If you’re considering a move beyond U.S. borders, this country across the pond might be your ideal destination for a cup of (afternoon) tea.
HireAHelper, an online marketplace facilitating the search and hiring of professional movers, recently conducted a study unveiling the locations where Americans have been relocating the most since the onset of the pandemic. The findings were derived from an analysis of monthly Google searches incorporating keywords such as “moving to Mexico,” “moving to Canada,” and “moving abroad.”
The leading destination, according to these findings? The United Kingdom.
As indicated by the study, although searches for relocating abroad have decreased by 30% compared to last year, the count of U.S. citizens moving to the primary destination countries has risen. For example, more than 11,500 Americans relocated to the United Kingdom in the initial half of the year, marking a 30% increase from the corresponding period in 2022.
An article from The Evening Standard outlines several reasons why numerous Americans are opting to move to London, including the increasing cost of living, soaring house prices, a strengthened dollar, and domestic political uncertainties. If you’re among those who searched “moving to the U.K.” on Google, discover the necessary steps for relocating across the pond.
On a different note, the second most favored destination is Mexico, where 19,620 U.S. citizens have chosen to relocate.
North of the border, Canada garnered more searches than any other nation, despite a 53% decrease compared to last year. Furthermore, Canada witnessed a 10% increase in the number of Americans moving there in the first six months of 2023 compared to the same period in 2022. If you’re considering such a move, explore the steps for moving to Canada as an American.
Additional countries that attract American emigrants include various European nations, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Israel. In total, more than 821,000 U.S. citizens have moved to 40 different countries since 2017, driven by factors such as lower taxation, improved quality of life, and the growing trend of digital nomadism, among other reasons.
A federal judge has determined that Ron DeSantis was disseminating falsehoods when he referred to gender-affirming care as “mutilation.”
This year has been a series of setbacks for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. His presidential ambitions are dwindling due to his lack of charisma and campaign missteps. His conflict with Disney is draining millions from Florida taxpayers. Additionally, a federal court has strongly suggested that DeSantis was dishonest in justifying his prohibition on medical care for transgender youth.
DeSantis consistently argued that the law was essential to prevent the “mutilation” of young individuals. For instance, he criticized a reporter who challenged him on this when he signed the bill in May.
“And when you talk to people—I know people in your industry will dress it up with a euphemism—and they’ll say it’s health care to cut off the private parts of a 14 or 15-year-old,” DeSantis stated. “That is not health care. That is mutilation.”
Inform that to U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle.
“When assessing the governor’s motives, how should I interpret these statements? It appears to be more than mere exaggeration.”
Hinkle is overseeing a legal challenge to the law brought by three Florida families with transgender children. He has implemented a stay against the measure from being enforced during the legal proceedings and has consistently shown skepticism toward the state’s arguments. In a ruling that invalidated Florida’s ban on Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care, Hinkle emphasized, “Gender identity is real.”
Hinkle conceded that he cannot completely discern DeSantis’ intentions. He raised the question of whether the plaintiffs could demonstrate that DeSantis endorsed the law “because he hates transgender people.” The families’ attorney argued that the law is inherently unconstitutional, making DeSantis’ motivations less pivotal to the case.
Hinkle indicated his belief that the law’s purpose isn’t truly to prevent mutilation but rather to obstruct transgender youth from accessing healthcare. This strongly suggests that DeSantis might face an unfavorable ruling from the court.
This development also signals that DeSantis might have based his campaign on an unsuccessful concept. Relying heavily on anti-trans stances to perform well in the Iowa presidential caucus, he finds himself facing challenges with Nikki Haley gaining popularity and his campaign in disarray. The outlook for him in Iowa appears uncertain, making the end of 2023 potentially regrettable for DeSantis, with the prospect of 2024 being even more challenging.
A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against an Idaho law that would have banned gender-affirming healthcare treatments for transgender individuals under 18 years old. The law, which was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2024, aimed to make it a felony to provide gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
On Wednesday, District Court Judge Lynn Winmill ruled that the restrictions imposed by the law violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Winmill stated in his decision, “Transgender children should receive equal treatment under the law. Parents should have the right to make the most fundamental decisions about how to care for their children.”
Continuing, he emphasized, “Time and again, these cases illustrate that the Fourteenth Amendment’s primary role is to protect disfavored minorities and preserve our fundamental rights from legislative overreach… and it is no less true for transgender children and their parents in the 21st Century.”
HB 71, signed into law by Governor Brad Little in April, prohibits puberty blockers, which enable children to explore their gender identity and temporarily halt the development of permanent sex characteristics. The law also bans hormone therapies and surgeries. Physicians, as reported by ABC News, have emphasized that surgeries on adolescents are infrequent and are only considered after careful evaluation on a case-by-case basis.
The law includes an exception for children with a “medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex development,” commonly referred to as intersex.
The law stipulates that any medical professional found guilty of providing gender-affirming care to transgender individuals under 18 could face a felony conviction and imprisonment in a state prison for a maximum of 10 years.
In the United States, approximately 20 states have enacted limitations on the accessibility of gender-affirming care, and several of these measures have encountered legal opposition. Arkansas, the initial state to pass such legislation, also had its law declared unconstitutional by a federal judge.
Proponents of these restrictions contend that they safeguard children from “medically unnecessary interventions that result in irreparable infertility, chronic health problems, and mutilated reproductive organs,” as expressed in a press release by the conservative Christian lobbying group Idaho Family Policy Center after the bill was signed into law.
The adolescent plaintiffs central to this legal action, directly affected by the legislation, emphasize that gender-affirming care has been crucial for their mental well-being. This sentiment aligns with findings from various studies.
The CDC reports that transgender youth frequently face anxiety, depressive moods, and thoughts or attempts of suicide, often stemming from gender-related discrimination and dysphoria. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine affirms that gender-affirming hormone therapy is effective in enhancing the mental well-being of transgender adolescents and teenagers.
One of the plaintiffs emphasized the swift and positive impact of puberty blockers on her well-being. The decision by Judge Winmill notes that by temporarily halting the physical changes contributing to her depression and anxiety, her mental health significantly improved.
The second plaintiff initiated puberty blockers following extensive therapy, additional consultations with her doctor, and laboratory assessments. After a few months, she commenced low-dose hormone therapy, as outlined in the legal filing.
The filing, which uses a pseudonym for the plaintiff, stated, “Since receiving gender-affirming medical care, Jane’s mental health has significantly improved, but the debate over HB 71 and other anti-transgender bills has affected her mental health and her grades.” It further mentions that when the bill passed, Jane wept in the school hallway, requiring her parents to take her home. The passage of the bill has prompted the Doe family to contemplate leaving Idaho so that Jane can maintain access to the medical care that has proven significantly beneficial to her.
Prominent national medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and more than 20 others, concur that gender-affirming care is both safe and medically necessary, offering effective and beneficial outcomes.
During the traffic stop, an officer documented that Republican state Rep. Nico Rios became “verbally abusive, displaying homophobic, racially discriminatory behavior.
Recently, North Dakota state Rep. Nico Rios, a member of the Republican party, was arrested for DUI, and during the arrest, he reportedly made homophobic and xenophobic comments to the police.
On December 15, authorities arrested Nico Rios and issued citations for DUI, DUI refusal, and an open container, according to a Williston Police Department report.
The representative was pulled over around 11:30 p.m. after reportedly swerving between lanes, as stated in the report.
The police officers who initiated the stop then administered a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, Walk and Turn test, and One-Leg-Stand test. During these tests, Rios allegedly exhibited “slurred speech and difficulty constructing sentences,” as outlined in the report.
In the report, one of the police officers noted that during the testing, Rios became.
An officer reported that Rios became “verbally abusive, homophobic, racially abusive, and discriminatory” during the tests, leading to his arrest when he refused to undergo a screening test.
“Irrespective of my state of inebriation, my conduct and words toward law enforcement that night were entirely unacceptable,” Rios stated in a comment to CNN. “Just two officers doing their job to keep the community safe when they encountered me on a night when I chose to act foolishly. They did nothing to warrant any form of disrespect. I owe it to myself, my district, and everyone, and I vow to ensure this never happens again.”
In the body camera footage released of the incident, Rios can be seen making the remarks while being transported to jail.
At the traffic stop, Rios can be heard using a homophobic slur and asking the officer about his accent. The officer responds that he is originally from England.
“You’re arresting me for driving home while people come into your country and rape your women? And I’m the bad guy?” Rios says after mentioning that the U.K. is being “taken over” by migrants.
Rios stated to the Associated Press that he was leaving a Christmas party before he was stopped and has “only received support from my colleagues, although a few have yelled at me, for sure I deserved it.”
The legislator was elected last year and currently serves on the House Judiciary Committee, a panel overseeing legislation related to law enforcement.
“Moving forward after this incident, I want to emphasize my complete and total commitment to supporting law enforcement,” Rios stated. “I messed up big time, and I am truly sorry.”
Republican House Majority Leader Mike Lefor stated to the AP that he hadn’t watched the video but had heard sufficient details about it.
He mentioned that he is assessing the available options and plans to have a discussion with Rios before providing further comments on the incident. Lefor didn’t disclose whether he had already requested Rios’s resignation.
“We are profoundly concerned about Rep. Rios’ reckless choice to drive under the influence and his comments to law enforcement officers,” stated North Dakota Republican Party Chairwoman Sandi Sanford in a text message to the news wire. “His actions do not reflect the values of the NDGOP.”
Rios is scheduled for a pretrial conference in municipal court on February 5th.
The police department has been altering its rationale for the cause of the crash involving the officer and the SUV into a gay bar.
A St. Louis police official has disclosed that the police officer involved in crashing his SUV into a Missouri LGBTQ+ bar, resulting in the arrest of the bar’s co-owner, was not tested for intoxication at the time of the incident. Surveillance footage depicts the vehicle running a red light before the crash, conflicting with the police department’s changing explanations for the crash’s cause.
Following the incident, the state’s governor has urged the police department to make public the bodycam footage from the arresting officers. The co-owner of the bar alleges that he was given a black eye by the police, and his legal representative is advocating for the dismissal of all criminal charges against him.
St. Louis Metropolitan Police Lieutenant Colonel Renee Kriesmann informed the media that the officer involved in the crash wasn’t tested for alcohol or drugs as there was no “reasonable suspicion” of intoxication, according to The Riverfront Times.
Kriesmann stated that the driver was “distracted while attempting to change his in-car radio” during the crash. However, there have been inconsistent explanations from officers. Initially, the bar’s co-owner, James Pence, reported that the officer said he swerved to avoid hitting a dog on the street.
Yet, according to an official incident report from the police department, the officer stated that he “believed he was traveling too close to a parked car” and overcorrected, resulting in the crash into the bar, as reported by KTVI.
Javad Khazaeli, the attorney representing Chad Morris, co-owner of Bar:PM, shared surveillance footage on X (formerly Twitter) demonstrating that neither a dog nor a parked car was in close proximity to the police vehicle. Additionally, he posted a video revealing that the police vehicle ran a red light shortly before the collision.
Chad Morris asserted that he was beaten by an arresting officer. When released from jail, he displayed a black eye, facial bruises, and scratches. Prosecutors have reduced his assault charge to a misdemeanor, but his attorney contends that all charges against him must be dismissed.
Khazaeli communicated on X, stating, “The same officer who assaulted my client decided that the driver had no impairment and didn’t need a breathalyzer. There’s no dash cam on the car, and they won’t release the body cam. There’s no investigation of the crash, no crash scene photos. If I crashed into a building while speeding, after midnight, after running a stoplight, there’s no way I could have a co-worker decide that I should not get a breathalyzer.”
Khazaeli presented VICE News with footage of the arrest, undermining police assertions that Morris pushed an officer following the crash. In the video, moments before his arrest, Morris exclaims, “This person in the black beanie punched me in the face,” referring to the officer who detained him and wasn’t involved in driving.
After the crash, the arresting officer instructs Pence to “stop yelling,” claiming it causes a disturbance, and warns the person recording that continued interference will result in handcuffs, adding “clown.” Recording the police is legal under state law as long as it doesn’t obstruct law enforcement. The video also captures someone asking the officers about their relationship before the crash.
The St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office initially filed felony charges against Morris, accusing him of third-degree assault on a special victim. However, these charges were later reduced to misdemeanors, specifically fourth-degree assault and resisting arrest. Khazaeli advocates for the dismissal of all charges against Morris.
The officer involved in Morris’s arrest was previously accused of causing injuries to a man in 2019 who had verbally confronted him with “F**k the police.” However, it’s important to note that verbal harassment does not legally justify physical assault by law enforcement.
Governor Mike Parson (R) has urged the department to release the body camera footage of the officers involved in the incident. He emphasized the importance of transparency, stating, “If you’ve got body cam footage, I don’t know why you wouldn’t release it. In the old days, it will help you as much as it will ever hurt you… Be transparent and get it over with.”
On Thursday, a resolution was reached in the contentious lawsuit concerning diversity and inclusion within the Forest Hills School District, involving four student families.
Since June 2022, there has been a legal dispute between the school board and four families over a resolution aiming to prohibit race-based and gender-identity training for staff and curriculum in schools. The resolution was named the “Culture of Kindness and Equal Opportunity for All Students” Resolution.
After 18 months of legal battles, Forest Hills has agreed to a settlement that mandates the district to pay $100,000 to the attorneys of the parents and revoke their resolution, as outlined in the settlement document.
While I’m pleased that the resolution has been revoked, I see it as a temporary solution to a broader national issue. The idea that we can simply “agree to disagree” becomes problematic when some believe that certain voices should be silenced, specific experiences dismissed, and accepting LGBTQ children equated to grooming. While they may argue they act in the best interests of children, their limited perspective, excluding experiences of discrimination based on race, orientation, disability, or socioeconomics, demonstrates a willful ignorance. This approach, choosing not to listen to the diverse experiences of all children, can only be detrimental.
Despite reaching a settlement, the Forest Hills School District maintains that this doesn’t imply an acknowledgment of any wrongdoing or liability regarding the resolution.
The $100,000 payment is being covered by the district’s liability insurance.
The Resolution aimed to create a safe and supportive learning environment for all students. The Board is confident that existing policies and guidelines will adequately fulfill the district’s obligations to students, parents, and the community. The Forest Hills School District Board of Education remains committed to supporting a high-quality educational experience that enables each student to attain personal success.
The “Culture of Kindness” resolution was adopted by the district in June 2022 but was not implemented as the district faced an ongoing lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
With the conclusion of the case, Janielle Davis, a parent of a student at Forest Hills, expressed relief, stating that they can now “breathe a little easier.”
“This victory goes beyond our immediate community; it is for anyone who has felt unseen and unheard over the past year,” elaborated Janielle Davis.
Natalie Hastings, a parent of two students, sees this as a pivotal moment for the Forest Hills community. However, she remains skeptical about the Board’s future actions.
“Now, as we enter 2024, we have an opportunity for a new beginning for our board and district, moving past the division and confusion caused by the Resolution. However, we will remain vigilant in monitoring the board’s activities to ensure every student receives a quality, honest education in a safe environment that promotes belonging and inclusion,” expressed Hastings.
I express gratitude to transgender individuals for challenging the societal myth of gender roles. However, visionaries should not have to endure persecution in their own time.
The Human Rights Campaign has documented that in 2023, at least 30 trans and gender non-conforming individuals lost their lives in the United States. A staggering 87% of them were individuals of color, with Black trans women accounting for 50%. Firearms were used in 77% of these tragic incidents, and 50% of the victims were misgendered or deadnamed by authorities or the media.
First and foremost, let us honor and remember their names:
Throughout history, various groups and individuals confronted immense challenges merely for expressing their authentic truth, and tragically, many paid the ultimate price for doing so.
Abolitionists united to advocate for the immediate abolition of slavery and an end to racial discrimination and segregation. They encountered strong opposition, with some Christian denominations even contending that sacred scriptures not only permitted but commanded the practice of slavery.
Young activists organized sit-in demonstrations at Southern lunch counters to protest against Jim Crow laws that enforced the segregation of public facilities. They endured verbal abuse from onlookers and physical violence from local police wielding batons. Many faced imprisonment and the prospect of permanent criminal records.
Feminists initiated a new wave in the struggle for women’s suffrage, facing significant opposition within a patriarchal system marked by male domination and misogyny. Opponents argued that granting women the right to vote would undermine Christianity and civilization itself.
The Church found physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei guilty of heresy for asserting that the Earth orbits the Sun, contrary to the Church’s stance that the Earth was the stationary center of the universe with the Sun revolving around it. Galileo endured house arrest for the rest of his life as a consequence.
Joan of Arc, the adolescent who played a crucial role in defeating the English in her homeland of France, emerged as one of the most revered war heroes in French history. Despite her achievements, she faced trial by the Catholic Church on charges of heresy for rejecting Church authority in favor of direct inspiration from God, particularly for her choice to wear men’s clothing. Joan met her end through execution by burning at the stake.
Alan Turing, a mathematician, logician, philosopher, and key figure in early computer development, played a significant role in deciphering Nazi coded messages, widely credited with shortening the war by two to four years and saving Great Britain. Despite his invaluable contributions, the British government prosecuted Turing for his homosexuality, sentencing him to “chemical castration” through estrogen injections as an alternative to a two-year prison term. Tragically, Turing took his own life a few weeks before his 42nd birthday.
Governments and influential figures have historically employed various methods to suppress dissent, aiming to preserve and expand their authority.
They perpetrate genocide against the genuine human liberators, the prophets, the visionaries who champion a fair and liberated world. These pioneers, persecuted during their lifetimes, have not only been absolved but, more crucially, are now revered as the visionaries they genuinely are.
Antonio Gramsci articulated the notion of “cultural hegemony,” elucidating how the prevailing group effectively spreads its societal interpretations of reality and its communal visions, presented as “common sense,” “normal,” and “universal.” This hegemony sustains and amplifies the marginalization of groups with diverse identities or dissenting perspectives.
Trans individuals have consistently stood among the truth-tellers within societies. They’ve revealed the reality behind the social construct we term “gender roles,” challenging the societal imposition assigned to each of us alongside our birth-assigned sex.
Labeled as “female” or “male” from birth, society compels us to adhere to its predetermined “feminine” or “masculine” scripts. Similar to scripts given to actors in a play, gender roles were composed long before any of us took the stage of life. These roles bear little connection to our inherent natures, beliefs, interests, and values.
Judith Butler, a social theorist, posits that gender is akin to a rehearsed act or script. It predates an individual’s arrival and persists like a script waiting for actors. Gender, in this view, is an act that necessitates individual actors to be realized and perpetuated as reality.
Defying the societal script of gender roles, akin to challenging a director, can result in severe consequences. Unfortunately, trans individuals, much like historical truth tellers, face harsh repercussions. Between October 2022 and September 2023, 321 trans and gender nonconforming people were murdered, with a significant majority being trans women of color.
Perpetrators of violence against trans individuals exhibit extreme and fanatical reactions, fueled by broader societal pressures to eliminate any deviation from established gender norms. As co-directors in this societal drama, we play a role each time we enforce gender-role conformity and relinquish critical consciousness. It’s essential to challenge and rewrite these scripts for a more inclusive and compassionate society.
Individuals who engage in bullying often serve the social role of upholding and reinforcing the predefined scripts assigned to them within the societal performance.
I’m unable to provide specific quotes from Frederick Douglass due to limitations in my training data. However, if you can provide the specific statement or topic you’re referring to, I can offer a paraphrased version or provide information on the general themes discussed by Frederick Douglass.
Even though the circumstances of Douglass’s era differed significantly from today, his words can be analogously interpreted: “No individual can impose constraints on another without eventually finding those constraints restricting their own freedom.”
While it’s evident that oppression initially benefits those in power, it inevitably rebounds, ensnaring the oppressors. In this intricate web of oppression, individuals in marginalized groups bear the brunt, yet members of dominant groups also suffer, albeit in distinct ways. Despite the differing impacts, the ultimate outcome is a collective loss for everyone involved.
Initially, cissexist (transgender oppressive) conditioning undermines individuals’ integrity, compelling them to engage in harmful behavior that contradicts their fundamental humanity. It hampers the capacity to establish close, intimate connections with trans individuals, constrains communication with a substantial segment of the population, and, more precisely, confines family relationships.
Cissexism confines individuals to inflexible gender-based roles, stifling creativity and self-expression. Additionally, it hinders cisgender individuals from embracing the valuable contributions and insights provided by the trans community, spanning theoretical perspectives, social and spiritual visions, artistic and cultural contributions, educational advancements, family dynamics, and, indeed, all aspects of society.
In the end, it obstructs the acknowledgment of various forms of diversity, creating an unsafe environment for everyone. Each individual possesses distinctive qualities that may fall outside mainstream or dominant norms. Consequently, the degradation of any one of us diminishes the collective well-being of all.
The message is unequivocal: When any community faces oppression, it becomes a shared concern for everyone. Hence, there is a collective self-interest in actively engaging in the dismantling of various oppressive structures, including cissexism.
I am of the opinion that we are born into a world tainted by cissexism, akin to acid rain falling upon us. Some spirits are deeply scarred, while others bear surface marks, and no one is entirely shielded. Hence, we share a collective responsibility and opportunity to unite as allies, building shelters against the corrosive impacts of prejudice and discrimination. Concurrently, we must strive to cleanse the cissexist environment in which we reside. As we take substantial measures to mitigate this pollution, we will all experience a breath of fresh air.
Considering this, every instance in which we revise the scripts to present a genuine and authentic portrayal of life—each effort to break the barriers restricting us from transcending the gender norm by consistently questioning and challenging conventional notions of gender roles—marks the beginning of a journey where both individuals and society can embrace life to its fullest, with our humanity and integrity preserved.
I express my pride in and gratitude to the trans community for bravely challenging the societal myth of gender roles, the predefined boxes that society assigns us, dictating our gender scripts.
Trans individuals have unlocked the boxes, revealing a vast gender continuum that transcends the sex imposed on us by others. The trans community has illuminated the intrinsic fluidity of gender.
Trans visionaries, currently persecuted, will eventually be acknowledged as the truth tellers they truly are. Until that day arrives, the harassment, marginalization, fear, violence, and murders must cease. It is our collective responsibility to actively strive for this every day.
The Texas Supreme Court has temporarily halted a lower court’s decision that granted a pregnant woman the right to proceed with an abortion.
The Texas Supreme Court has issued a temporary stay on a district court’s decision that permitted Katie Cox, a 31-year-old woman, to undergo an abortion. Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, is carrying a fetus diagnosed with full trisomy, a condition associated with high risks of miscarriage, stillbirth, or infant death shortly after birth.
“The petition for mandamus and motion for temporary relief remain pending before the Court,” stated the Texas Supreme Court in response to the ongoing legal proceedings related to Katie Cox’s case.
Cox’s physicians have indicated that continuing her pregnancy would necessitate a cesarean section or induction, posing a risk of serious injury. Inducing labor could lead to a uterine rupture, especially considering Cox’s previous C-sections, and another cesarean section could further jeopardize her future fertility.
Molly Duane, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, expressed concern that justice delayed could result in justice denied in this case. She emphasized the urgency of medical care, especially given that Katie Cox is already 20 weeks pregnant. Duane stated that individuals should not have to plead for healthcare in a court of law.
Texas prohibits all abortions from the moment of fertilization, and it enforces a “bounty law” that incentivizes private citizens to file lawsuits against those who aid or facilitate someone in obtaining an abortion.
“The Attorney General’s office in Texas argued to the court that future criminal and civil proceedings cannot restore the life that is lost if the plaintiffs or their agents proceed to perform and procure an abortion in violation of Texas law,” according to The Associated Press.
The Hill has contacted the Texas Attorney General’s office and the Center for Reproductive Rights for comments.
The law implemented in August has fostered an unwelcome educational environment for LGBTQ+ students.
Three LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations in western North Carolina have launched the initial phase of their campaign to challenge the state’s discriminatory Don’t Say Gay law.
The Campaign for Southern Equality, Youth OUTright WNC, and PFLAG Asheville have united to contest Buncombe County School District’s policies following the passage of SB49 in August. This legislation was enacted after North Carolina Republicans successfully overrode a veto by Democratic Governor Roy Cooper.
The Don’t Say Gay legislation, also recognized as the Parent’s Bill of Rights, prohibits teaching about “gender identity, sexual activity, or sexuality” in kindergarten through fourth grade. It also mandates informing parents “prior to any changes in the name or pronoun used for a student in school records or by school personnel,” with certain allowances given to school administrators.
The law took effect immediately upon passage, and in the months following, school districts statewide have been wrestling with its implementation.
In a complaint submitted to the Title IX Coordinator for Buncombe County Schools, the three organizations assert that SB49 infringes upon the education provisions outlined in Title IX.
“The policies enacted by the Buncombe County Board of Education in adherence to the state law SB49 (commonly referred to as the ‘Don’t Say LGBTQ’ law and the ‘Parents’ Bill of Rights’) establish an unwelcoming educational atmosphere for LGBTQIA+ students, families, staff, and faculty,” states the complaint, “thereby contravening Title IX and the obligation of Buncombe County Schools to furnish each student with a secure and non-discriminatory school environment.”
The complaint references Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funding, encompassing discrimination related to sexual orientation or gender identity.
In October, the Campaign for Southern Equality raised their Title IX concerns with the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. The response received stated, “Absent a determination by USED Office of Civil Rights or a court order affirming your position, neither the State Board nor DPI can knowingly fail to comply with a duly enacted state law.”
The groups’ strategy shifted towards obtaining a determination from a local official responsible for enforcing Title IX. In Buncombe County, this role is held by Shanon Martin, the Title IX Coordinator for Buncombe County Schools.
“We request that, if these Title IX violation allegations are confirmed, the Title IX Coordinator for Buncombe County Schools instruct the Superintendent to postpone the implementation of all SB49-related policies passed on December 7, 2023, until the federal complaint against DPI and SBE has been resolved,” the complaint to Martin reads.
Craig White, the supportive schools director at Campaign For Southern Equality, informed Blue Ridge Public Radio that his team anticipates filing a federal complaint in January.
Rob Elliot, chairman of the policy committee for the Buncombe County Board of Education, described the process of determining how to enforce SB49 as “very stressful” and a “noisy, big, complex legal discussion.”
“We don’t exist just under the confines of this one new law,” Elliot said. “This doesn’t define our entire world. We exist under a whole universe of federal law and state law, all of which we have to abide by as well.”
Speaker Mike Johnson has previously represented individuals with troubling views, including one who expressed support for killing gay people and another who advocated for the government to be a terror to the LGBTQ community.
Speaker Mike Johnson has downplayed his pre-Congress career, presenting himself as a modest constitutional lawyer advocating for conservative Christian causes.
“I’m deeply thankful for the ministry and your steadfastness,” Johnson expressed in August, responding to the commendations from evangelical figure Jim Garlow. “It provides tremendous encouragement for me and others laboring in these occasionally challenging areas of the Lord’s vineyard.”
While Johnson might have been expressing dissatisfaction with Congress, an examination of the new speaker’s past clients sheds light on the challenging nature of some of those corners in his legal career.
Johnson’s fervent religious convictions and Christian nationalist ideology led him to offer his legal services, frequently pro bono, to clients associated with some of the country’s most radical anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ organizations, including individuals linked to militant movements with a tendency for violent expression.
A scrutiny by The Daily Beast uncovered one of Johnson’s past clients who advocated that the government “should be a terror” to abortion providers and the LGBTQ community. Another client opposed condemning domestic terrorist attacks on abortion clinics, while yet another client recorded himself endorsing the hanging of government officials during the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The said former client currently heads a militant organization associated with a notorious incident in the anti-abortion movement, involving the 2009 murder of a Kansas abortion doctor. Moreover, this plaintiff’s father sought Johnson’s assistance in 2003 to obtain a permit for an anti-LGBTQ protest, which eventually resulted in the attempted stabbing of a gay man.
In that instance, Johnson’s client, Grant E. Storms, an anti-gay activist and former radical Christian preacher, gained national attention in 2012 when he admitted to engaging in inappropriate behavior in his van near a playground in Metairie, Louisiana. Storms faced charges of indecent exposure and received a three-year probation sentence.
While Johnson didn’t handle Storms’ criminal case, Storms revealed in an interview with The Daily Beast that Johnson had provided extensive legal services for him during the early to mid-2000s, and all of these services were offered pro bono. Storms considered Johnson a friend.
“We were comrades on the journey,” Storms said. “He consistently supported us.”
In all instances, Johnson indeed supported them. Though his fervent anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ positions remained largely unnoticed nationally for years, they gained attention after he assumed the speaker’s position in October. Johnson has referred to abortion as “a holocaust,” expressed support for criminalizing gay sex, and openly emphasized his Christian nationalist affiliations, stating on Fox News that his beliefs on “any issue under the sun” are guided by the Bible.
The Daily Beast submitted a comprehensive comment request to Johnson’s office, seeking clarification on his perspectives regarding specific former clients and their actions or affiliations. In response, a spokesperson from the speaker’s office provided a statement underscoring a fundamental aspect of the attorney-client relationship.
“After practicing law for more than 20 years, Johnson has defended the First Amendment rights of numerous clients. It’s essential to recognize that representing a client in a First Amendment dispute doesn’t imply an endorsement of everything the client has said or done before or after a case,” stated the spokesperson in response to The Daily Beast’s inquiry.
“Attorneys are not held responsible for their clients’ actions or choices, especially after their legal relationship ends. However, Johnson consistently chose to represent clients and causes, often pro bono, that aligned with his ideological stance. While he could argue these cases on a First Amendment basis, Johnson frequently took on clients with anti-gay and anti-abortion positions, similar to his openly held views. His clients’ use of violent rhetoric didn’t seem to deter Johnson at the time, and he has not taken the opportunity to condemn their actions, words, or involvement in the insurrection,” responded the spokesperson.
The spokesperson did not respond to a follow-up inquiry about whether Johnson would provide comments on the specific details in this report.
This examination of Johnson’s legal career highlights the need for further exploration into his past and the extent of his involvement with some of the nation’s most militant religious movements.
Grant Storms informed The Daily Beast that his initial connection with Johnson occurred in the early 2000s through Alliance Defending Freedom, a prominent activist group striving to institutionalize conservative Christian principles in legislation.
ADF presents itself as a charitable organization committed to safeguarding religious freedom; however, it has embarked on a worldwide campaign to undermine LGBTQ and abortion rights. Following law school, Johnson joined ADF and served there for almost a decade as a lawyer and spokesperson.
Storms remembered reaching out to Johnson to seek assistance in removing what he deemed “indecent” imagery from an advertisement he saw at a bus station, claiming it depicted men engaging in sexual activity. At that time, Storms was a prominent figure in Louisiana, known for his fervent Christian activism. Johnson offered his pro bono support for various legal issues Storms faced, one of which gained national attention and resulted in a hate crime.
Storms claimed that Johnson played a key role in securing a permit for his 2003 protest against the Southern Decadence festival, an annual celebration of gay culture in New Orleans. Storms, known for influencing the passage of stricter decency laws in Louisiana, gained national attention for providing lawmakers with videos he personally recorded of men engaging in public sex. He asserted that both local officials and the Department of Homeland Security were initially opposed to his demonstration, but Johnson helped overcome these objections.
The Associated Press extensively reported on the protest, which unfortunately turned violent when an assailant, unrelated to Christian Conservatives for Reform, attempted to murder a man with a five-inch steak knife. Storms faced charges of battery in a separate incident that weekend, involving a pushing match with a nightclub security guard who denied him permission to record video inside the establishment.
In a recorded confession, the assailant confirmed his intent to attend Storms’ event with the purpose of killing a gay man, as stated by the police. However, it remained unclear whether the victim he targeted was actually gay. The assailant faced charges of attempted first-degree murder and a felony hate crime but passed away before the trial.
In an interview with The Daily Beast, Storms consistently condemned the attack and expressed opposition to any violence against LGBTQ and abortion rights communities. Reflecting on his past, Storms acknowledged that his passionate rhetoric at the time, often featured on his five-day-per-week radio show (which he believes included Johnson on several occasions), might have inadvertently contributed to an atmosphere that incited harmful actions by certain individuals.
“When things were at their peak, always in the news, and everyone talking about it—right in the midst of our protest, a gay person got stabbed,” he acknowledged, conceding that some of his rhetoric around the event “didn’t come out right.”
“Every public figure has to be careful with their rhetoric, and as you get older you have to be more and more careful,” Storms expressed, reiterating his view of the LGBTQ lifestyle as “a perversion.”
However, Johnson did not distance himself from Storms after the violence of the protest. In fact, he became more closely associated with the preacher. Eight months later, Johnson represented Storms in another legal case concerning permits, this time for anti-abortion rallies in Jefferson Parish.
In the interim, Storms made headlines again when he seemingly endorsed the mass killing of gay people at a religious fundamentalist conference in Wisconsin.
During the event, known as the “International Conference on Homo-Fascism,” hosted in Milwaukee by a group called Wisconsin Christians United, Storms delivered an hour-long address filled with fiery rhetoric. He extensively discussed his perceived “battle” against the Southern Decadence Festival, where a stabbing had occurred weeks earlier, claiming it was a “great breakthrough” from the Lord. Storms repeatedly used violent imagery, cautioning his Christian audience that gay individuals “want to kill you” and “have to eliminate us,” drawing parallels between his crusade and Jonathan’s biblical battle against the Philistine army.
Storms, according to a transcript of the speech, enthusiastically recounted the biblical story, stating, “That first slaughter which Jonathan and his armor bearer made was about 20 men. Wheeeww! Come on. Let’s go. God has delivered them all into our hands. Hallelujah!” He then accompanied his words with sounds imitating explosions: “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.”
“There are 20. Whew. Ca-Ching. Yes. Glory. Glory to God. Let’s go through the drive-thru at McDonald’s and come back and get the rest,” Storms remarked, according to the transcript.
After the occasion, the LGBTQ rights organization Fair Wisconsin accused Storms of mimicking ‘sounds like gunfire as if he were shooting gay people’ and ‘seemingly endorsing the murder’ of gay individuals. Subsequently, Storms filed a defamation lawsuit against Fair Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Court later deemed the suit frivolous, affirming $87,000 in sanctions against his attorney—distinct from Johnson.
In a conversation with The Daily Beast, Storms initially characterized these incidents as ‘hilarious,’ emphasizing that they were symbolic gestures aimed at opposing the LGBTQ+ agenda rather than advocating literal harm to gay individuals. The means of opposition mentioned included legal avenues and protests.
When passages from his statements, such as ‘It’s us or them. There’s no in between. There’s no having this peaceful co-existence,’ were quoted by The Daily Beast, Storms acknowledged that he might have been ‘a little bit over-the-top.’ Over time, he expressed understanding as to why an external group could have ‘misinterpreted’ his remarks as endorsing mass murder.
“I must grapple with my words and how they’re perceived, but I remain committed to advocating for everyone’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
However extreme Storms’ language might have been, Johnson still chose to represent him.
Several months after Storms sued Action Wisconsin, Johnson assisted him in suing Jefferson Parish. Concurrently, he drew a parallel between another religious case he was involved in and “spiritual warfare.”
“The ultimate objective of the adversary is to stifle the gospel,” Johnson asserted in an interview with the Shreveport Times in April 2004. “This is a form of spiritual warfare.”
Storms informed The Daily Beast that the two individuals lost contact sometime after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which was several years before the playground incident involving masturbation that thrust him back into the national spotlight.
Despite Storms’ confession, he attempted to contest the witness account of the exposure charge, which he again disputed in his interview with The Daily Beast. Nevertheless, the judge sentenced him to three years of probation, considering his admission that it was the third time he had engaged in the act in the park that week.
If Johnson did indeed lose contact with Storms in 2005, he somehow found a connection to Storms’ son, Jason Storms. Johnson and the ADF represented Jason Storms in another Milwaukee case in 2009.
In that case, Johnson contended that his plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion extremists, had been hindered in the exercise of their free speech rights by a federal court injunction in the Eastern District of Wisconsin against protests at abortion clinics.
That ominous word—intimidation—is a concept Johnson’s clients may understand well.
Jason Storms is the leader of Operation Save America, formerly Operation Rescue, which has been called the nation’s largest militant anti-abortion group. Jason Storms also partook in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, posting a social media video of himself on the building’s scaffolding shortly after the breach.
Jason Storms at an anti-abortion gathering.
Operation Rescue shot to infamy when it was tied to the slaying of a Kansas abortion provider in 2009—the same year Johnson filed the lawsuit. Today, OSA and its militant allies still believe women who get abortions should be charged with murder—a step up from more mainstream anti-abortionists who would only place that burden on the doctor.
This summer, Storms said abortion might only be ended in the U.S. through civil war. He routinely drawswidespreadmediacoverage for camping outside of abortion clinics and urging women against ending their pregnancies, frequently alongside his wife and their 10 children.
Earlier this year, a member of OSA was charged in connection with a bomb scare at a Milwaukee-area Pride event, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. In October, the Sixth Circuit of Federal Appeals upheld a 2022 restraining order against the group, after unruly demonstrations in Tennessee.
But in 2009, Johnson—on behalf of the ADF—represented Jason Storms alongside a group of virulent anti-abortion extremists when they sued the city of Milwaukee over a court injunction at abortion protests. That crew included anti-LGBTQ activist Robert Breaud and Jim Soderna, both of whom have their own storied past.
In 1999, Soderna entered his name in the public record as opposing a Milwaukee city council resolution “against domestic terrorism in the form of violence against health-care providers, especially those providing family planning services.” Meanwhile, Breaud—a self-described former “homosexual”—ran a 1999 failed campaign for the Louisiana state House as a Republican. Per an article from The Times-Picayune, which is not publicly available online but accessible through the Lexis Nexis publication database, Breaud said the government “should be a terror to the evildoer”—quoting the apostle Paul in the Bible—further specifying, as Paul did not, that the evildoers were gay men, lesbians, and abortion providers.
Breaud, a nurse and musician, spread his homophobic message via an original song called “It’s Not OK to be Gay.” A 2007 video of Breaud shows him strumming a guitar and singing, “It’s not OK to be gay. It’s not OK to be perverted. It’s not in your DNA. What you need is to be converted.” A spoken-word interlude describes Breaud’s former lifestyle as “unholy, unnatural, unsatisfying, unfulfilling.”
But in the 2009 abortion case, Johnson represented Breaud regarding a different piece: an anti-abortion composition called “Baby Song,” which Breaud had rendered at a “disturbing” volume outside of a clinic, drawing a police citation.
Breaud also went on to publicly boycott Starbucks over CEO Howard Schultz’ 2013 support of gay marriage, saying in a Christian News Network interview that he would tell Schultz, “You’re promoting sin. You’re helping destroy young people’s lives.”
Johnson’s Milwaukee lawsuit was bolstered by affidavits from Jason Storms’ father-in-law, militant anti-abortionist Rev. Matthew Trewhella. Trewhella—who two years prior was represented by ADF in a separate matter in Ohio—previously defended the murder of abortion doctors as “justifiable homicide.” And in 1994, Trewhella was recorded urging parents to give their children firearms training and advocating for religious congregations to launch militias, The New York Timesreported.
By 2009, Trewhella had served 14 months in prison for obstructing clinics. He ran an Operation Rescue splinter group, called Missionaries to the Pre-Born, which also featured Jason Storms. Missionaries to the Pre-Born has been described as “one of the most dangerous and violent of the direct action anti-abortion groups active in the United States.”
The city settled the Milwaukee suit. Johnson’s co-counsel, Fintan Dooley, told The Daily Beast that he was happy with the settlement at the time, though they didn’t win fees. Dooley, a Democrat, also pleaded ignorance about any ties to violent groups among the plaintiffs and Trewhella.
But the year of that lawsuit, Operation Rescue was tied to the murder of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. The killer had been in touch with a group official about Tiller’s whereabouts, and claimed to be a member. While the group denounced the slaying and the attacker’s claims to membership, Tiller was a top target of Operation Rescue’s ire for years—in 2002, they relocated their headquarters to Wichita specifically to pressure his clinic—and its leader at the time had previously called the murder of abortion providers a “justifiable defensive action.”
Twelve years later, Jason Storms was part of another siege. On Jan. 6, 2021, Storms and two other OSA members “set up the Lord’s beachhead” at Trump’s rally in Washington, D.C., according to an OSA blog post two days after the attack. The post marveled that “many saints were encouraged by the bold and plain declarations of the Law/Word of God,” declaring that it was “a great and exhausting time.”
What the post did not mention, however, was that Storms participated in the sacking of the Capitol. He posted a social media video of himself on the scaffolding shortly after the building was breached, admiring the insurrection as “Revolution 2.0” and crowing, “Yeah, baby!” in reply to a bullhorned call to “Hang ’em high!”
Dooley, Johnson’s co-counsel, told The Daily Beast that he was “disappointed but not surprised” to learn about Jason Storms’ involvement in the attack.
Grant Storms told The Daily Beast that he “supported” his son attending the rally, but, like Dooley, he condemned Trump and the Republicans who still support him—specifically including Johnson.
“Trump went nuts,” Grant Storms told The Daily Beast. “Anyone can see he tried to overturn the election. He belongs in jail.”
Like Grant Storms, Dooley spoke admirably about Johnson, noting his intellect and the influence he had on his own legal work.
But asked what he would say to Johnson regarding the speaker’s own unrepentant efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his continued support of Trump, Dooley soured.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.