Another Law Maker Wants To Screw Us.

A Republican Congressman wants to strip all of gains with a bill he is proposing…

This Lawmaker Wants To Make Absolutely Sure No Law Protects Transgender People
Rep. Pete Olson just wants to make sure everything’s “uniform.”
Think Progress
By Zack Ford
August 19, 2016

This week, the General Services Administration issued a notice ensuring that transgender individuals will have access to facilities to bathrooms that match their identity in more than 9,000 federal buildings and offices. It’s the latest move from the Obama Administration toward recognizing that nondiscrimination protections based on “sex” apply to trans people, but one lawmaker wants to end all of this “executive overreach.”

Congressman Pete Olson (R-TX) filed a bill last month that would eliminate the foundation for these protections. HR 5812 serves only one purpose: clarifying that transgender people do not enjoy protections under the law.

He gave his bill the cute title `Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2016.' And this is what the proposed law says,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Civil Rights Uniformity Act of
2016.''
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.
    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) Over the past half century, Congress has passed         numerous civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the  basis of ``sex,'' a designation long understood to be grounded in objective biology up to the present day. There is no evidence that Congress or the American people ever understood the word sex or gender in civil rights laws to include subjective self-identification.
            (2) For years, advocates have pressed Congress to include a person's subjective self-declared ``gender identity'' in Federal civil rights laws that prohibit sex discrimination. Congress has declined to do so except for the Shepard-Byrd Act of 2009 and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 where gender identity is defined as ``actual or perceived gender-related characteristics'' with ``gender'', there referring to characteristics associated with biological males  and females.
            (3) This demonstrates that when Congress wants to protect sex, it does so explicitly; when it wants to also elevate gender identity it does so explicitly; and when it does not want to elevate gender identity, it can do so either explicitly or by simply not disturbing the status quo.
            (4) Despite the complete clarity of this point, President Barack Obama's administration has attempted to effectively replace the word ``sex'' with the phrase ``gender identity'' for purposes of Federal antidiscrimination law and policy through a series of unilateral executive actions.
            (5) For example, on December 15, 2014, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would reinterpret the ban on ``sex'' discrimination under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to encompass ``gender identity.'' This was followed on March 27, 2015, by an Equal
        Employment Opportunity Commission decision holding that declining to use a female pronoun to address a male who identifies as female constituted ``sex'' discrimination under title VII.
            (6) On May 9, 2016, the Obama administration sued the State of North Carolina and threatened it with fines and loss of Federal funding if it did not adopt the administration's incorrect readings of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
            (7) On May 13, 2016, the Departments of Justice and Education issued a ``significant guidance'' letter stating that under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ``when a school provides sex-segregated activities and facilities, transgender students must be allowed to participate in such activities and access such facilities consistent with their gender identity.'' The guidance further states that schools ``must treat a student's gender identity as the student's sex'' including in the context of ``sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, housing, and athletic teams, as well as single-sex classes.'' In other words, the Departments consider it a title IX violation if a person of the male sex who self-identifies as a female is not granted unfettered access to women's or girls' dorms, showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms. This, despite assurance that such a thing would never happen from the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg who wrote in 1975 that ``separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.'' This position was codified in Federal regulations, 34 CFR 106.33, which state that recipients of Federal funds ``may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex,'' with sex obviously referring to biology.
            (8) Also on May 13, 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services finalized regulations that redefined the Affordable Care Act's prohibition on ``sex'' discrimination in federally funded health programs and activities to cover ``gender identity'', thereby opening health care professionals and insurers to extensive liability if they decline to participate in or pay for ``gender transition'' treatments or ``sex change'' operations.
            (9) The Obama administration's actions are an affront to the rule of law, the separation of powers, the will of the people, language, history, safety, privacy, and biological realities.

Notice what is missing in his “Findings” he doesn’t say anything about abut the Supreme Court ruling in the Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, there is nothing about all the other courts’ rulings… zip, noting. It makes it sound like these regulations where pulled out of a hat instead of based on law. It is based on an archaic definition of sex and gender.

So this is what he is proposing…

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF POLICIES REDEFINING SEX TO MEAN GENDER IDENTITY.
    (a) Rule of Construction.--In determining the meaning of any Federal civil rights law, and of any related ruling, regulation, guidance, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ``sex'' and ``gender'' and their equivalents shall not be interpreted to mean ``gender identity'' or its equivalent, and the words ``man'' and ``woman'' and their equivalents shall refer exclusively to a person's sex.
    (b) Rule of Interpretation.--No Federal civil rights law shall be interpreted to treat gender identity or transgender status as a protected class, unless such law expressly designates ``gender identity'' or ``transgender status'' as a protected class.
    (c) Definition of ``Federal Civil Rights Law''.--For purposes of this Act, the term ``Federal civil rights law'' means any Federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, including title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), and any other Federal law or provision thereof prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.

When you vote this November think about this, the only thing that will stop legislation like this from a Republican controlled Congress is the President. If the Republicans control both Congress and the Presidency we will see a rash of legislation within the first month to unleash their hate against us to repeal all the human rights that we have won in the last eight years: marriage equality, LGBT people in the military, in employment, housing, and education we will see laws passed to mandate anyone to discriminate against just by saying it is against their religion.

---

This morning I am up UConn School of Social Work as a guest lecturer.