Smoke & Mirrors

This guy was a strong anti-LGBTQ Republican... hard core.

He introduced the law banned Pride flags and non-official flags from being displayed in public schools and government buildings! He sponsored legislation targeting transgender individuals, including bills attempting to restrict transgender people from working as teachers, proposals to eliminate gender identity provisions from state documents, and efforts regarding birth certificates and public bathrooms!

But you have to wonder... was a it a all to hide his crimes?

Breaking: State Rep. Trevor Lee charged with four felonies related to alleged mortgage fraud

The firebrand representative immediately resigned his legislative seat after being charged by the Utah Attorney General’s Office.

Salt Lake Tribune

By Robert Gehrke, Emily Anderson Stern, and Addy Baird

Sep. 28, 2026

The Utah Attorney General’s Office has charged state Rep. Trevor Lee with two counts of fraud and two forgery-related counts stemming from allegedly falsified documents related to the mortgage on his Layton home.

Lee, a 35-year-old Republican who lost his reelection bid in the June primary, promptly resigned his House seat after the charges were filed in 3rd District Court. The Salt Lake Tribune confirmed in July that the attorney general’s office was investigating Lee.

[...]

The charges accuse Lee of having falsified a contract with a company named Enevive — including forging the signature of its CEO — purporting to show that he made $168,000 annually from the business in order to get a $1 million home loan from Kind Lending last year.

It seems like our worst critics are crocks crooks.

Off The Deep End

Well the Republicans finally went off the deep end of there hate for us... DNA testing! This is sick!

Idaho’s transgender bathroom ban is now the law. How will police enforce it? That’s still unclear.

To prove someone’s biological sex, law enforcement official sees DNA tests as unpractical, and inspecting people’s naked bodies as unlikely

Idaho Capital Sun

By Kyle Pfannenstiel

July 13, 2026

As parts of Idaho’s criminal transgender bathroom ban are now in effect, how far will law enforcement officers have to go to enforce the new law?

What if officers don’t believe a person’s gender markers on IDs?

Will they inspect people’s naked bodies to prove their biological sex? Do they need a warrant for that? 

Will they use DNA testing to prove someone’s sex? At what point in an investigation under the law will that testing take place? 

These questions echo concerns that high-ranking law enforcement officials shared with state lawmakers on the bill, which some said would be difficult to enforce and might require invasive methods. Now, more than a week into the law taking effect, some are confronting the realities of how they’d handle reports of the law being broken.

So this Pink News popped up on Facebook yesterday...

Idaho officials tell judge they can use DNA testing to enforce trans bathroom laws

Jun 11

by Poppy-Jay St. Palmer

Idaho officials have told a federal judge that they can use DNA testing to enforce strict trans bathroom laws in the state.

In Idaho, transgender people are required by law to use public bathrooms and changing facilities of the sex they were assigned at birth.

[...]

According to the Idaho Capital Sun, US District Judge Amanda Brailsford asked officials how they could expect to enforce the bathroom law when many trans people now carry ID that corresponds with their correct gender.

Idaho Solicitor General Michael Zarian then told the judge that it shouldn’t be too difficult “because there is DNA testing.”

Okay, let that sink in... do they mean that each and every person going to the bathroom will be tested? Or just the women who do not look feminine enough for the gender police?

Olson [Lambda Legal attorney] expanded on the pitfalls of the new law while speaking to reporters after the hearing. “If I just go to a restaurant with my family and want to wash my hands before dinner, this law comes into play. Now I have to stop and decide, do I – if this law is in effect – do I go into the restroom that is illegal now, the men’s room?” he asked.

“Or do I walk into the women’s room and take all of the risk that that now comes with, whether that’s assault or harassment, or someone calling the police, because now it looks like I’m violating the law?”

These Republicans have their anger focus so tightly on trans that they don't even think of trans men! Back in August in Kansas a bunch of trans men show how absurd these laws are.

Transgender men in Kansas 'compliance crew' use women's bathrooms to protest state law

The group of trans men use women’s bathrooms in publicly owned facilities, which is required by Kansas law, to highlight what they say are flaws in the bathroom bill.

Kansas Public Radio

By Zach Boblitt

August 20, 2026

A group of transgender men are highlighting the confusion caused by a new Kansas law that requires them to use the women’s restroom in publicly owned facilities.

The transgender men have gathered at locations across Kansas to do a sort of protest by complying with the law. They use the women's bathroom — the restroom of their assigned biological sex at birth.

The SB244 Compliance Crew — named after the bathroom ban bill that became law earlier this year — went to a library in Emporia, a swimming pool in Garden City and water parks in Dodge City and Great Bend.

The gender police is out there enforcing the "Gender Norms" beware!

The Bogeyman!

[Essay]

The Republicans are falling back on their tried-and-true approach of attacking the bogeyman: trans athletes, immigrants, minorities, and other marginalized groups.

They want to distract voters from their issues and redirect their anger at us! Never mind the war, never mind the economy, never mind the ballooning deficit. We are the real causes of all the woes in the country!

The Republicans know that they can’t win on the issues, so they are like the wizard in The Wizard of Oz, distracting voters to keep them from looking behind the curtain.

But for them, it will be a losing strategy. The voters have seen behind the curtain.

So the Republicans fall back on their second strategy… cheat! Block voters who usually vote liberal, rearrange the voting districts to give themselves an edge, and do away with Black-majority voting districts, while the Supreme Court has started dismantling the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This November, the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. It will determine whether we go down the road to the “isms”—fascism, authoritarianism, oligarchism—or whether we continue with this great experiment in democracy.

We cannot let the Republicans scare us with their bogeyman.

[/Essay]

Here We Go Again!

[Editorial;

Bathrooms, bathrooms, bathrooms! Back in the Jim Crow era, it was bathrooms… “Oh, my little Janie will be in a bathroom with a Black lady!” That was the cry all the way up to the 1960s when Civil Rights legislation started to pass (now the Supreme Court is dismantling a chunk at a time, but more on that in another blog post), and now we are the victims of the same injustice.

In Kansas, the guys are showing the “absurdity” and bigotry of the laws. In Kansas, the guys have come out in our defense!

“Bearded, burly” trans men enter women’s facilities to show “absurdity” of bathroom bans

They’re part of a protest group illustrating the absurdity of Kansas’ anti-trans bathroom ban.

LGBTQ Nation

Daniel Villarreal (he/him)

August 11, 2026

The manager of the Long Branch Lagoon Water Park in Dodge City, Kansas reportedly screamed and rushed children out of the women’s restroom and changing area on August 8 after three self-described “bearded, burly” transgender men wearing yellow “Compliance Crew” t-shirts followed state law and used the municipal facilities matching the sex listed on their birth certificates, trans journalist S. Baum reported.

The men neither removed their clothes nor made any crass comments while in the facility, but they had to provide police “uncomfortable descriptions” about their bodies and genitals in order to avoid arrest. The three are part of an activist group that has been entering girls’ and women’s facilities elsewhere in the state (as required by law) to protest the absurdity of Kansas’ transphobic bathroom ban. The police in this incident had neither heard of the ban’s passage last February nor their expectation to enforce it.

This is how crazy this all is… “neither heard of the ban’s passage last February nor their expectation to enforce it.” Us using bathrooms never had been a problem until they created it.

We need you guys! We need you to keep doing this, get arrested, and sue the pants off of them for false arrest. An opinion article in The New York Times wrote…

“Additionally, please note that the Legislature did not include a grace period for updating credentials,” the letter said. “This means that once the law is officially enacted, your current credential will be invalid immediately.” The law was going into effect the next day.

Kirchstein, who is 41, had transitioned in 2023. She had changed her legal name and her gender marker in the Social Security system, on her passport card and on her Kansas driver’s license. It required jumping through a lot of bureaucratic hoops — the name change alone required a court hearing and proof that Kirchstein had notified her bank, credit card company, landlord and others — but it was worth it, to make it official.

[…]

July: “It was soft fascism.” It was. Fascism usually begins with redefining the nation by excluding certain groups, which are branded threats to national health and unity. The Trump administration has fixated on two groups most of all — immigrants and trans people — in just this way, smearing us (I am a member of both groups) as predatory, sick, at once subhuman and terrifyingly powerful. Even before Donald Trump was elected for the second time, more than half the states had considered or passed legislation limiting the rights of trans people. The process has intensified in the last year and a half, and the law enacted in Kansas in February is one of the most restrictive pieces of anti-trans legislation passed in any state so far.

And they never even thought of trans men… because their transphobia is rooted entirely in misogyny and an obsession with policing women. When they write these laws, they are hyper-focused on controlling women's bodies, meaning trans men completely break their narrow mental models. Their disdain is so great they don't even think of the guys!

But trying to define Mother Nature is impossible.

These laws are not really about us or public safety; instead, they enforce rigid gender norms. Even if they start testing everyone’s DNA, it still will not show a person's true biological sex. For example, the SRY gene is a key part of male sex development. Without it, the developing embryo typically follows a default female developmental path, even though the DNA still shows XY.

Then we have the “gender police” going after women who don’t look like women! I have written about this many times: 2018's Caught Up In Frenzy, 2015's The Bathroom Police…, and back in 2006's Crossing the Gender Norms!

This is nothing more than conservatives trying to enforce their “1950s” anti-LGBTQ+ views upon us. but the modern legislative push goes far beyond simple 1950s conformity—it’s actively authoritarian.

[/Editorial]

Smaller Government.

Wasn't that the Republican manta? How they want to get the government out of you lives. Well now that want to pass a law governing what you can wear to work!

NC GOP lawmaker says she’ll propose law to restrict attire for trans teachers 

News & Observer

By T. Keung Hui

July 28, 2026

State Rep. Erin Paré is proposing legislation to regulate what transgender school employees wear in school after she says the Wake County school system hired a transgender music teacher. In posts Monday on Facebook and X, Paré said she had received emails and phone calls about “the hiring of a transgender biological male, who dresses as a woman music teacher, in one of our local elementary schools.” Paré, a Wake County Republican, said she had contacted the Wake school system to raise concerns about the teacher’s attire on campus.

In posts Monday on Facebook and X, Paré said she had received emails and phone calls about “the hiring of a transgender biological male, who dresses as a woman music teacher, in one of our local elementary schools.” Paré, a Wake County Republican, said she had contacted the Wake school system to raise concerns about the teacher’s attire on campus.

[...]

The Wake County school system responded with a statement Tuesday to The News & Observer. “Under Board Policy 1710, the district prohibits unlawful discrimination while taking into account all requirements in state and federal law,” Wake’s statement said.

Now they are going to spend valuable time in the legislature debating this draconian bill.

You Won One!

Trump & Company backed down because of all of you! You spoke your piece, and they backed off.

Trump administration caves to public pressure after avalanche of opposition to anti-trans hospital rule

More than 30,000 public comments helped derail an HHS proposal that threatened funding for hospitals providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth.

The Advocate

Christopher Wiggins

Jul 14, 2026

A flood of public opposition helped stop one of the Trump administration’s most extreme attempts to force hospitals nationwide to abandon gender-affirming care for transgender young people, offering a rare and instructive victory against a federal government that has otherwise moved aggressively to dismantle trans rights.

The Department of Health and Human Services has abandoned a proposed rule that would have threatened hospitals with the loss of all Medicare and Medicaid funding if they continued to provide transition-related care to minors, NPR was first to report on Monday. The proposal, issued in December, never took effect.

[...]

The administration has not publicly credited the comments for its reversal. But former federal health officials and administrative law experts told The Advocate that the public record created through the comment process can expose legal weaknesses, force agencies to confront evidence they would rather ignore, and make a rule more difficult to defend in court.

You did it! You stood up to Trump's juggernaut and made them blink!

NPR News reported that,

The fact that the Trump administration is backing off from this action is "a victory for people who are defending the rights and interests of trans people," says Sam Bagenstos, a professor at Michigan Law who served as general counsel at HHS under the Biden administration. "But I don't think it indicates a more general retreat from the aggressive posture of the Trump administration."

Bagenstos notes that this type of leverage — a "conditions of participation" rule for the Medicare and Medicaid program — has historically been used by HHS to compel states and hospitals to meet basic health and safety standards. Things like "making sure that you have stockpiles of certain kinds of equipment, making sure that you have certain kinds of emergency protocols, making sure that you have certain staffing ratios," he explains.

The proposed rule is unprecedented, Bagenstos says, because it instead would prohibit certain kinds of treatments for a certain population. He says it seems unlawful in a variety of ways. For one, "it violates the Medicare Act, which says that Medicare and Medicaid can't be used to control the practice of medicine within the state — states get to regulate the practice of medicine," Bagenstos says.

Just to be clear... we won a battle, not the war.

Trump still hates us. They got their hands slapped, but that is all. Still... I think it surprised the hell out of them. They live in their own little fantasy world and think that everyone thinks the same way they do.

Is Big Brother Now A Private Company

I'm heading up to the Cape today... so it is prewritten blogs today!

---

So, have the feds handed over their "Big Brother" surveillance to private companies?

Silent Watchers: The rise of Connecticut’s police camera network

Insider Investigator

Katherine Revello

July 12, 2026

Connecticut has the highest per capita rate of automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras in New England and across other northeastern states, including New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

According to DeFlock, Connecticut ranks twenty-fifth overall for the number of per capita cameras in the state, averaging roughly 1.78 cameras per 10,000 residents. 

Those cameras are maintained by a variety of police departments and private businesses and use artificial intelligence to take pictures of and ‘read’ the license plate and make and model characteristics of every vehicle that goes past. The cameras can be either mounted to roadside infrastructure, like a pole or traffic light, or in the dashboard of a police car.

Every plate read is dumped into a massive database law enforcement can search and check against various crime hotlists. The majority of the data collected and stored is not connected to a crime and is never searched for or viewed by police before it’s purged from the system, often after a 30-day retention period.

That database involves the entire Flock network. As the quote notes, "Every plate read is dumped into a massive database law enforcement can search and check against various crime hotlists." But the problem is that there are errors in this database. Basically, these are warrantless searches!

The Electronic Freedom Foundation writes;

Imagine driving to get your nails done with your family and all of a sudden, you are pulled over by police officers for allegedly driving a stolen car. You are dragged out of the car and detained at gun point. So are your daughter, sister, and nieces. The police handcuff your family, even the children, and force everyone to lie face-down on the pavement, before eventually realizing that they made a mistake. This happened to Brittney Gilliam and her family on a warm Sunday in Aurora, Colorado, in August 2020.

And the error? The police officers who pulled them over were relying on information generated by automated license plate readers (ALPRs). These are high-speed, computer-controlled camera systems that automatically capture all license plate numbers that come into view, upload them to a central server, and compare them to a “hot list” of vehicles sought by police. The ALPR system told the police that Gilliam’s car had the same license plate number as a stolen vehicle. But the stolen vehicle was a motorcycle with Montana plates, while Gilliam’s vehicle was an SUV with Colorado plates.

Couple that with gun-happy ICE agents, and it spells disaster!

Police over-reliance on ALPR systems is also a problem. Detroit police knew that the vehicle used in a shooting was a Dodge Charger. Officers then used ALPR cameras to find the license plate numbers of all Dodge Chargers in the area around the time. One such car, observed fully two miles away from the shooting, was owned by Isoke Robinson.  Police arrived at her house and handcuffed her, placed her 2-year old son in the back of their patrol car, and impounded her car for three weeks. None of the officers even bothered to check her car’s fog lights, though the vehicle used for the  shooting had a missing fog light.

Officers have also abused ALPR databases to obtain information for their own personal gain, for example, to stalk an ex-wife. Sadly, officer abuse of police databases is a recurring problem.

In my town there are twelve reported cameras.

The Institute for Justice also found problems with the data.

But those machine errors account for about one-third of the mistakes in the cases IJ identified. The rest involved human error, with officers entering wrong information into the system or misinterpreting what the ALPR data says.

Last year in San Diego, for instance, officers were searching for a red Alfa Romeo connected to an attempted carjacking. The officers didn’t have a plate and were instead relying on Flock’s “vehicle signature” technology, which captures detailed characteristics of individual cars like make, model, and color. 

The Flock system gave them a positive hit on a superficially matching car—but it was a totally different red Alfa Romeo, located five miles away from the crime at the time it occurred. Officers nevertheless arrested all three of the car’s occupants. One passenger spent nearly a month behind bars during the holidays before officers realized their error and set him free. 

People lives are at stake... there can be no false reporting!

People's lives are at stake—there can be no false reporting!

Also, there have been a number of cases where the police used the data to track ex-girlfriends. The Institute for Justice in another article reported;

An ongoing review of media reports and public records by the Institute for Justice has identified at least 24 cases nationwide of officers allegedly abusing ALPR data this way, with the bulk of those incidents happening since 2024. Nearly all of these officers were criminally charged and lost their jobs, either by resigning or getting fired. 

Flock Safety and other ALPR providers emphasize that they have internal safeguards to prevent this kind of misuse. But only a few of the 24 analyzed cases were initially discovered through internal investigations, according to media reports. Most incidents came to light only after victims reported the officers’ behavior to the police, typically in the context of a broader stalking allegation. 

“The fundamental problem with these systems is that they place private information about people’s movements over time in the hands of every officer,” said Michael Soyfer, an Institute for Justice attorney who is representing residents of San Jose and Norfolk in lawsuits challenging their cities’ ALPR surveillance networks. “Without the constitutional safeguard of a warrant requirement, that predictably allows officers to abuse their access to these systems for things like stalking romantic partners.” 

In an article in the Courthouse News they write;

In a lawsuit, two California drivers have accused tech company Flock Safety of violating state law by allowing out-of-state and federal agencies to access information captured by its automated license-plate recognition (ALPR) cameras.

“Flock has created an Orwellian mass-surveillance infrastructure that is practically impossible to avoid, particularly for anyone operating a vehicle in the towns and cities across this country where Flock has installed its cameras,” the drivers say in their complaint, filed Thursday in state court in San Francisco.

“Flock attempts to evade responsibility and shift liability for its violations by pointing fingers at its own customers,” they claim. “But Flock cannot rely on weaponized incompetence when its obligations under California law are crystal clear.”

They go on to write that various police agencies go around the law by search the databases at the request of ICE and CPB.

The Mountain View Police Department, the plaintiffs say, discovered only recently that federal agencies accessed its cameras’ data through a nationwide search tool. They say this feature was enabled without the police department’s permission or knowledge.

In recent months, the cities of Santa Cruz, Richmond, Mountain View and Los Altos Hills all shut down Flock cameras or terminated their contracts, according to the drivers.

Last October, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued the city of El Cajon over its refusal to comply with state law prohibiting the sharing of license plate data with federal and out-of-state law enforcement agencies.

Here in Connecticut they tried to pass a law but it never made it to the floor of the legislature last session. In the bill HB 5449: AN ACT CONCERNING AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEMS, and it states...

108 (5) Unless authorized pursuant to section 29-6d of the general

109 statutes, collect automated license plate reader data on the premises or

110 within a distance established by the Police Officer Standards and

111 Training Council pursuant to section 2 of this act, of a reproductive or

112 sexual health facility, as defined in section 42-515 of the general statutes,

113 that primarily provides gender-affirming health care services or a

114 nonprofit or community organization that primarily serves immigrant

115 communities, excluding any property under federal jurisdiction,

116 provided such facility or organization notified the Police Officer

117 Standards and Training Council of such facility's or organization's

118 location;

You have to wonder if this is ultimately just a clever way to bypass the Fourth Amendment. After all, it is no longer the government directly collecting your personal data—it is a private company doing the legwork, which then sells access right back to government agencies. When private corporations build massive, unregulated tracking databases that police departments simply "subscribe" to, it creates a dangerous constitutional gray area.

These are, indeed, the new shades of Big Brother.

Wow! Did You Know?

You all know that I follow local politics pretty closely but this got by me and I think a lot of other people also.

Did you know that Connecticut passed a law banning the sale of sensitive personnel information on the internet including us in...

Public Act No. 25-113. AN ACT CONCERNING BROADBAND INTERNET, GAMING, SOCIAL MEDIA, ONLINE SERVICES AND CONSUMER CONTRACTS.

It sound innocuous enough but it has a little gem inside.

[(38)] (39) "Sensitive data" means personal data that includes (A) data revealing (i) racial or ethnic origin, (ii) religious beliefs, (iii) a mental or physical health condition, [or] diagnosis, disability or treatment, (iv) sex life, sexual orientation or status as nonbinary or transgender, or (v)citizenship or immigration status, (B) consumer health data, (C) [the processing of] genetic or biometric data [for the purpose of uniquely identifying an individual] or information derived therefrom, (D) personal data collected from [a known] an individual the controller has actual knowledge, or wilfully disregards, is a child, (E) data concerning an individual's status as a victim of crime, as defined in section 1-1k, [or] (F) precise geolocation data, (G) neural data, (H) a consumer's financial account number, financial account log-in information or credit card or debit card number that, in combination with any required access or security code, password or credential, would allow access to a consumer's financial account, or (I) government-issued identification number, including, but not limited to, Social Security number, passport number, state identification card number or driver's license number, of that applicable law does not require to be publicly displayed.

Okay, this is the first I saw this so... The National Law Review writes...

Who Is Now Covered?

As of July 1, 2026, the CTDPA applies to any entity that conducts business in Connecticut, or targets products or services to Connecticut residents, and that during the preceding calendar year satisfied any one of the following:

• Controlled or processed the personal data of at least 35,000 consumers (reduced from 100,000), excluding data processed solely to complete a payment transaction;
• Controlled or processed consumers’ sensitive data, regardless of volume; or
• Offered consumers’ personal data for sale in trade or commerce, regardless of volume.

[...]

What Counts as “Sensitive Data” under the CTDPA?

Your company is swept in if, during the past year, it collected or processed any of the following, no matter how few Connecticut residents were involved:

cticut residents were involved:

– Data revealing racial or ethnic origin

– Data revealing religious beliefs

– Data revealing a mental or physical health condition, diagnosis, disability, or treatment

– Data revealing sex life, sexual orientation, or status as nonbinary or transgender

– Data revealing citizenship or immigration status

– Consumer health data

– Genetic or biometric data, or information derived therefrom

– Precise geolocation data

You got That?

The Bottom Line

Connecticut has shifted from a threshold-based law that mostly affected large companies to an expansive framework that can capture smaller organizations – particularly those that touch sensitive data, rely on ad-tech and targeted advertising, share data in ways that may count as a “sale,” or offer online features used by minors. With the Connecticut Attorney General’s cure period gone and enforcement already active, the cost of waiting has risen. Companies with any nexus to Connecticut should consider the following steps:

• Reassess whether you are in scope. Given that the sensitive data and sale triggers under the amended CTDPA have no volume threshold, assume you may be in scope until confirmed otherwise.
• Map your data. Inventory what personal and sensitive data you collect, how it is used, and with whom it is shared – including via tracking pixels and list exchanges.
• Refresh privacy notices and consent flows. Disclose profiling, targeted advertising, and any use of personal data to train LLMs, and ensure notices are conspicuous, multilingual, and accessible.
• Review profiling and automated decision-making. Build compliant processes to honor opt-out requests, provide explanations for how decisions were reached, and complete the new impact assessment for activities on or after August 1, 2026.
• Strengthen protections for minors. Stop targeted advertising to, and sales of personal data of, individuals aged 13-17, and remove engagement-maximizing design features.

So Tell Me...

On this holiday weekend, stop and think for a moment about the direction our country is heading.

 

---

If the Constitution says one thing, can you write a law to do something other than what the Constitution says?

I think we would all say no... the Constitution is the ultimate authority. Then how come...

Trump's 'hero' justice offers roadmap after Supreme Court rejects birthright order
Speaker Mike Johnson, Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Tom Cotton are already weighing legislation and constitutional amendments
By Elaine Mallon Fox News
Published July 2, 2026

 

 

 President Donald Trump lost his Supreme Court bid to restrict birthright citizenship through executive order, but one of his own appointees may have handed Republicans a blueprint for pursuing much of the same goal through Congress.

Voting with the 6-3 majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that Executive Order 14160, which restricts automatic citizenship to people born to U.S. citizens or permanent residents, couldn't take effect. But in a concurring opinion, he also pointed to a different path forward. Kavanaugh argued the court should have resolved the case under federal law rather than the Constitution, laying out a potential legislative path for Congress to pursue changes to birthright citizenship.

Okay, here is a justice of the Supreme Court saying to pass a law to override the Constitution. Meanwhile, a riskier solution is being offered: amend the Constitution. That is scary! That opens the path for all types of evil things.

 Kavanaugh said Trump couldn't use an executive order to change a law Congress had already passed, but instead suggested Congress could rewrite the law to limit birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.

"Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country," he wrote.

I imagine that most people reading this are not lawyers, but tell me, do you see any wiggle room in this?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I don't know about you, but that is pretty straightforward. I don't see any "ifs," "ands," or "buts," nor any "howevers," "except for," or any other qualifiers. There is just no wiggle room. It says what it says: "all persons"!

 

The qualifier that says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is undeniably true for all undocumented immigrants. The very fact that they are sitting in detention facilities proves that they are subject to the authority of ICE and CBP.

The other option is the Constitutional amendment route, and I find that to be the scary part. They want to pass an amendment limiting the Constitutional rights we now have! Think about that.

Once you have a Constitutional Convention, the floodgates are opened... I can see a party trying to stick in an amendment to limit abortions! I can see an amendment limiting our rights as trans people! After all, if they opened the convention to limit immigrants' rights, what's to stop them from adding to their list of "evil things"? It could become a vehicle for highly polarizing social issues.

They need 38 states to pass an amendment and 34 to call a convention... and they already have 23 solid Republican states!

 

BREAKING NEWS: A Tale Of Two Courts

One that uphold the Constitution and one that worms its way around the Constitutional question!

First the upholding of the Constitution...

Supreme Court rejects Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship

The Trump administration sought to upend the historical understanding of the 14th Amendment  which has long been interpreted to extend birthright citizenship broadly.

NBC News

By Lawrence Hurley

June 30, 2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s contentious attempt to limit citizenship at birth for those born on U.S. soil, delivering a major blow to his agenda.

The court, divided 6-3, ruled that the executive order Trump issued Jan. 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, was unlawful. Five justices said the order fell foul of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to bestow birthright citizenship on almost anyone born in the United States.

One justice, conservative Brett Kavanaugh, said the order violated federal law but not the Constitution.

Here is the Amendment...

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Do you see any qualifiers is the amendment?

Questions are undocumented immigrants being arrested and going to trial? The answer is "Yes" so therefore they are subject to the laws of the United States... Period. No "buts" nor "ifs"  But somehow three Supreme Court justice see words that are not written in the amendment. They say,

Three conservatives would have ruled in Trump’s favor, saying that the 14^th Amendment  would allow his executive order: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

In dissent, Thomas wrote that the 14th Amendment was primarily aimed at formerly enslaved Black people.

“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors.”

Bull S**t! In 1886 the Supreme Court ruled that in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins that the 14^th Amendment did apply to other people besides Blacks. The case of Truax v. Raich in 1915 rules the Supreme Court struck it down, holding that lawful resident aliens are "persons" protected by the Equal Protection Clause.

So the conservatives justices cherry picked their case for rebuttal!

The Fourteenth Amendment also covers equal treatment. In another NBC article they write,

The court, largely divided 6-3, ruled against two transgender students, Becky Pepper-Jackson and Lindsay Hecox, who had challenged restrictive laws in West Virginia and Idaho, respectively.

The court in an opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh concluded that the laws do not violate either the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that the law apply evenly to everyone, or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination in education.

“The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” Kavanaugh wrote.

He expressed sympathy for transgender girls and women who desire to play sports, saying “their desire to compete warrants respect” and that they should not be “ostracized or vilified.”

But they did!

It is the latest in a string of defeats for transgender people at the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority.

In the cases the Supreme Court justices in the cases of cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox ruled that 14th Amendment to the Constitution, nor Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 apply to trans people. In their ruling they only looked the central legal question under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was whether laws that separate athletic participation based on biological sex unlawfully deny transgender girls equal protection.

Okay you get that? The question before the court wasn't if trans people were being discriminated against but rather if the law that the separation of athletic participation based on biological sex is Constitutional.  And to that I have to agree... however, the court did not answer the question if we can play sports in our true gender. That question still hasn't been answered.

There is also some hope in that it only applies to states with the bans. Not to states like Connecticut that allows trans sports. It does not effect all the states just the states that ban us.

So the the question if we can play in our true genders have not been answered.

Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus

There is a difference. In Illinois the governor just signed three bill that protect our rights to get IDs in our true gender, and then other two guarantees our medication.

Gov. signs 3 trans rights bills into law & then marches in Pride parade that afternoon

“We are a few steps closer to a state where all can live their lives without fear of hate,” said Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D)

LGBTQ Nation

Molly Sprayregen (She/Her)

June 29, 2026

On Sunday, just hours before he marched in the Chicago Pride Parade, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) signed three trans rights bills into law.

HB 5095 solidifies the process for trans people to correct the gender marker on their IDs to male, female, or X. HB 5492 mandates that insurance companies cover up to a 6-month supply of prescribed hormone therapy, as well as “the necessary supplies for self-administration.” Both laws take effect on January 1, 2027.

HB 4834 updates the Illinois Prescription Monitoring Program (ILPMP) to remove testosterone and prohibit the addition of estrogen, mifepristone, and misoprostol. The law, effective immediately, will prevent the database, which is used to prevent certain drugs from being overprescribed, from being abused to prevent folks from obtaining gender-affirming and reproductive health care.

But that is now all, later the governor...

Pritzker then posted a video of himself touting the bills as he prepared to march in Chicago’s Pride Parade. “It’s very important to me that we have a state that stands up and protects the people who live here,” he said. “So I’m very happy, very proud, frankly, to live in the state of Illinois. I hope you are, too.”

Pritzker has been fighting for LGBTQ+ rights long before it was popular, as evidenced by a photo of him that often makes the rounds on social media, in which he is marching in the 1993 Pride parade.

Yes, Virginia, There are governors that support us.

They Don't Even Try To Hide It Anymore!

Trump is getting embolden now the Congress is deadlocked! It is something in plain sight something everyone just winked and nodded.

The DOJ Just Admitted to Weaponizing a Prosecution Against Trump’s Foes

Slate

By Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern

May 22, 2026

A federal court threw out all charges against the Broadview Six—a group of protesters accused of obstructing a Chicago ICE facility—during a heated hearing on Thursday at which Justice Department officials apologized for egregious misconduct in securing the indictments. U.S. District Judge April Perry excoriated prosecutors for using illegal tactics to get the criminal charges past a skeptical grand jury, dressing down U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros and his colleagues for their “incredibly shock[ing]” malfeasance. The Broadview Six will now walk free, and may even apply for President Donald Trump’s fund for victims of government “weaponization.”

We saw this when Trump went after the Governor of Minnesota...

Federal judge halts Trump administration effort to subpoena Walz in immigration enforcement probe

AP News

By  ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, ERIC TUCKER and SCOTT BAUER

June 22, 2026

A federal judge has blocked an attempt by the Trump administration to subpoena Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other state officials, accusing the Justice Department of using its investigatory powers to retaliate against state officials for not cooperating with federal efforts to crack down on illegal immigration.

In a ruling unsealed Monday, U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz found the “dominant purpose” of the subpoenas was to “coerce Minnesota officials into assisting the federal government with enforcing civil immigration law and to harass and retaliate against them for failing to do so.”

And we saw it in the case the DOJ brought against the Federal Reserve:

Judge blocks DOJ's criminal probe of Federal Reserve, blasting it as political

KPBS
By Scott Horsley

March 13, 2026

A federal judge put the brakes on the Justice Department's criminal probe of the Federal Reserve, saying it was part of an improper campaign by the Trump administration to pressure the central bank into cutting interest rates more aggressively.

Judge James Boasberg quashed subpoenas that had been issued to the Fed in January, ostensibly seeking information about cost overruns on the renovation of the Fed's headquarters. At the time, Fed chairman Jerome Powell had called that a pretext. And Judge Boasberg agreed.

"The Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President," Boasberg writes in a newly-unsealed opinion. "There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas' dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will."

Like I wrote this morning, Trump knows that Congress is deadlocked and will not do anything! They are so emboldened that it is an open secret!

Here are just some of the people Trump's Justice Department has gone after:

• Letitia James
• Adam Schiff
• Tim Walz and other Minnesota Democratic officials 
• Jack Smith
• Liz Cheney 
• Anthony Fauci
• John Bolton
• Robert Garcia

There are also reports of the DOJ trying to investigate members of Congress for telling the military to obey the law. ABC News reported;

Several Democrats accused by President Donald Trump of "seditious behavior" defended their message to military members that they can refuse illegal order. The president and administration officials suggested the action could be punishable by law.

The video featuring six Democrats who served in the military or in the intelligence community set off more than a dozen social media posts by Trump, who called them "traitors" and said their action could be "punishable by death."

"I think it's important to say that there is nothing more American than standing up for the Constitution, that's what we were doing. President didn't like it, so now he calls for us to be hanged," Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly said on CNN's "The Source with Kaitlan Collins" on Thursday night.

Furthermore, Trump has appointed judges who put their beliefs before the Constitution. The Republicans refused Mitch McConnell/the Senate refused Obama's appointment to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's opening, saying mid-February was too close to the elections. Yet, that didn't stop them from putting Amy Coney Barrett on the bench just days before the 2020 election.

Trump, more than any other president, has weaponized the judiciary. He makes Nixon look like a saint.

Come On Folks! How Ridiculous Is This

These guys just can see how stupid this is, their eyes are blinded by the hate for us.

Transgender Idahoans hope to halt new bathroom law in federal court

A federal judge seemed skeptical about an Idaho law set to take effect soon that will make it a criminal offense for transgender people to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity.

By James Dawson (Boise State Public Radio News)

June 8, 2026

You probably are thinking "Yeah, yeah, another anti-trans law!" but keep reading.

The law, which is set to take effect July 1, would make the first offense a misdemeanor, with subsequent offenses committed within five years a felony.

ACLU of Idaho lawyer Emily Croston, who represents transgender plaintiffs in the case, said the law is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable in the real world.

“Are we just going to look at folks as they enter a restroom and determine whether or not we think they look enough like a man or a woman? That’s ridiculous,” Croston said.

[...]

Idaho District Court Judge Amanda Brailsford repeatedly questioned the state attorney general’s office over these points.

Deputy Attorney General Michael Zarian acknowledged it will be tough for law enforcement to determine whether a crime has been committed.

“It might be difficult on the spot for a police officer to decide. But, if anything, that works in the plaintiff’s favor,” Zarian said, suggesting that fewer people will ultimately be charged.

Brailsford also asked how police will interpret out-of-state identification from states that list a person’s gender identity as their given sex.

At some point, Zarian said making these determinations will be “easy” by using DNA testing to find out a person’s chromosomal makeup.

All very good questions!

The Advocate reports that...

Idaho Solicitor General Michael Zarian told the judge enforcement should be straightforward “because there is DNA testing.” But that suggestion raises significant questions about privacy rights and what level of suspicion would be required before Idaho authorities could demand that someone submit to genetic testing — a tool more commonly associated with investigating serious crimes such as rape and murder.

Zarian went on to tell the judge that a person would not necessarily need to consent before such testing could occur, though he said he doubted anyone would be expected to submit to testing on the spot.

Stop right there... "Say what?" Did he say what I think he said?

Tell me how do you think a cis-gender woman will think about that? That has to prove her womanhood... what an insult! But these Republican men didn't even think about that in their haste to "punish" trans people. But that doesn't trans men in women's bathrooms!

Advocates have long warned that bathroom bans are difficult to enforce without encouraging people to scrutinize the appearance of strangers in public restrooms. Critics say such laws can subject both transgender and cisgender people to harassment when others incorrectly assume someone does not belong in a particular facility.

Such incidents have already occurred. In 2025, a Black cisgender lesbian in Arizona said sheriff’s deputies confronted her in a Walmart restroom after someone mistakenly believed she was transgender. Most notably, U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado confronted a cisgender woman in a Capitol restroom after mistakenly believing she was transgender U.S. Congresswoman Sarah McBride of Delaware.

Blinded by the hate! In their rabid attack on anything trans they don't think of the ramifications. They have blinders on they are so focused on us. Look at what they did in Kansas, they took back all the driver licenses from trans people. They knew the optics of the bill wasn't good to so they ramrodded it through with very little public debates in hearings nor on the floor of the legislature... i.e. They tried to sneak it though.

Lambda Legal had this to say about the law and you will be surprised who's opposed to the law,

“This law is a dangerous and discriminatory effort to push transgender people out of public life,” said Barbara Schwabauer, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “If you cannot use the restroom at work, you cannot go to work. If you cannot use the restroom at school, you cannot go to school. H.B. 752 undermines the freedom of our clients to live their lives with dignity, and we will do all we can to block it completely.” 

The Idaho Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association opposed H.B. 752, noting there is no “clear or reasonable way” to determine a person’s sex at birth during a field contact without engaging in “invasive and inappropriate” questioning or searches.  

Analyses of public safety data have found policies inclusive of transgender people’s access to public accommodations have no impact on rates of harassment or violence, but policies restrictive of their access have increased transgender people’s already heightened risks for harassment and violence. Transgender people are four times as likely as their cisgender counterparts to be victimized by violence.

The police chiefs know that this is a bad law.

Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire!

That schoolyard chant doesn't mean anything to the Republicans. What they are counting on are lazy voters who take everything they say as gospel.

The Republicans cite a huge number of boys getting breast surgery... which is a Republican lie! There is a medical condition called gynecomastia, which is the overdevelopment or enlargement of breast tissue in boys and men. It is a common condition often triggered by hormonal imbalances during puberty. But they lie and lump all those surgeries in with us! Do you know how many surgeries are done on trans girls to enlarge their breasts? "0", zero! None!

I think that the Republicans know the difference, which means they must be doing it intentionally.

Senate Scrutinizes Gender Transition Care for Minors
By Legis1 Editorial · Edited by Zarrin Ahmed, Joanne Levine
Friday, May 15, 2026

 

 

Why It Matters
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is convening a hearing on gender transition procedures for minors at a moment when the medical establishment is shifting, the Trump administration has moved aggressively on the issue, and major hospitals have already changed their practices. What happens in that hearing room on May 21 could shape federal policy on one of the most contested questions in American medicine and politics.

 

[...]

 

What Cassidy Is Driving
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), a physician and HELP Committee chair, announced the hearing alongside a formal investigation into federally funded health entities he alleged were performing what he described as "irreversible gender mutilation on children and vulnerable individuals." Cassidy sent letters to federally supported community health centers scrutinizing whether they were providing puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and related services to minors using taxpayer funds, according to Fox News reporting. He also cited the Department of Justice representation of community health centers or their providers in litigation involving gender transition-related services as a concern.

The hearing is an extension of a sustained oversight campaign. Cassidy had previously expanded his investigation to include the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society, alleging those organizations pressured the World Professional Association for Transgender Health to remove age limitations on gender surgeries. His committee's press office also reported that major U.S. hospitals ended gender transition services for children following actions by President Trump and Cassidy, framing that development as a direct result of the committee's oversight work.

First of all: it is Doctor Sen. Bill Cassidy. You mean to tell me that he, as a doctor, doesn't know the truth?

The Political Fault Lines
The committee's Democratic members, including Sanders, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), are expected to push back on the framing of the hearing and defend access to gender-affirming care. Baldwin, the first openly gay person elected to the Senate, has been a consistent voice on LGBTQ health issues.

On the Republican side, senators including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have each been vocal critics of gender transition procedures for minors in other venues and are likely to use the hearing to press that position.

Yay Chris! (More about him later.)

So Dr. Paul knows the truth too, yet he will not violate his doctor's Hippocratic Oath. However, he has voted against trans bills because of cost. MedPage Today writes...

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) immediately pushed back, calling Wednesday's hearing "disappointing."

"It is disappointing in the sense as to why millions of Americans are giving up on the political process," Sanders said. "They look to Washington at a time when they are facing unprecedented crises, and they're saying who is responding to our needs. And today we are ... spending hours on a hearing that impacts an infinitesimal number of people."

He pointed instead to high rates of childhood poverty and hunger in the U.S. as well as high costs of healthcare.

Meanwhile, "what the medical and scientific community tells us is that gender-affirming care is associated with a lower risk of depression, severe anxiety, and suicidal thoughts," Sanders continued. "Bottom line, gender-affirming care for youth should be between a doctor, a patient, and their parents, not politicians and the federal government. Not only would banning gender-affirmative care do nothing to protect kids, it will make it harder for them to get the healthcare they need, and that would be a tragedy."

Hey do you remember the Republican mantra? About "parental rights", smaller government and getting off your back, well...

The government is "attempting to rob families of the right and freedom to make medical decisions about their own children," he contended. Additionally, the government is "baselessly attacking safe and effective medical care." And finally, "in a way we have never seen before in this country, the government is attempting to seize, secretly, the medical records of families to use private medical information about their children for an unlimited and unknown purpose."

"Few principles in American law are more settled than the right of parents to make medical decisions for their own children in consultation with their doctors," he added.

In response to questions from Sanders, Minter noted the "level of anguish" that healthcare professionals and families are experiencing due to the current administration's targeting of gender-affirming care for youth is "really profound."

[...]

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said Cole's experience is tragic, but contended it is a classic case of medical malpractice. "I think the solution here is malpractice cases," Kaine said. "I think the solution is standards of care by the [American Medical Association] and the plastic surgeons and the pediatricians, which are evolving as more research is done. I don't think the right answer is a federal one-size-fits-all."

Families are packing up and moving to "free states." Just like in the Jim Crow era when Black families fled the South, trans families are now fleeing the South just to get medical treatment for their children!

Listen to him! Take less than 5 minutes to listen to Sen. Sanders and hear the truth, not the Republican lies.

 

I first met Connecticut Sen. Murphy back in 2007 when I went down to lobby for the gender-inclusive version of ENDA, but he was a representative back then. The next time I met the Congressman, I was interning for my MSW at the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (now known as She Leads Justice). The last time I met him, I was serving as the Executive Director of the Connecticut TransAdvocacy Coalition. It was at a press conference in the Legislative Office Building (LOB), and by then, he was a senator.

Fifteen Years Ago!

Fifteen years ago I wrote this...

Connecticut Will Become The 15th State To Offer Protection To Transgender People

Every day for the past two weeks since the House passed the gender inclusive anti-discrimination bill, HB6599, we thought that today going to be the day. Every day I checked the Connecticut General Assembly website looking for clues if today was going to be the day. Every day I watched the Connecticut Public Affairs Network’s Senate channel. Last night was no different, I was reading and I had C-TN on in the background and the Senate was in caucus so they were playing classical music. Around ten o’clock I heard the Senate clerk announce that the Senate will convene! Then I heard the clerk read the agenda… House Bill 6599. WHOA!!! That is us! I watched the debate begin, sent out some emails and posted on Facebook while I was getting dress. I drove up to the Capitol.

When I got there Jerimarie from Connecticut TransAdvocacy Coalition (CTAC), Sally from ctEQUALITY, and Gretchen from Planned Parenthood were there already and a few minutes later Jennifer from the Gay Lesbian Advocate and Defenders (GLAD) arrived. I had been involved with the legislation since 2006, and Jerimarie and Jennifer were there from the beginning when the Hate Crime bill was first introduced and now we were there at the end.

The first amendment that was offered was about sex-segregated facilities and would have required everyone to use the facility of their birth gender. Sen. Beth Bye (D) asked the amendment’s author if he had ever to have to use the women’s bathroom because men’s room was too crowded, Sen. Welch (R) said no. Sen. Bye then went on to say that women do it all the time when the lines are too long in the women’s room and she said that the amendment would now make that illegal. Also speaking against the amendment was Sens. Cassano (D) and Coleman (D). The amendment was defeated, Yeas 15, Nays 21.

The next amendment offered was the teacher amendment, which would have allowed schools to transfer a teacher out of the classroom while they were transitioning. The amendment was introduced by Sen. Kissel (R) and once against Sen. Bye spoke passionately against the amendment, she said that when sexual orientation was being added to the anti-discrimination statutes back in the 90’s the opposition used the same arguments about gays in the classroom. The amendment was defeated, Yeas 16, Nays 20.

During all the debates on the amendments in the Senate, only two or three spoke in favor of or against the bill, the whole debate on the bill went rather quickly as opposed to the House where it seemed that everyone want to have their say on the bill. In the Senate, there was actually more backroom discussion on the bill that allowed for each side to have their say and then they voted on the bill. The House voted on three amendments and it took around five hours, while in the Senate they voted on four amendments and it took around two and a half hours.

The next amendment was introduced by Sen. Kissel and it was,

Any person who falsely exhibits a gender identity or expression, either through appearance or behavior, that is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth, solely for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of a crime, shall, in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment authorized by section 53a-35a of the general statutes for the crime of which such person stands convicted, be subject to the sentence of imprisonment authorized by said section for the next more serious degree of misdemeanor or felony, as the case may be, except that if the crime is a class A misdemeanor, such person shall be subject to the sentence of imprisonment authorized by said section for a class D felony.

After a short debate, it was also defeated, Yeas 14, Nays 20.

Then they started to bring the bill to a vote, but they were interrupted by Sen. Roraback (R) who introduced an amendment that would limit the bill to an employer with 15 employees or more. That was also defeated 15 – 19 after a very short debate.

They then started to talk about the bill when once again they were interrupted by the introduction of an amendment, Sen. Witkos (R). The amendment was…

Any person holding a motor vehicle operator's license whose gender-related identity is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth shall notify the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of such identity and the commissioner shall indicate such identity in the electronic record maintained by the commissioner pertaining to such person's operator's license.

When he was introducing the bill he got a strong stare by the Senate Minority Leader Sen. Kissel, you could tell he was displeased with the senator. The amendment was defeated Yeas 8, Nays 26 with many of the Republicans voting against the amendment. During the debate Sen. Sunzio (R) asked Sen. Witkos police procedures if he (Sen. Witkos is an Avon police officer) was called to a disturbance with a man dressed as a woman in a bathroom. Sen. Witkos explained that this amendment who help us because it would allow police officers to better assess the situation and it was not meant to be a “Scarlet Letter”. Well Senator, maybe you don’t see it as a “Scarlet Letter” coming from a place of power, but I see it a branding us for life.

Finally, the bill came up for debate. While it was being debated, Andrew McDoanld came up to the Senate Gallery to talk to us; Andrew is the former co-chair of the Judiciary Committee along with Mike Lawlor, both of whom now work for the governor. Andrew is now the governor’s chief legal counsel. I remember back when I first met him, Mike and the Governor in 2005, it was at a fundraiser for GenderPAC and they were still legislators and the governor was the mayor of Stamford. We were also joined by Andrew from the CT chapter of the ACLU. The bill was only debated for about 15 – 20 minutes and when the vote came it was 20 Yeas, 16 Nays, the vote was along party lines. We all started clapping and jumping up and down and hugging and just creating merriment.

We all went out into the hallway where the celebration continued; meanwhile the opposition sneaked by us and slither off. So far they have remained quiet and have not issued a statement.

The governor has been behind this bill all the way and he has been the driving force that kept the bill moving and he issued a statement…

This bill is another step forward in the fight for equal rights for all of Connecticut’s citizens, and it’s the right thing to do. It’s difficult enough for people who are grappling with the issue of their gender identity, and discrimination against them has no place in our society. Connecticut has lead the way in other civil rights issues and I’m proud to be able to support and sign this bill.

I just wanted to say that was not one person’s effort, nor an organization effort, but was a grassroots effort with many people from many organizations, and individuals who all helped.


Photo: Diana (CTAC), Sally (ctEQUALITY) Jennifer (GLAD) Betty (Gallo & Co.) and Gretchen (Planned Parenthood) Missing from photo Jerimarie (CTAC) who was being interviewed and Andrew (ACLU/CT)

These are just some of the organizations that have helped…

CT TransAdvocacy Coalition
CT Women's Education and Legal Fund
Planned Parenthood of Southern New England
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
CT AFL-CIO
Anti-Defamation League CT
New Haven Pride Center
CT Sexual Assault Crisis Services
Transitioning and Loving Life (TaLL)
True Colors Sexual Minority Youth and Family Services
CT American Civil Liberties Union
CT Outreach Society
NARAL Pro-Choice CT
The Connecticut Alliance for Business Opportunities
UConn Rainbow Center
UConn Women's Center
Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Unitarian Universalist Society: East
Permanent Commission on the Status of Women
New England Healthcare Employees Union SEIU 1199NE
CT Citizen Action Group
National Council of Jewish Women (CT)
CT Chapter of the National Organization for Women
Triangle Community Center
CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence
CT Clergy for Full Equality
CT Latina/os Achieving Rights & Opportunities
Human Rights Campaign CT
PFLAG Southeastern CT
PFLAG Hartford
City of Hartford Commission on LGBT Issues
National Association of Social Workers (CT Chapter)
City of Norwalk, Human Relations Commission
GLSEN CT

Thank you all! <3 br="">
Tomorrow night I celebrated with a lobster dinner.

---

Today:

When the bill was being debated in the House, there was a long delay, a lot of huddles by the Democrats and then Governor Malloy walked on on the floor of the House which is against the the rules. The Speaker of the House was banging his gavel saying "Will the governor get off the floor of the House!"

After a few minutes they had a vote on the bill, voting Yea 77, Nay 62, and absent and not voting 12.

Crank It Out!

Crank it out!

Something happened.

When I went to my first meeting for passing the non-discrimination bill here in Connecticut back in 2007, one takeaway that was brought home at the meeting was: if a legislator tells you how they are going to vote... believe them!

Fast forward to 2026... they now tell you what you want to hear and vote the way they are told to vote.

Also, when I first started giving testimony, it had to be in person. Now they allow online testimony. When I give testimony, I say my name and the district I am in. But now, many testify anonymously and you don't even know if they are actually from Connecticut!

Amount of public testimony on bills is growing, but who’s writing it?

CT Mirror

by Sasha Allen and Angela Eichhorst

May 22, 2026

The amount of public testimony — signed and anonymous — submitted on proposed Connecticut bills has risen sharply in recent years, but the reasons why are murky.

More than 43,800 pieces of written testimony were submitted during the 2026 legislative session, nearly a 250% increase compared to 2016. But this year, almost 8,000 of these submissions were anonymous, and much of the testimony was directed at bills addressing hot-button issues.

Bills dealing with homeschooling, vaccines and gun regulations received more than 2,000 pieces of written testimony each, according to the Connecticut General Assembly. While this year saw abnormally high counts of written testimony overall, these numbers have been climbing for decades.

How many were from Connecticut? How many were generated by PACs?

I remember when I went to a training given by a local lobbyist. One thing the legislators did when they received emails on a topic was sort them by subject line. All of those with the same subject line got filed in the circular file, because those are the ones you "just click" on to send. Those that they give the most weight to are the personal emails. (Hint: if you are going to click on one of those form emails, change the subject line and personalize the email.)

But since more and more testimony is submitted anonymously, it is difficult to determine specific factors behind the increase. Last year, nearly 18% of all testimony submitted was anonymous, according to a CT Mirror analysis.

Hopefully, they give them about as much credence as they did back at the turn of the century. But now comes a new challenge with AI!

It is difficult to determine which pieces of testimony are written by chat bots or researched using AI. But Warner believes the tool could be a contributing factor to overall submission increases.

“That’s not to say that the AI has written the testimony but somebody felt like they had a position but wasn’t quite sure how to articulate themselves,” Warner said. “It could be a waypoint between having the idea and being able to put pen to paper, digitally speaking.”

I am concerned about this. Legislators do listen to constituents, but how much weight they ascribe to them is debatable.

But should anonymous testimony be allowed? Should out-of-state testimony also be allowed? My thoughts are yes, but there should be some type of flag to indicate that they are out of state and that they are human.

A Constitutional Tug-of-War

In Congress, the Republicans have introduced H.R. 2616, the “Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act”—or as we know it, “Don’t Say Trans.” The bill is modeled after Florida’s "Don’t Say Gay" laws. The U.S. House Republicans wrote:

House Republicans Advance Bill to Protect Children from Gender Ideology in Schools

Washington, May 20, 2026

House Republicans are advancing H.R. 2616 – Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, legislation led by Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) to require parental consent before schools make major changes involving a child’s name, pronouns, gender markers, bathrooms, or locker rooms.

So I got to thinking: where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the right to determine the gender of a child? And when the feds say “Biological Sex,” who gets to determine it?

(A caveat first: I am not a lawyer, so this is all conjecture on my part. As a lawyer friend I know likes to say… it's not over until the judge bangs his gavel.)

Article I, Section 8 (Enumerated Powers): This section defines the specific powers of Congress, such as regulating interstate commerce, coining money, and declaring war. States cannot create laws that interfere with these federal powers.

That is key to my argument. One of those realities of Enumerated Powers is that the federal government does not issue birth certificates—states do!

They are trying to worm around the Enumerated Powers. If you look closely at the text of H.R. 2616, it doesn't outright ban schools from changing a child's pronouns; instead, it says schools will lose federal funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act if they do so without parental consent. This is how the federal government asserts control without having the explicit constitutional right to dictate local education policy—it holds the purse strings hostage.

But I think that it still boils down to: who determines the gender of a child? If the states say the child is female, how can the feds challenge it? By requiring every child to get a DNA test?

No matter how they word it, the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to determine a child’s gender. This is going to be a long, drawn-out court battle!

When major constitutional battles break out over federalism, executive power, and states' rights, it is rarely just an abstract debate in a courtroom. In this case, the "pawns" being pushed across the board are real people whose daily lives, legal identities, and peace of mind are completely disrupted by changing political tides.

Historically, marginalized groups have frequently found themselves at the center of these structural tug-of-wars between state and federal power. Whether it was the fight over civil rights in the 1960s or same-sex marriage in the 2000s, the legal system often treats human lives as the testing ground for where federal authority ends and state sovereignty begins. And now, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 itself is being attacked.

It is a deeply exhausting place to be, especially when all people are looking for is stability, recognition, and the ability to go about their daily lives without their foundational identity documents being treated as a political football.

---

This all makes sense only if you ignore the mountain of medical and scientific research showing that gender identity and sexual orientation are inborn to a person and are not choices. Change the target to any other protected class besides gender identity, and you can see this bill for what it really is: bigotry and discrimination.

Hi Ho, Hi Ho, It Is Off To Court We Go!

If this makes it through Congress, you know that Trump will sign it, so our only hope will be the courts!

These 8 Democrats voted for the Republican national ‘Don’t Say Trans’ bill passed by the House

The ACLU and the House Equality Caucus blasted their fellow Democrats and the Republicans who voted to pass a bill threatening to censor educators nationwide and compel them to out transgender students against their will.

The Advocate

Dawn Ennis

May 21, 2026

Update: Virginia Democrat who praised LGBTQ+ inclusion is now helping Republicans out trans kids

Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday with the help of eight Democrats that, if approved by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, would force teachers across the country to out transgender kids to their parents. It would also ban schools nationwide from acknowledging that transgender people even exist.

The “Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act,” also known as H.R. 2616, passed by a vote of 217 to 198. All 209 Republicans who voted supported the measure, joined by eight Democrats. Meanwhile, 198 Democrats voted against the bill.

[...]

The text of H.R. 2616 says it would prohibit any school that receives federal funding from teaching “concepts related to gender ideology.” LGBTQ+ advocates warn the legislation could effectively bar teachers and school staff from acknowledging transgender identities in classrooms, libraries, or student support settings. Earlier versions and related House proposals also explicitly categorized material involving “gender dysphoria or transgenderism” as inherently “sexual,” language critics argued, which treated the mere existence of trans people as inappropriate for children. It could also forcibly out students who are transgender to their families before they feel ready, or even safe, doing so.

The Democrats are scared! Everywhere you read in the news that their loss was our fault. But remember one thing... "It is the economy stupid!"

Book Riot wrote...

What is HR 2616, the “Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act?” This bill differs from HR 7661, the national book ban bill, introduced by Illinois Republican House representative Mary Miller (a fan of Hitler). The two bills are closely aligned, especially as Republicans expanded HR 2616 in light of several other anti-LGBTQ+, and specifically anti-trans, education bills.

Under the guise of protecting “parental rights”–which parents’ rights being the question, of course–HR 2616 requires that any school receiving federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 require parental permission before using a student’s preferred gender, pronouns, or name on any school form or allowing them to use the bathroom or locker room that most aligns with their identity. The bill also prohibits teaching “gender ideology” in public schools receiving federal funding, as defined in Trump’s Executive Order 14168. Executive Orders aren’t laws, and in today’s conspiracy-as-fact landscape, it’s especially concerning that the targets are children.

We have to show the voters what this is... A Red Herring" that out of around 54 million total K-12 students, there are approximately 725,000 who identify as transgender! That is somewhere around 1%!!!!

This bill forcibly outs kids to their parents, regardless of how dangerous the situation would be for the child. It would also limit what can and cannot be taught in classrooms, inevitably meaning the wholesale elimination of concepts from the curriculum and the removal of swaths of books from classrooms and libraries. Trans people and trans history would be banned. As has been said from the beginning of the race to ban books in 2021, none of this has been about the books themselves. It’s been about the eradication of people that don’t slot into the imagined cishet, white Christian ideal. Bullying trans children allows grown adults to feel good, even if it doesn’t provide any solutions to the actual problems in contemporary America.

The bill is spiteful and hurtful and does exactly what the Republicans want... divert the voter from all the crisis now going on in this.

Go after them for passing this bill and ignoring... high gas prices, high food prices... the war in Iran! They put this on the fast track to divert the voters from the real problems and get them mad at us and not them!