Yes, yes, you complain that other people don't post enough sources while also not bothering to read it when people post sources, we get it. If you can't see the relevance, well, that would appear to be because you don't want to. Otherwise you'd be able to make a more solid argument than quibbling about semantics and "well technically if you look at the exact meaning of this one word and ignore centuries of precedent and court rulings..." like this.Okay... Well, you linked to a different subsection of the article, so I was assuming that was the part you were considering relevant. That said, I did see that but didn't really see the relevance. If anything it seems to disagree with your claim. I mean, look at the last paragraph of the bit you've quoted? It can equally well be phrased as "since the early 1900s, executive orders are announced and documented." Or earlier where it says "Initially, they took no set form and so they varied as to form and substance." (Emphasis added.)
It's quite ironic that your claims are entirely fabricated here, disinformation spread to cover over censorship of the truth.I'd also point out that the entire article makes clear, right from the beginning, an executive order is an instruction to government. They concern the functioning of the federal executive. There was no such instruction here, nor was there action by the federal government. The action was taken by the democratic party, and it's entirely unsupported conjecture to suggest it was on Biden's instruction. Personally, I would guess that more likely than not it wasn't his idea or even something he was particularly involved in planning or enacting.
The Trump-appointed judge pointed out that while ‘Congress could have included 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' in the statutory text,’ it ‘chose not to.’
AMARILLO, Texas (LifeSiteNews) — A federal judge on Friday shot down the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) transgender policy, delivering a win for healthcare workers opposed to providing so-called “gender-affirming” care for “transgender” patients.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, ruled November 11 that federal law does not prohibit healthcare providers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, contrary to the Biden administration’s interpretation of an Obamacare provision, Reuters reported.
The Biden administration’s HHS announced in May 2021 it would reinterpret the policy in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which declared that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in addition to biological sex.
In his Friday decision, however, Kacsmaryk said the Biden administration’s interpretation of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was erroneous, since the Bostock ruling “does not apply to Section 1557 or Title IX.”
According to the Trump-appointed judge, the HHS’ arguments attempting to “retroactively apply Bostock” to Section 1557 were “unpersuasive.” He pointed out that while “Congress could have included ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ in the statutory text,” it “chose not to.”
“Instead, Congress limited Section 1557’s protections to those afforded by other federal statutes — including Title IX. Because Title IX does not protect ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity’ status, neither does Section 1557,” Kacsmaryk wrote.
The decision came after two Texas-based doctors represented by the conservative America First Legal Foundation filed a class action lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s May 2021 interpretation of Section 1557.
Dr. Susan Neese and Dr. James Hurly argued in the suit that the Biden administration’s transgender policy exceeded the scope of the law and would inhibit their ability to appropriately perform their medical duties and receive funding.
In the suit, Dr. Neese expressed concern she would be barred from refusing to prescribe transgender hormone drugs to minors “in situations where a patient’s denial of biological realities will endanger their life or safety.”
Dr. Hurley shared that he “has encountered situations” in which he was forced to “insist that a patient acknowledge his biological sex rather than the gender identity that he asserts” in order to provide adequate treatment. In an example, he said he treated a man who suffered from prostate cancer but identified as a woman. Hurley told the man that “he was indeed a biological man with a prostate, and that he needed to seek urgent medical care … ”
The Friday decision comes as conservatives have seemingly made gains in their fight against radical transgender ideology and its far-reaching impacts on healthcare, education, law, and the physical and emotional well-being of minors and adults.
Revelations regarding ongoing transgender medical interventions for minors have spurred a thriving political movement encompassing parents, school boards, and politicians to protect children against chemical castration and physical mutilation.
Late last month, the Florida Board of Medicine’s legislative committee voted to ban transgender drugs and surgeries for minors statewide.
Last week, Tennessee lawmakers introduced legislation to ban puberty blockers, “sex change” hormones, and transgender surgeries for minors throughout the state. The move came after Catholic Daily Wire podcaster Matt Walsh released a bombshell report in September revealing that Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville was performing mutilating gender surgeries on minors, a practice it saw as a “huge money maker.”
In an October 28 letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona urged that officials investigate the actual science behind so-called “Gender Affirming Care” for minors.
“Gender-affirming care (GAC) includes the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones that can lead to infertility and other serious permanent medical maladies,” Gosar wrote, adding that the “removal of sexual organs,” which “is also considered GAC … is obviously irreversible.”
“That any of these surgeries and treatments are being provided to minors is nothing short of child abuse,” he argued
Even as someone who thinks the UN has a purpose, the organisation has clearly forgotten it and vastly exceeded it. The United Nations is meant to be a place where countries may air and resolve their grievances without resorting to another horrific war.Vaccine requirements are already in place by country. This is just an unnecessary step/rule in order to give more control to the WHO/UN and take it away from sovereign states.
Down with the UN.
Digital currency, universal ID, central bank, AI monitoring, social credit score.Even as someone who thinks the UN has a purpose, the organisation has clearly forgotten it and vastly exceeded it. The United Nations is meant to be a place where countries may air and resolve their grievances without resorting to another horrific war.
It was never meant to be a global government.
That aside, I wouldn’t worry too much about this lot, chaps. If the Caesars could not govern the world, then how can these far lesser men do it?
Oh jesus fuckDr. Hurley shared that he “has encountered situations” in which he was forced to “insist that a patient acknowledge his biological sex rather than the gender identity that he asserts” in order to provide adequate treatment. In an example, he said he treated a man who suffered from prostate cancer but identified as a woman. Hurley told the man that “he was indeed a biological man with a prostate, and that he needed to seek urgent medical care … ”
The only one it is going to help is the aristocracy in suppressing you.Would really help the Ukrainians against the Russians lol. If they can be mass produced in the millions.