
Also, the draft guidance warns that booze is associated increased disease, poor mental health, violence, lost productivity and strained relationships.
And it adds: ‘One of the most dramatic manifestations of harm to persons other than drinkers is pre-natal alcohol exposure and the development of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.’
The drinks industry described the proposal as paternalistic and sexist.
So much for “My body, my rights.”
It could have come from an old Happy Days plot.
The Biden Administration supports legislation that, in its current wording, is interpreted as ‘green-lighting law enforcement’ to stop women for any reason.
National Review explains:
The Biden administration is now supporting HR 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which among other things contains the “End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2021.” That part of the proposed law declares, “No law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall engage in racial profiling.” Who could be against that? Well, as is often the case with legislation, the devil is in the details. Hans Bader writes at Liberty Unyielding that there are two glaring problems with this prohibition, especially when you combine the two. The first defines in Section 312 how “racial profiling” is proven in court:
Proof that the routine or spontaneous investigatory activities of law enforcement agents in a jurisdiction have had a disparate impact on individuals with a particular characteristic described in section 302(6) shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of this part.
You read that right: “disparate impact” alone is enough to prove profiling.
Because the statute doesn’t define “disparate impact,” it would presumably be read by the courts in the usual way, to mean any disparity in the rate of being stopped or investigated among different groups.
The statute defines “routine or spontaneous investigatory activities” to include “interviews, traffic stops, pedestrian stops, frisks and other types of body searches” and “data collection and analysis,” among other things. The statute says that this is “prima facie evidence,” which means it is enough to prove guilt, but allows the defendant to present a defense. What defense would be enough? The bill doesn’t say.
The defense would apparently have to prove a negative on any of the prohibited characteristics set forth in Section 302(6)(A):
The term “racial profiling” means the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any degree, on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure, except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person with a particular characteristic described in this paragraph to an identified criminal incident or scheme.
Proving a negative in court is not just hard, it’s expensive, and the law additionally allows profiling suits to be brought against individual cops and their supervisors as well as departments, and it saddles a losing defendant with the plaintiff’s legal fees, which only escalate the further a case gets into the facts.
So there will be a powerful incentive to avoid disparate impact in stops even when there is a disparate rate of committing actual crimes. Simple math tells us what that means: more stops of innocent people in order to keep the stop rates even, or fewer stops of actual criminals.
Where was The Squad’s press conference? Why isn’t Rachel Maddow bemoaning the sexism? What happened to infamous 2017-2018 women’s rights advocate Stormy Daniels? How come the #MeToo Movement is quiet on this?
According to a tentative plan, half of the proposed Democrats-only alternative would be paid for. About $2.5 trillion would go through the Finance Committee, $185 billion through the Energy Committee and almost $500 billion through the Environment and Public Works Committee, one source said, while emphasizing that the discussions are fluid. The dollar amount, however, is likely to shrink as moderates weigh in. At the moment, it appears impossible that all 50 Democrats would get on board with such a large figure.
The details of the bigger plan come as a bipartisan group of senators, led by Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Rob Portman, released details this week of an infrastructure plan that costs about $973 billion over five years or $1.2 trillion over eight. The plan would include $579 billion in new spending, and pay-fors include repurposing unused Covid relief funds, imposing a surcharge on electric vehicles, and expanding use of state and local funds for coronavirus relief.
Sen. Mark Warner laughed when asked if the $6 trillion number is too high. He said he was “open” to reconciliation but wants increases to the corporate income tax and capital gains to be more modest than as presented by Biden.
Except what only a few people knew, there is wording hidden deep within the legislation that has just been uncovered:
Women shall be presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged individuals for the purposes of this subsection.
What does it mean? Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act explains:
Socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities. Or any other individual found to be disadvantaged by the Administration pursuant to section 8(a) of the Small business Act.
It also defines “Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals” as:
The term `socially and economically disadvantaged individuals’ has the meaning such term has under section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) and relevant subcontracting regulations promulgated pursuant thereto; except that women shall be presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged individuals for the purposes of this subsection.
‘Maverick’ Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene broke this story, and was offended:
She expanded further with Tucker Carlson:
No word yet if the military is going to adopt any similar policies.
You’re Outta There! Literally.
The controversy of Trans-athletes in women sports has been erupting for awhile now. It is not simply the case of someone reassigning their gender to female.
NBC News explains:
A new study suggests transgender women maintain an athletic advantage over their cisgender peers even after a year on hormone therapy.
Thus, the results, published last month in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, could mean the current one-year waiting period for Olympic athletes who are transitioning is inadequate.
They also had records on when the subjects started testosterone or estrogen, the type of hormone used and the number of days from when treatment began to when their hormone levels reached the normal adult range for a cisgender person.
Unsurprisingly, testosterone affected the fitness scores of the transgender men they reviewed: Prior to starting hormones, they performed fewer pushups and had slower running times than the cisgender men in the control group. A year into treatment, though, those differences disappeared.
This is giving trans-women athletes a lopsided advantage over naturally-born women when competing in sports competition.
They have pointed to the biological advantages of those who have gone through puberty as males. Little things, such as increased bone and muscle density.
Breaking athletic records can lead to full-ride college scholarships at major universities, and a chance to compete on a national/global stage. The winning of a National Championship, or an Olympic medal, has the potential to lead to massive endorsement deals. When it’s all added together, that is millions of dollars that naturally-born cisgender women would be denied due to how they were born.
“This is a question of fairness. That’s why I oppose biological boys who are trans competing in girls’ sports in school,” said Jenner, a Republican who is one of the most high-profile transgender Americans in public life. “It just isn’t fair. And we have to protect girls’ sports in our schools.”
She did not answer a follow-up question from the reporter about whether that view delegitimizes the identity of children who transition and now identify as girls.
Jenner, who won a gold medal in the 1976 Olympics, added in a tweet: “I didn’t expect to get asked this on my Saturday morning coffee run, but I’m clear about where I stand. It’s an issue of fairness and we need to protect girls’ sports in our schools.”
Called WHAT Now?!?!
It sounds like something from a bad SNL sketch. A really bad SNL sketch.
The Biden Administration officially declared the words ‘Woman(en)’ and “Mother” no longer exist, and considers the use of those words as a form of intolerant sexism.
Biden’s budget would literally erase the word “mother” and replace it with the woke and watered-down term “birthing people” in relation to maternal health.
Why does Biden want to cancel mothers? pic.twitter.com/SiZGqmmxkX
— Jessica Anderson (@JessAnderson2) June 7, 2021
The administration’s Maternal Health Guidance in the 2022 fiscal year budget included a public health document that addressed efforts to “reduce maternal mortality rates and end race-based disparities in maternal mortality.”
The Biden administration’s budget includes a public health section which addresses efforts to “reduce maternal mortality rates and end race-based disparities in maternal mortality.”
The budget specifically addresses racial disparities between Black, American Indian/Alaska Native and other women of color. But it is the replacement of the word mother with birthing people that drew the ire of conservative think tank leaders and right-wing media members Monday following the release of Biden’s budget.
The pro-choice nonprofit NARAL defended use of the term, tweeting, “When we talk about birthing people, we’re being inclusive. It’s that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy. Because it’s not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body.”
Recently Elle Magazine wrote:
While I’m all for any opportunity to celebrate the joy I feel at being a father, and I imagine mothers – whether they’re the non-biological mum in a lesbian relationship, or have created their family with the help of adoption or surrogacy – feel the same about their ‘special day’, I can’t help but wonder if having a separate Mother’s and Father’s Day is just perpetuating all this unhelpful gendering of parenthood.
Maybe it’s time we scrapped Mother’s Day and Father’s Day all together and simply celebrate a more inclusive ‘Parents Day’.
Though without the naff, sexist tropes of ‘motherhood’ and ‘fatherhood’ to rely on for imagery, what on earth would greetings cards companies do?
Accordingly, the efforts to mend American society’s past sins, a bulk of what has made America a unique societal melting pot is being thrown out with the bathwater. In the end, this long term damage will harm our long cherished cultural values.