Author: Edward Bartlett

Financing a gender justice infrastructure

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date March 25, 2024

Financing a Gender Justice Infrastructure to Counter Anti-Gender Ideology and Anti-Rights Movements

SAVE

March 25, 2024

On March 19, 2024 the Ford Foundation, along with Global Philanthropy Project and the Institute of Development Studies, sponsored a parallel event to the 68th session of UN Commission on the Status of Women conference in New York City. Titled “Financing a Gender Justice Infrastructure to Counter Anti-Gender Ideology and Anti-Rights Movements,” the event consisted of six presentations.

During the presentations, presenters and participants repeatedly stated, “I am full of rage” and “I’m raging.” Summaries of these presentations are shown below.

Argentinian President Milei’s Anti-Feminism Speech

Presenter: Angelika Arutyunova-

Co-Founder, CEECCNA Collaborative Fund

President Milei’s speech against feminism stirred considerable controversy within feminist circles. Many feminists argue that Milei’s rhetoric undermines decades of progress in gender equality and women’s rights. They view feminism not as a threat but as a crucial movement advocating for the rights and empowerment of women and marginalized genders.

Milei’s stance is seen as reflective of deeply ingrained patriarchal attitudes that seek to maintain traditional power structures and perpetuate gender-based discrimination. Feminists emphasize the importance of challenging such rhetoric and continuing to push for policies and social norms that promote gender equality and justice.

President Nayib Bukele’s Banishment of Gender Ideology

Presenter: Angelika Arutyunova

Co-Founder, CEECCNA Collaborative Fund

El Salvador president Bukele’s efforts to banish gender ideology in his country have sparked significant concern among feminists and LGBTQ+ rights advocates. They argue that Bukele’s actions not only erase the identities and experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals, but also perpetuate harmful stereotypes and discrimination. Feminists believe that gender ideology serves as a framework for understanding and addressing the complexities of gender, including issues of discrimination, violence, and social inequality.

By dismissing gender ideology, Bukele’s government risks exacerbating existing disparities and marginalizing already vulnerable communities. Feminists advocate for policies that recognize and affirm diverse gender identities and experiences, promoting inclusivity and equality for all individuals.

Collaboration between Feminists and Transsexuals

Presenter: Chivuli Ukwimi – Feminists and Transexuals Union

Deputy Director, International Trans Fund (ITF)

The discussion on collaboration between feminists and transsexuals underscored the importance of solidarity and mutual support within the broader gender justice movement. Feminists recognize the intersecting oppressions faced by transgender and gender non-conforming individuals and emphasize the need for inclusive activism that addresses the diverse needs and experiences of all gender minorities. Building alliances between feminists and transsexuals involves advocating for policies and initiatives that advance the rights and well-being of transgender individuals, including access to healthcare, legal recognition, and protection from discrimination.

Feminists aim to create spaces that are welcoming and affirming of all gender identities, fostering a sense of belonging and collective resistance against gender-based oppression.

Study on Anti-Gender Campaigns in Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Senegal

Presenter: Caroline Kouassiaman

Executive Director – Initiative Sankofa d’Afrique de l’Ouest (ISDAO)

The presenter’s study sheds light on the detrimental impact of anti-gender campaigns in West Africa, highlighting the challenges faced by gender activists in combating misinformation and promoting gender equality. Feminists view these campaigns as a deliberate attempt to undermine progress towards gender justice by spreading fear and misinformation and reinforcing traditional gender norms. They emphasize the importance of countering such narratives with evidence-based education and advocacy efforts that challenge stereotypes and promote gender equality as a fundamental human right.

Feminists work to amplify the voices of local activists and communities affected by anti-gender campaigns, supporting grassroots initiatives that empower individuals to challenge harmful ideologies and advocate for gender-inclusive policies and practices.

Role of Technology in Gender Activism

Presenter: Jac sm Kee

Co-funder and Cartographer, Numun Fund

The discussion on the role of technology highlighted both its potential as a tool for advancing gender equality and its pitfalls, including issues of harassment and the spread of misinformation. Feminists recognize the power of technology in amplifying marginalized voices, organizing grassroots movements, and raising awareness about gender-based issues. However, they also acknowledge the need to address digital harassment and online abuse, which disproportionately target women and gender minorities.

Feminists advocate for platforms and policies that promote online safety and combat cyberbullying, recognizing the interconnectedness of digital and offline forms of violence against women. They work to harness the transformative potential of technology while challenging its negative impacts on gender equality and women’s rights.

Considerations on Funding for UN Women and Advocacy Groups

Presenters: All above persons

The discussion surrounding potential cuts in funding for UN Women and related advocacy groups reflects broader shifts in philanthropic priorities and funding allocations. Feminists expressed concern about the implications of reduced funding for gender equality initiatives, particularly at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing gender disparities and heightened the need for targeted interventions. They emphasized the importance of sustained investment in organizations that work to advance gender equality, including UN Women, grassroots women’s groups, and feminist-led initiatives.

Feminists advocate for donor strategies that prioritize long-term sustainability, flexibility, and responsiveness to the evolving needs of women and gender minorities worldwide, ensuring that resources are directed towards effective, rights-based approaches to achieving gender justice.

During the two-hour event, there were no questions posed, only expressions of support for the topics under discussion and the prevailing atmosphere of anger.

As Donald Trump Calls for Abolition of Dept. of Education, Transgender Advocates Face Major Setbacks

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date March 19, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

As Donald Trump Calls for Abolition of Dept. of Education, Transgender Advocates Face Major Setbacks

WASHINGTON / March 20, 2024 – In his recent address to the National Religious Broadcasters’ International Christian Media convention, presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announced his intention to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. “We’re going to end the so-called Department of Education. We might have one desk, one person, just to make sure everyone is speaking English,” Trump announced during his keynote speech (1).

Much of the controversy stems from the Department of Education’s plan to issue a new policy that redefines sex to include “gender identity.” Such a change would give a boost to controversial initiatives to allow children to change their gender without parental permission (2).

Transgender advocates have seen a series of major setbacks in the past three weeks:

Indiana Ban: On February 27, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision to allow Indiana’s SB 480 to go into effect. The law prohibits physicians from providing “Gender Affirming Medical Care” for minors (3).
WPATH Files: On March 4, leaked files from the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) revealed that the organization removed minimum-age requirements for children to start puberty blockers or undergoing sexual-modification surgeries, and members frequently discuss improvising treatments as they go along (4).
Health Plan Coverage: On March 4, a federal judge in North Dakota ruled that the Christian Employers Alliance could not be mandated to offer health insurance coverage for gender transition treatments (5).
Suicide Attempts: On March 11, a California study revealed that men who undergo a vaginoplasty procedure to become a transgender female experience an attempted suicide rate that is double their pre-procedure suicide attempt rate (6).
NCAA Lawsuit: On March 14, the Independent Council on Women’s Sports filed a highly publicized lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletics Association for allowing transgender athletes to compete against women and use female locker rooms (7).

To date, 22 states have banned gender transition treatments for minors (8): AL, AZ, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE, NC, ND, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, and WV.

In support of these developments, SAVE is inviting candidates for political office to sign the “Candidate Pledge to Protect Schools, Children, and Families from the Federal Title IX Plan.” The Pledge states,

When elected to office, I pledge to work to assure that:

Schools and other organizations shall utilize the traditional binary definition of “sex.”
Schools shall obtain prior consent from parents for any use of gender pronouns, or gender-dysphoria counseling or treatments.
Parents shall have the right to examine and opt their children out of any school curricula dealing with sexuality and gender identity.
Schools shall only allow biological females to participate in women’s sports, enter women’s locker rooms, and use women’s bathrooms.
Schools shall adhere to Constitutional due process procedures to protect falsely accused males from Title IX complaints.
Schools and other institutions shall fully uphold Constitutional free speech guarantees.

The Candidate Pledge can be viewed online (9). To date, 68 lawmakers from 20 states have signed the statement (10). Candidates can indicate their support for the Pledge by sending a confirmatory email to: rthompson@saveservices.org

Citations:

Campus Civil Rights DED Sexual Assault Directive Department of Education Legal Office for Civil Rights Press Release Scholarships Sex Stereotyping Sexual Assault Title IX

DEI Programs Must be Eliminated to Reverse Declining Numbers of College Men

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date March 7, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

DEI Programs Must be Eliminated to Reverse Declining Numbers of College Men

WASHINGTON / March 11, 2024 – A shocking new report was issued last week that documents 12 areas in which globally, men and boys are lagging behind women (1). These areas include education, health, homelessness, unfair treatment by the legal system, and more. In American colleges, for example, men now comprise only 42% of all undergraduate students (2).

Observers implicate a climate of anti-male hostility at college campuses (3), which can be traced to several developments in recent decades:

In 1979, the Department of Education issued a new Title IX policy on women’s sports that served to eliminate many male sports teams (4).
In 2011, the Obama Administration’s Dear Colleague Letter served to stereotype men as sexual predators (5). (Ironically, the Centers for Disease Control reports that men are victims of sexual assault by females nearly as often as women who are victims of rape (6)).
A growing number of women’s studies programs that promote Marxist-inspired theories of “patriarchal oppression” (7).
Hundreds of universities sponsor female-only scholarships and leadership programs (8).

Adding to the onslaught, colleges began to develop “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) programs in the latter part of the 2010s that granted preferences to Blacks and women. Among the 10 most highly paid DEI administrators at Ohio State University, for example, nine were female (9).

Viewing DEI programs as a “mortal threat to the American way of life” (10), nine states already have enacted laws to rein in DEI programs: Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah (11). These laws seek to prohibit colleges from having DEI offices or staff, ban mandatory diversity training, forbid the use of diversity statements in hiring and promotions, and bar colleges from considering race, sex, or national origin in admissions or employment (12).

These efforts were given a boost last June by the Supreme Court decision against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, in which the SCOTUS ruled that considering a student’s race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (13).

In theory, DEI programs and Title IX have opposite goals. While DEI seeks to afford preferences to women, Title IX seeks to end sex discrimination against men.

But in practice, the DEI mindset has infiltrated many Title IX offices. For example, the Association of Title IX Administrators, known as ATIXA, sponsored a conference on “True Equity at the Intersection of Title IX and DEI” (14). In its list of groups affected by “Inequitable Practices,” the program lists Students of Color, LGBTQIA+, and Women. But the fact that beleaguered men are facing an increasingly hostile environment somehow escaped the notice of ATIXA.

As a result, we are seeing cases like the Title IX investigator at the University of Maryland who endorsed a sexist Facebook quote by William Golding that said, “I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been” (15).

If lawmakers want to assure the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not relegated to the dustbin of history, they need to move swiftly to ban Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs at colleges in their state.

Citations:

Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Legal Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Title IX

The Due Process Provisions of the 2020 Title IX Regulations Were Successful. We Should Fight to Keep Them.

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date March 1, 2024

The Due Process Provisions of the 2020 Title IX Regulations Were Successful. We Should Fight to Keep Them.

Jonathan Taylor, Founder, Title IX for All

March 1, 2024

The Title IX regulations that went into effect in August of 2020 were critically necessary. Before their implementation, schools too often punished and expelled students accused of misconduct (sexual harassment, assault, stalking, and so forth) in what were little more than sham proceedings. Wrongly punished students found their education prospects shattered, their careers derailed, and their reputations destroyed. Some students were punished despite not being found responsible for any misconduct. Some even committed suicide.

Among other provisions, the 2020 regulations required schools to provide accused students with meaningful notice of the accusation, meaningful access to evidence, and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the evidence. Those critical protections are now threatened by a regulatory rewrite spearheaded by the Biden administration.

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget is currently accepting meetings from the public regarding this rewrite. Advocates and concerned citizens should consider this an opportunity to make their voices heard and to push back on attempts by the Biden administration to roll back due process. To do this, it may help to draw attention to indicators that the regulations have been successful. Below are several arguments that the due process protections have been successful and should remain.

1. Trends in Lawsuits by Accused Students Reflect the Need for Due Process

The graph above shows the trend in annual filings of lawsuits by students accused of Title IX violations in state and federal courts since 2011.[1] This trend is highly consistent with changes to Title IX guidance and regulation. Simply put, the fewer the rights afforded accused students and the weaker the emphasis on due process by the current presidential administration, the more lawsuits by accused students we see. The reverse is also true.

In 2011, the Department of Education issued guidance (the “Dear Colleague” letter) for schools to investigate Title IX complaints more rigorously. The Department also threatened to revoke funding from schools that failed to comply and initiated highly visible investigations that named and shamed many of them. Afraid of lawsuits, federal investigations, and bad press, schools rushed to comply – and soon overcorrected. As you can see in the graph, that overcorrection was the genesis of the litigation movement for accused students. Lawsuits trickled in at first, gained a foothold in 2014 and 2015, and then spiked, reaching their peak in 2017 and 2018.

In September 2017, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos rescinded the Department of Education’s 2011 guidance letter and announced an imminent rulemaking process to further flesh out schools’ liabilities and the balance of rights between complainants and respondents in school grievance procedures. The Department issued a draft of the new regulations in November 2018 and published the final rule in May 2020. The rule went into effect on August 14, 2020.

DeVos’ rescinding the Dear Colleague letter and announcing a new rulemaking procedure made it clear that the era of federal complicity (if not encouragement) for schools to systematically railroad accused students was over. Consistent with this new era of due process, annual filings of lawsuits have declined by twenty or more since 2018. By 2023, lawsuits had declined by sixty percent from their peak: from 126 in 2018 to around 50 in 2013. This indicates that the regulations are having the intended effect: despite troublesome hotspots remaining, schools have, in many cases, made efforts to comply.

The decline stopped in 2022, however. That is no accident; it occurred a year after the Biden administration announced a plan to undo much of the due process protections afforded by the 2020 regulations. While 2024 has just begun, at least seven lawsuits have been filed by accused students as of mid-February. If recent trends continue, we will likely see at least as many lawsuits in 2024 as we did in 2023 – and likely more.

2. The 2020 Regulations Have Consistently Withstood Legal Challenges

Five legal challenges have been made against the regulations in federal court. All have failed to overturn them. While two failed simply because the plaintiffs lacked standing, others failed on the merits of their claims. The five lawsuits are:

Victim Rights Law Center v. DeVos

This lawsuit failed to overturn the 2020 regulations by arguing it was in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and discriminates against women. It was, however, successful in overturning a narrow provision[2] that required schools to not rely on statements that were not subject to cross-examination when making their determinations.

2. The Women’s Student Union v. U.S. Department of Education

This case was initially dismissed for lack of standing. WSU – a feminist student association – argued the 2020 regulations would “frustrate its mission” to assist complainants. The court held otherwise: that such a group “may not establish injury by engaging in activities that it would normally pursue as part of its organizational mission. WSU appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit which then stayed the case pending the completion of the Biden administration’s rulemaking process.

3. State of New York v. U.S. Department of Education

Brought by the New York Attorney General’s office, this lawsuit sought an injunction to prevent the rule from going into effect. It failed on every factor upon which injunctive relief is decided: the likelihood they would succeed on the merits of their claims, whether they or students would suffer irreparable harm, the balance of equities (“harms”) between the parties if the injunction did or did not go into effect, and the public interest. The State of New York then withdrew the lawsuit.

4. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. DeVos

A coalition of state Attorneys General brought this lawsuit to postpone the effective date of the rule, declare it unlawful, vacate it, or enjoin the Department of Education from applying and enforcing it. The motion to postpone the rule failed. The rest of the proceedings have been stayed.

5. Know Your IX et al v. DeVos

Similar to the WSU case, Know Your IX and similar organizations argued that the 2020 rule “frustrates its mission” to assist and advocate for complainants in Title IX proceedings. Judge Bennett disagreed and dismissed the case.

3. Schools Have Continuously Exhibited a Desire to Deny Due Process

The due process protections provided by the 2020 Title IX rule had one “clever workaround” for schools: they did not apply to allegations of misconduct occurring off-campus and outside an educational program or activity.[3] Schools could, however, still investigate and punish students under a “non-Title IX” policy that lacked those protections.

Advocates for complainants believed that schools would use this as an excuse to forgo investigating such alleged misconduct at all since there was now no federal requirement to do so. The reality, however, is that Title IX bureaucracy tends to be staffed by what some have called the “sex police”: bureaucrats who regard it as their mission to root out any kind of potentially offensive behavior and continuously seek reasons to expand their reach rather than retract it. Lawsuits by accused students have shown this is the case. Starting in 2021, they brought a new batch of lawsuits arguing schools were erroneously applying “non-Title IX” policies[4] as an excuse to railroad them out of campus.

The Biden administration seeks to expand the requirements of Title IX so that schools must investigate off-campus activity but without the due process protections that would curb some of the worst impulses of the sex police.

4. The 2020 Regulations Have Forced Their Opponents to Inadvertently Defend Them

Opponents of due process often argue that such protections would make school grievance procedures “too quasi-judicial” or “too court-like.” This argument is not sincere, as such groups have demanded that courts and schools recognize and treat grievance procedures as quasi-judicial and court-like when it benefits accusers.

While many examples of this exist, perhaps the most blatant recent example comes from the lawsuit Khan v. Yale in which an accused student also sued his accuser Jane Doe for defamation. Jane Doe argued that even if her statements against Khan were deliberately false and malicious, she was nonetheless entitled to immunity from a defamation lawsuit because her statements were made in the context of a quasi-judicial proceeding. In 2022, fifteen powerful advocacy groups filed an amicus brief supporting Doe’s argument – including those who opposed the 2020 regulations for being too quasi-judicial.

But as Connecticut Supreme Court held, Yale’s investigation and punishment of Khan occurred before the 2020 regulations went into effect and hence lacked virtually all the key safeguards that would establish the proceedings as quasi-judicial and entitle Jane Doe to immunity.

Other Arguments and Conclusion

Although there are numerous indicators that the 2020 regulations have been successful, these are four particularly noteworthy ones. Other potential supporting arguments could be that:

Litigation costs for universities will skyrocket if accused students are again routinely railroaded off campus, and that
The due process protections of the 2020 regulations have disincentivized false reporting and sham proceedings, which in turn bolsters the integrity of Title IX grievance procedures and allows school resources to be distributed more effectively.

Advocacy opportunities are often time sensitive; once they are gone, they are gone. This advocacy window is still open. Please go to the Office for Management and Budget website and register a meeting to make your voice heard.

Links:

[1] See the Title IX Lawsuits Database for a full listing of these lawsuits.

[2] Section 106.45(b)(6)(i)

[3] Section 106.45(b)(3)(i)

[4] Examples include Doe v. Rutgers and Doe I v. SUNY-Buffalo.

Child Custody Victims Violence

Moms Who Kills Their Kids

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 28, 2024

Moms Who Kill Their Kids

SAVE

February 28, 2024

SAVE has previously reported on mothers who attacked other women to steal their unborn babies. A more widespread problem is mothers who kill their children. Globally, 72% of infant murders are by their mothers.

Many of these cases occur in the middle of a custody dispute. These women apparently believed they “own” their children. These six cases, all in the United States, were reported in February, 2024:

1. Mom in custody battle kills four kids and herself in house fire, Missouri reports say

Pruessner was reportedly involved in court battles with the two fathers of her four children. Mom burned her kids to death rather than share custody with the father. She was a college professor.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article285780096.html#storylink=cpy

https://www.charlottealertsnews.com/news/mother-kills-herself-and-her-4-children-including-twins-and-dog-in-house-fire

2. Kansas City mother is accused of killing her infant by putting her in the oven

The mother told the baby’s grandmother that she put the 1-month-old “in the oven instead of the crib,” according to court records.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kansas-city-mother-accused-killing-infant-putting-oven-rcna138272

3. Lilly mother accused of killing son

Bowser heard voices telling her to smother her 5-year-old child.

https://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2024/02/lilly-mother-accused-of-killing-son/

4. Family reacts to deaths of 3-year-old twins, mother jumping off I-95

Officials haven’t released the identities of the children and the woman but family members identified the woman as 42-year-old Shirlene N. Alcime and the children as Milinddjy and Milender.

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/family-ids-dead-3-year-old-twins-in-car-on-i-95-says-mom-was-driving/3223677/

5. Mother arrested for murder after 4-year-old daughter found dead in Southern California

The cause of death was reported as ‘combined effects of strangulation and sharp force,’ according to the autopsy report.

https://abc7chicago.com/mia-gonzalez-maria-avalos-child-killed-strangulation/14366139/

6. Mum who left toddler alone in playpen for 10 days pleads guilty to aggravated murder

This wasn’t intentional homicide, but rather the most egregious negligent homicide imaginable.

https://news.sky.com/story/mum-who-left-toddler-alone-in-playpen-for-10-days-pleads-guilty-to-aggravated-murder-13079693

Title IX

Title IX: Parents or Government?

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 27, 2024

Title IX: Parents or Government?

Michael Ramey

February 27, 2024

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 holds that, with certain limited exceptions, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

The current Administration’s proposed new rules require an interpretation of the word “sex” here to include “sexual orientation and gender identity.”

If by changing the meaning, the Administration intended to protect an additional class of students from segregation by state or school officials, their effort would be laudable. But not only is this not their aim: it is also not necessary.

Rather, this proposed rule is partnered with others that promote “safe and supportive” homes throughout the foster care system, overtly defining as “safe” only those homes where the government’s anti-scientific, extremist approach to gender confusion is adopted.

This is deeply concerning for its potential to violate even an intact family’s right to autonomy. Specifically, the new rule opens the door to unconstitutional government infringement on the deeply rooted, constitutionally protected liberty of parents to direct and control the upbringing, education, and care of their children, which is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the U.S. Supreme] Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57 (2000) at 65

At the same time, it would violate a child’s reciprocal right to the care and companionship of their loving parent. Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817 (2d Cir. 1977) at 825

While the rule does not deal directly with parental rights, it endorses both a view of gender fluidity and selective treatment options that prompt government officials to run roughshod over any parent who does not agree with the government’s prescribed position.

Let me be clear: No government agent should keep secrets from parents about the health and wellbeing of the parent’s minor child.

Exceptions rightly exist, of course, for the investigation of a parent accused of physical abuse. But this rare occurrence involves strict procedural and court oversight.

Government policies that lead public school teachers and administrators to regularly keep secrets from parents about their child’s health and well-being, on the other hand, are seriously troubling. Yet, across the country this has been the result of adopting a policy which holds that government actors know better than parents how to treat a child who is uncomfortable with their biological sex.

The Supreme Court’s Parham v. J.R. decision (442 U.S. 584 (1979) at 603-4) is instructive here:

Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child, or because it involves risks, does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state. The same characterizations can be made for a tonsillectomy, appendectomy, or other medical procedure. Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments…. The fact that a child may balk at hospitalization or complain about a parental refusal to provide cosmetic surgery does not diminish the parents’ authority to decide what is best for the child.

The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the sort of policy proposed by the Administration, and they found it constitutionally deficient. Parents, not government agents, are the appropriate people “to make sound judgments concerning many [of a child’s] decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment.”

Ironically, redefining “sex” to include gender, and thus gender confusion, leads to more, not less, discrimination under Title IX.

This is because the proposed policy deprives a certain class of citizens of a fundamental right. While most parents retain the fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children, and while most children enjoy the reciprocal right to their parents’ companionship and guidance, the proposed rule expressly denies these rights to those families in which a child identifies as a gender minority.

In these families, the government would suddenly have the power—even the obligation—to determine what is the right course of treatment for the minor child.

And that “statist notion,” the Parham Court declared, “is repugnant to American [legal] tradition.”

Children and families should be protected from discrimination, even if a child identifies as a gender minority. Parents, not the government, know and value what is best for their child.

Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

National Outrage Over Biden Title IX Plan

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 27, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

National Outrage Over Biden Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / February 28, 2024 – America is witnessing a seismic shift in popular views about President Biden’s Title IX plan to expand the definition of sex to include “gender identity.” (1) Such a change would impose dramatic changes on women’s sports, gender transitioning, parental rights, free speech, due process, and more (2).

The following events took place during a five-day period in mid-February, revealing a historic shift in the national mood:

February 13: St. Louis Park Schools in blue-state Minneapolis agreed to allow six Somali-American families to opt out of instruction that featured “LGBTQ-affirming” books (3).
February 14: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis boldly announced, “The Biden Administration is plunging ahead with a radical re-write of Title IX, seeking to impose gender ideology on K-12 schools all across the country….In Florida, we will not abide by it.” (4)
February 17: Democrat-turned-Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced, “I don’t think somebody who is born a biological male should be competing in consequential women’s sports.” (5)

The issue that has generated the strongest public reaction is women’s sports, which are now imperiled by policies that allow biological males to compete against women.

In early February, Collegiate Charter School in Massachusetts played a basketball game against the KIPP Academy. The KIPP team had a member who was a 6-foot tall, biological male who identified as female. During the first half of the game, the male injured three of the Collegiate players, depleting the team’s roster and forcing the coach to forfeit the competition (6).

The incident went viral on social media and sparked public outrage. Retired University of North Carolina coach Sylvia Hatchell charged, “I don’t care if you had an operation or took hormones or what. Having to play against a transgender is not fair and it’s not equal.” (7)

The Collegiate Charter School incident was not the first time that a female was injured under similar circumstances.

Last November, a field hockey player for Dighton-Rehoboth Regional High School in Massachusetts had her teeth knocked out and suffered facial injuries when a Swampscott High School male player who identifies as a female hit the ball directly at her face.

In North Carolina, volleyball player Payton NcNabb suffered head and neck injuries and a concussion after a transgender player spiked the ball at her.

After USA Boxing announced it was going to admit biological males to compete against biological women, attorney Jenna Ellis accused the organization of wanting to “get women killed.” (8) Rep. Lauren Bobert (R-Colo.) denounced the scheme as “pathetic and disgusting.”

Numerous opinion polls show a strong majority of Americans opposes the Biden Gender Agenda (9). SAVE urges persons to submit testimony to the federal Office of Management and Budget to record their strong opposition to the new Title IX regulation.

Instructions how to schedule the testimony are available online: https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/

Links:

Legal

Paternity Fraud Continues to be a Devastating Problem for Some, But Progress is Being Made

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 19, 2024

Paternity Fraud Continues to be a Devastating Problem for Some, But Progress is Being Made

SAVE

February 19, 2024. Updated on February 26, 2024

Paternity fraud refers to the misattribution by a mother of the identity of the child’s father. Paternity fraud is a big problem in the United States. Some studies estimate that as many as 30% of births are attributed to the wrong father, who is forced to pay years of child support for a child who is not his.

This case reveals the extent to which some women will go to get child support:

Bachelor Paternity Case in Court! Clayton Echard Wins Big.

https://pjmedia.com/megan-fox/2024/02/22/bachelor-paternity-case-in-court-clayton-echard-wins-big-n4926673

Echard has maintained over the last nine months that Owens was never pregnant and that the entire lawsuit was based on fraud. Legal filings allege that Owens wore a fake pregnancy belly, provided Echard with faked sonograms, went to the media to ruin Echard’s reputation, refused discovery, and would not allow Echard to speak to her alleged doctors. Further investigation into the case found that Owens had taken at least two other men to court with similar allegations in the past.

Owens tried to have the case against Echard dismissed in January when she filed a motion claiming she was “no longer pregnant,” hoping the entire thing would get scrapped. Echard’s attorneys filed a motion to continue the court process to prove that the allegations she made were in bad faith and based on lies.

Effects on the Child

Paternity fraud is not only harmful to the father; it also causes psychological trauma to the child when they discover they are the victims of paternity fraud.

This 2018 story from The Atlantic reveals how DNA ancestry companies train their staff to help clients deal with the trauma of discovering their fathers weren’t who they thought.

WHEN A DNA TEST SHATTERS YOUR IDENTITY

“Each person comes into our group thinking they are a freak.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/07/dna-test-misattributed-paternity/562928/

It was Ancestry DNA’s customer-service rep who had to break the news to Catherine St Clair.

For her part, St Clair thought she was inquiring about a technical glitch. Her brother—the brother who along with three other siblings had gifted her the DNA test for her birthday—wasn’t showing up right in her family tree. It was not a glitch, the woman on the line had to explain gently, if this news can ever land gently: The man St Clair thought of as her brother only shared enough DNA with her to be a half-sibling. In fact, she didn’t match any family members on her father’s side. Her biological father must be someone else.

And a more recent article from El Pais:

Who is my father? The psychological impact of at-home DNA tests

At a time in which paternity is diffuse and expansive, science provides the ultimate certainty. But can you handle it?

El Pais, Dec. 29, 2023

https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2023-12-29/who-is-my-father-the-psychological-impact-of-at-home-dna-tests.html

Never before in history has it been so easy to confirm paternity, nor to discover discrepancies, with such certainty. In 2018, the DNA NPE Friends Facebook community established a non-profit support group. At the beginning of 2023 there were approximately 8,900 people registered. A qualitative study published in 2021 by Michele Grethel and collaborators from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles (UCLA), reports the impact on the identity of 27 participants between 40 and 70 years old, with a mean age of 50 years, who discovered an unexpected paternity as a result of an at-home DNA test. None of them were indifferent, or optimistic, about the discovery.

These children revealed feelings of shock, denial, anger, fear, confusion and isolation. Their extreme emotional reactions and bodily sensations — feeling frozen, dazed, overwhelmed — were common. Many tried to track down their newly discovered relatives, describing the process as an emotional roller coaster.

Misattributed paternity (which is one of several euphemisms for paternity fraud) can have serious medical consequences. Medicine is becoming increasingly personalized and tailored to patients’ genetic backgrounds. These therapies are less effective – or sometimes even counterproductive – if patients don’t have an accurate picture of their ancestry.

As a result, the medical profession is beginning to address the paternity fraud problem:

An old problem in a new age: Revisiting the clinical dilemma of misattributed paternity

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4796701/

Clinical genetics has wrestled with the problem of misattributed paternity for decades. While there are no clear directives on policy, surveys suggest that genetics professionals are inclined to avoid disclosure when possible. Changes associated with the increased use of genomic testing will alter the context and may limit the benefits of non-disclosure. Multi-site testing will preclude the uncertainty often associated with single-gene testing. Increased use of genetic testing in clinical and non-clinical settings will create new opportunities for the subsequent unmasking of misattributed relationships, as will the presence of test results in the electronic medical record. Family health history information will become more valuable as it is used more often and to better effect in risk assessment, diagnosis, treatment and reproductive decision-making. These changes associated with genomic testing increase the risks and decrease the benefits associated with the nondisclosure of misattributed paternity. For ethical and practical reasons, genetics professionals, and those who advise them, should consider a greater emphasis on the value of carefully planned disclosure.

Legislative Response

Lay people, and even lawyers, are often shocked when they read about the cavalier way in which American law treats paternity fraud. In a nutshell, a society that is focused solely on reproductive freedom for women turns a blind eye to reproductive freedom for men. Needless to say, this is an egregious equal protection violation.

Fortunately, many states are starting to address the problem of paternity fraud. Tennessee has been a leader in this regard. In 2022, Tennessee enacted a new law that criminalizes paternity fraud. Under the new law, a person commits “parentage fraud” if the person:

(1) Seeks to legally establish the individual as the biological parent of a child in the person’s custody with intent to deprive the individual of property or to prevent the child’s actual biological parent from exercising parental rights to the child and the person knows or reasonably should know that the individual is not the child’s biological parent; or

(2) Seeks to be legally established as a child’s parent based on the person’s status as a biological parent of the child and the person knows or reasonably should know that the person is not the child’s biological parent.

“Parentage fraud” is a Class A misdemeanor. The new law passed the Tennessee legislature by overwhelming margins. This article explains more about the Tennessee law:

New proposed bill will protect Tennessee’s parents from paternity fraud | Opinion

Rep. Antonio Parkinson’s proposed bill will insure that the actual biological father is listed on the birth certificate of the child.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2022/03/29/new-proposed-bill-protects-tennessees-parents-paternity-fraud/7200208001/

Recently I was approached by a young man who told me he had been in a long-term relationship. Together they had a son and he signed the voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (VAP). They were not married.

Five years later, he found out the mother had been unfaithful during the time they were together. He and the child took a DNA test. The results proved that he was not the father. Subsequently, the relationship ended. The woman then sued him for child support.

In Juvenile Court, he presented the DNA evidence to the magistrate and was basically told, “somebody’s got to feed him and it will be you.” He was ordered to pay child support and found in arrears. Eventually his license was suspended and he was pulled over and jailed for driving on a suspended license.

Sitting in jail, he lost his job.

Because he voluntarily signed and it had passed a 5-year period to rescind the voluntary acknowledgment, he was deemed the legal parent. Through this process, the actual, biological parent’s child was stolen from him.

Finally, under this scenario, the child’s right to have their legal biological father listed on their birth certificate and in some cases, their lives, was stolen from them also.

The year before, Tennessee enacted a law that removes the five-year statute of limitations for challenging a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity on the grounds of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact.

About 10 states now allow recovery for paternity fraud. while another eight do not. The recent trend is toward allowing recovery. Here are states that allow recovery for paternity fraud:

DiMichele v. Perrella, 51 Conn. L. Rptr. 750 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011); Koelle v. Zwiren, 672 N.E.2d 868 (Ill. App. Ct.. 1996); Dier v. Peters, 815 N.W.2d I (Iowa 2012); Denzik v. Denzik, 197 S.W.3d 108 (Ky. 2006); Mansfield v. Neff, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 616 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2014); G.A.W., III v. D.M.W., 596 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999); R.A.C. v. P.J.S., Jr., 927 A.2d 97 (N.J. 2007); Miller v. Miller, 956 P.2d 887 (Ok. 1998); Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012); Masters v. Worsley, 777 P.2d 499 (Utah Ct. App. 1989).

Here are states that do not allow recovery for paternity fraud:

Coulson v. Steiner, 2015 WL 10013667 (D. Alaska 2015); Nagy v. Nagy, 210 Cal.App.3d 1262 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989); Steve H. v. Wendy S., 960 P.2d 510, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 90 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998); Grand v. Hope, 617 S.E.2d 593 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005); Doe v. Doe, 747 A.2d 617 (Md. 2000); Renel v. Fortuna, 2014 WL 4628811 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014); Day v. Heller, 653 N.W.2d 475 (Neb. 2002); Hevey v. Hundley, 2013 WL 5782924 (Tex. App. 2013); Koestler v. Pollard, 471 N.W.2d 7 (Wis. 1991); St. Hilaire v. DeBlois, 721 A.2d 133 (Vt. 1998).

Judicial Response

In 2011, a case titled Hodge v. Craig, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a man could sue his ex-wife for paternity fraud. “We have determined that the existing common law action for intentional misrepresentation encompasses the claims made in this case by the former husband and that the trial court’s damage award based on the former husband’s post-divorce payments for child support, medical expenses, and insurance premiums is not an improper retroactive modification of the former husband’s child support obligation.” (At least nine other states, including Iowa, similarly allow recovery for paternity fraud.)

Developments in Nebraska

The Nebraska Supreme Court has persistently enabled paternity fraud. That is obviously bad policy from a legal perspective – courts shouldn’t tolerate any kind of fraud. As the Iowa Supreme Court noted when it rejected the Nebraska Supreme Court’s hands-off approach to paternity fraud, “We recognize fraud as a cause of action partly to deter lying. One good reason to allow fraud claims to go forward in the area of paternity fraud is to avoid the situation that has allegedly arisen here.” In a long line of cases, the Nebraska Supreme Court has consistently enabled paternity fraud.

In March, 2022 for example, the Nebraska Supreme Court held in a split 4-3 decision that a man who DNA testing had already shown to be the father of two new-born children did not have standing to establish legal rights to his children. The opinion, written by Chief Justice Michael Heavican, used a tortured application of the standing doctrine to reverse a trial decision and prevent the biological father from asserting rights to his own children. Under the court’s interpretation, it’s unclear how a biological father could ever assert legal rights to a child in this situation. The dissent summarizes the problem in a single sentence: “[t]he majority concludes that our statutory presumption of legitimacy as applied to children born in a marriage is rebuttable and, yet, operates to preclude interested parties from rebutting it.” Chaterjee v. Chaterjee, 313 Neb. 710 (2023).

In a 2014 case, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that a man who was falsely told he was the father of a child had to pay child support to the biological father. State ex rel. B.M. v. Brian F., 288 Neb. 106 (2014). See also “Man who isn’t biological dad responsible for child support, court finds,” Lincoln Journal Star (May 16, 2014), available at https://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-who-isnt-biological-dad-responsible-for-child-support-court-finds/article_6c861757-7d2a-5557-b022-cd0a1ce34970.html

In a 2002 case, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that a man who was falsely told he was the father of a child could not bring a claim for damages against a biological mother based on paternity fraud because it was “contrary to public policy.” Day v. Heller, 264 Neb. 934 (2002). Paternity fraud appears to be the only fraud for which the Nebraska Supreme Court refuses to provide a remedy.

It’s worth noting that subsequent courts that considered the Nebraska Supreme Court holding in Day have rejected its reasoning. In the 2012 case of Dier v. Peters, for example, the Iowa Supreme Court extensively discussed the earlier Nebraska decision but was “not persuaded.” As the Iowa court noted:

Also, we need to consider the public policy implications of an opposite ruling. We recognize fraud as a cause of action partly to deter lying. One good reason to allow fraud claims to go forward in the area of paternity fraud is to avoid the situation that has allegedly arisen here. We have emphasized that “public policy” is not predicated on this court’s “generalized concepts of fairness and justice.”

Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Gender Identity Legal Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Sounding the Alarm: Call for Americans to Oppose Biden Title IX Plan!

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 19, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Sounding the Alarm: Call for Americans to Oppose Biden Title IX Plan!

WASHINGTON / February 20, 2024 – A new poll of 1,600 persons reveals a majority of registered voters across the political spectrum now support state laws that would require children to wait until age 18 before they can receive transgender treatments: Republicans: 73%; Independents: 71%; and Democrats: 61%. (1)

The controversy came to light last week in New Hampshire where a new record was set in the girls’ high jump competition. Maelle Jacques succeeded in jumping 5’1”, breaking the previous female record by a full inch (2). But the athletic accomplishment was overshadowed by the fact that Jacques is a biological male who now identifies as transgender.

Similar reports have become commonplace for a range of concerns related to Title IX, the federal sex discrimination law: Due process for falsely accused male students (3), gender transitioning of underage minors (4), pronoun mandates (5), campus free speech (6), and more.

The uproar springs from a controversial 2022 Department of Education proposal to change the definition of sex to include “gender identity” (7). The Title IX plan has faced strong opposition across the country:

Numerous attorneys general and federal lawmakers issued statements of opposition (8).
25 Republican governors called on the Biden administration to withdraw its proposed changes to Title IX. (9)
Nearly 60 political candidates signed a Pledge to “Protect Schools, Children, and Families from the Federal Title IX Plan” (10)

In addition, 23 states have banned gender transitioning among children (11), 10 states outlawed pronoun mandates (12), and 23 states enacted laws to protect women’s sports from transgender athletes (13).

On February 2, the Department of Education forwarded its controversial regulation to the federal Office for Management and Budget for final approval.

SAVE is urging the American public to speak out in strong opposition to the Biden Title IX plan. We invite you to contact the Office for Management and Budget to politely express your concerns. For details how to schedule a meeting, visit: https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/

Links:

False Allegations Sexual Assault

We Need New Laws to Punish False Accusers

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 16, 2024

We Need New Laws to Punish False Accusers

Perses Institute

The law would punish false accusers
with a minimum prison sentence equal
to any jail time served by the victim of
the false accusation. Such a statute might look like this:

18 Stat. § 101: False Accusations of
sexual misconduct.

(a) Any person who makes any
utterance, publication or statement
that states or implies that another
person is guilty of rape or sexual
assault, knowing that the utterance,
publication or statement is false, or,
having reason to know that the
utterance, publication or statement is
false, shall be guilty of a Felony.

(b) This offense shall be charged as “False sexual reporting.”

(d) Any person who violates the
provisions of subsection (a) shall
serve a term in prison not less than
any amount of time, including pre
trial confinement that any falsely
accused served as a result of the false
accusation.

(e) Any person who violates the
provisions of subsections (a) or (b)
shall be strictly liable for any
damages the falsely accused victim
incurs as a result of the false
utterance, publication or statement.

(f) Any court entering judgment
against a false accuser under this
provision shall award full restitution
to any falsely accused, including
restitution or damages that arise or
become known after any hearing on
restitution. A victim of a false
accusation of rape or sexual assault
may re-open the issue of restitution in
any criminal proceeding under this
provision, at any time, to seek
additional compensation for
restitution of damages or injuries.

(g) There shall be no statute of
limitations for any charge brought
under this provision.

(h) Any person who violates the
provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of
this provision shall be required to
register as a sex offender under any
applicable state or federal laws.

(i) Punishment under this provision
shall be the minimum prison sentence
as specified in subsection (d) up to
and including twenty-five years in
prison, plus a fine of up to $500,000
or both.