Tag: Texas

Reasons Why Some Regret Their Move to Texas After the Pandemic

This blog originally appeared at YAHOO FINANCE.

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 sparked a significant wave of migration among Americans. Many residents of costly and densely populated areas saw an opportunity. With the shift to remote work and a growing preference for greater physical distance between neighbors, urban dwellers were able to relocate from places like New York and California to states such as Texas and Florida.

During the pandemic, Texas ranked second only to Florida in terms of states with the highest net migration rates. However, four years later, many who relocated to the Lone Star State are reconsidering their decision to uproot and move their families there.

I’ve observed several reasons why some individuals who moved to Texas post-pandemic might be experiencing regrets,” said Jolean Olson, a veteran in the Texas housing market at Olson Home Buyers. “While Texas offers numerous benefits, such as a lower cost of living, no state income tax, and a thriving job market, there are also challenges and downsides that have become apparent to some new residents.”

Next point: Here are some reasons people may regret moving to Texas post-pandemic.

Extreme Weather Conditions

“Texas has earned a reputation for its scorching summers and frequent severe weather events, including hurricanes, tornadoes, and flash floods, among others.

“Many new residents may not have anticipated the intensity of Texas summers, where temperatures often surpass 100 degrees Fahrenheit,” Olson remarked.

Moreover, Olson highlighted the impact of the severe winter storm that struck Texas in early 2021. This event led to shortages of essential resources like water and widespread power outages across the state. According to Olson, the storm underscored “the state’s susceptibility to extreme weather and its inadequate infrastructure to manage such emergencies.”

Infrastructure and Public Services

“The surge of new residents has strained Texas’s infrastructure and public services,” Olson explained.

Cities such as Austin, Dallas, and Houston have experienced escalating traffic congestion on both highways and local roads, leading to longer commute times and heightened frustration for drivers.

“Compared to other states, public transportation options in Texas are limited, which can pose a significant adjustment for individuals accustomed to more extensive transit networks,” Olson added.

Housing Market Pressures

“Although Texas has long been recognized for its affordable housing, the pandemic-driven influx has sharply increased home prices and rental rates,” Olson noted. “Many newcomers who anticipated affordable housing options are now contending with a competitive and costly market.”

Olson highlighted how the heightened housing market activity has led to more intense bidding wars, rising property taxes, and, in some cases, “disappointment for those unable to secure their desired homes within their budget.”

Higher Property Taxes

Purchasing a house is just the beginning of the challenges for property owners in Texas. Property taxes, as highlighted in WalletHub’s 2024 report, rank Texas seventh-highest in the nation. For new residents, this can come as a surprise, potentially offsetting the savings from Texas’s lack of state income tax. This scenario is especially pronounced for those relocating from states with significantly lower average property tax rates.

Cultural and Lifestyle Adjustments

Texas boasts a unique cultural identity that can be both captivating and challenging for newcomers to acclimate to.

“Texas has a distinct cultural identity that may not appeal to everyone,” Olson emphasized, noting that “the political atmosphere leans more conservative compared to states such as California or New York, which can be a substantial shift for individuals with differing perspectives.”

Furthermore, Olson pointed out that life in Texas, especially outside its major cities, “tends to be more suburban and less cosmopolitan, which might not meet the expectations of those coming from more urbanized areas.”

Employment Market Realities

Securing a suitable job that aligns with one’s skills and provides a sufficient income for a family can be challenging in Texas, despite the state’s reputation for a robust and thriving job market.

“Many newcomers have discovered that the available job opportunities don’t always align with their skill sets or salary expectations,” noted Olson. “Competition for higher-paying positions has also intensified due to the influx of new residents, making it more difficult for some to land their desired roles.”

Education System Concerns

According to Olson, the quality of public education in Texas varies significantly. “While some districts excel, others suffer from underfunding and lower educational outcomes,” she noted.

Depending on the location within Texas, the school system can be a point of disappointment. “Families moving here with school-aged children might find the public education options in their chosen communities lacking, which can lead to added stress and even relocation within the state,” Olson explained.

Overall, while Texas has many positives, Olson emphasized the importance of considering various factors before deciding to move there. “Texas offers numerous advantages, but potential residents should carefully weigh these against the challenges,” she advised. “Understanding the complete picture of life in Texas, beyond the initial allure, is crucial for making an informed decision.”

“As a real estate professional, I always recommend thorough research and ideally visiting the areas under consideration to ensure they align with your expectations and needs,” Olson concluded.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-many-regret-moving-texas-170009198.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cDovL20uZmFjZWJvb2suY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEx-buRShvjrUCtko65f-JHKRFqezdoSXcL7x9gf7wCwWe4fN4QT7GEzJCuQtuO3_dNDIyxt-qK9DugdXCBz_f53ozPUD2NIvPe1e37S2UmuftTLI9bVE4dIo_lNqIIvljcDmVlBWSJLW0JqPCZXbkqwt6-1ACkhcXPwbdgbP7K3

1

Supreme Court to decide whether states can restrict gender-affirming care for minors | CNN Politics

This blog originally appeared at CNN.

Supreme Court to rule on states’ ability to limit gender-affirming care for minors

CNN – The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the Biden administration’s challenge to Tennessee’s transgender care ban, addressing the contentious issue of gender-affirming care in depth for the first time.

The Tennessee law, enacted last year, prohibits hormone therapy and puberty blockers for minors and imposes civil penalties on doctors who violate these prohibitions. This law is part of a growing trend of state legislation targeting transgender care.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, nearly half of U.S. states have enacted bans on transgender care for minors.

The case is scheduled to be heard this fall.

“The Supreme Court was always going to have to resolve how state bans on gender-affirming medical care can be reconciled with its approach to sex-based discrimination,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “Today’s grant sets up this issue as one of the early blockbusters for the Court’s upcoming term.”

Laws in Kentucky and Tennessee were challenged by the Biden administration and families of transgender minors. However, the Supreme Court only agreed to hear the Biden administration’s challenge against the Tennessee law.

In September, the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed a district court ruling that had blocked the enforcement of the gender-affirming care ban. This decision allowed the ban to take effect.

Republican lawmakers supporting the ban argue that decisions about gender-affirming care should be made once an individual reaches adulthood. Opponents contend that these laws not only violate the civil rights of transgender youth but also infringe on parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children.

Tennessee’s law prohibits medical providers from performing procedures that “enable a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or “treat purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”

Legal battles over similar bans have been progressing through federal courts for over a year. In April, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed Idaho officials to enforce a strict statewide ban on gender-affirming care for most minors, though it did not resolve the underlying legal questions.

Several advocacy groups for transgender youth have urged the Supreme Court to strike down Tennessee’s law.

“It’s simple: Everyone deserves access to the medical care that they need, and transgender and non-binary young people are no exception,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “No politician should be able to interfere in decisions that are best made between families and doctors, particularly when that care is necessary and best practice.”

Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, criticized state lawmakers for using the bans to “fuel divisions for their own political gain.”

“It’s crucial to recognize that for trans youth and their families, this isn’t about politics,” Cameron-Vaughn said. “It’s about the fundamental freedom to access vital, life-saving healthcare.”

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican, expressed his eagerness to defend the law.

“This case will bring much-needed clarity to whether the Constitution contains special protections for gender identity,” he said.

0

Paxton halts Biden’s Title IX rule safeguarding LGBTQ+ students in Texas

This blog originally appeared at KXAN.

Paxton blocks Biden’s Title IX rule protecting LGBTQ+ students in Texas

FILE – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks at a news conference in Dallas on June 22, 2017. Paxton says he’s investigating a key Boeing supplier that is already under scrutiny by federal regulators over the quality of its work on Boeing planes, Friday, March 29, 2024. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez, File)

AUSTIN (KXAN) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has blocked the Biden Administration’s Title IX rule aimed at protecting LGBTQ+ students from sex-based discrimination and harassment, according to a Tuesday release from Paxton’s office.

The rule was designed to protect all students and employees from sex discrimination, including providing comprehensive protections against sexual violence and other forms of sex-based harassment.

In the release, Paxton claimed a “major” victory against the Biden Administration’s Department of Education’s attempt to amend Title IX, alleging it would force Texas schools to adopt radical “transgender” policies that violate state and federal law.

“Joe Biden’s unlawful effort to weaponize Title IX for his extremist agenda has been stopped in its tracks,” Paxton stated. “Threatening to withhold education funding by forcing states to accept ‘transgender’ policies that put women in danger was plainly illegal. Texas has prevailed on behalf of the entire Nation.”

The Biden Administration’s changes to Title IX are scheduled to take effect nationwide on Aug. 1, except in states where it has been blocked.

0

Texas risks losing billions in federal funds over LGBTQ directive, Democrats say

Democrats warn that Texas could forfeit billions in federal funds due to Abbott’s LGBTQ directive.

Texas colleges and universities face the imminent risk of losing billions in federal funding if they adhere to Governor Greg Abbott’s directive to disregard a new federal rule strengthening nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ students, according to Democrats who addressed a state education board on Monday.

In a letter of congressional inquiry to Texas’s Higher Education Coordinating Board, which oversees public post-secondary education, four House Democrats from Texas cautioned that public colleges could jeopardize students’ civil rights and forfeit government funding by following Abbott’s orders to ignore amendments to Title IX. This federal civil rights law prohibits sex discrimination in schools and educational programs receiving federal funding and was updated by the Education Department in April to include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The rule, set to take effect on August 1, has faced temporary injunctions in ten states led by Republicans, including Texas, where Abbott labeled the changes as “illegal” in an April letter to President Biden.

Led by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) and signed by Democratic Reps. Sylvia Garcia, Al Green, and Sheila Jackson Lee, the letter accused Abbott and other officials of using educational institutions as “political pawns.”

“If Texas educational institutions fail to adjust their policies in accordance with the forthcoming Title IX revisions, the consequences would be devastating,” the lawmakers wrote. “Losing billions of dollars of federal funding would prevent institutions from offering scholarships crucial for students to afford and access higher education. Hundreds of thousands of potential Texas students would face a threat to their educational opportunities.”

Democrats argued that failure to comply with the Biden administration’s rule, which also strengthens protections for pregnant students and changes how schools handle sexual misconduct claims, could undermine students’ civil rights. They referenced a recent lawsuit by University of Texas at Austin professors challenging provisions allowing student absences for out-of-state abortions and mandating respect for transgender and gender-nonconforming students’ pronouns.

“A federal judge recently sided with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) by blocking similar changes proposed by the Biden administration last year,” the letter noted. Despite Title IX being a federal law, enforcement methods vary by administration, impacting schools that receive federal funding.

Efforts by House and Senate Republicans to challenge the rule through disapproval resolutions and lawsuits in numerous Republican-led states remain ongoing, reflecting broader opposition to the Biden administration’s regulatory changes.

0

Florida medical marijuana patients get an unexpected email praising DeSantis | AP News

This blog originally appeared at AP NEWS.

Mother of Transgender Girl Athlete Says Florida’s Investigation Has Ruined Her Daughter’s Life

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida public school employee, who faces termination for allowing her transgender daughter to play on a girls’ high school volleyball team, criticized those who outed her child, stating on Tuesday that the resulting investigation has devastated her daughter’s life.

Jessica Norton explained that her daughter was thriving at Monarch High School in suburban Fort Lauderdale until an anonymous tipster informed a Broward County school board member in November that the 16-year-old was participating on the girls’ varsity volleyball team, allegedly in violation of state law. The 2021 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act prohibits students assigned male at birth from competing in girls’ sports.

The tip triggered a school district investigation, resulting in Norton potentially losing her job as a computer information specialist at Monarch for permitting her daughter to play. Investigators also reported that Norton failed to revert her child’s gender designation in school records from “female” to “male,” as mandated by district policy.

Norton informed the school board on Tuesday that her daughter had been an elected freshman and sophomore class president, was chosen as the student body’s director of philanthropy, and was a homecoming princess. However, these accomplishments ceased when the investigation commenced, leading the girl to leave Monarch High School.

“They destroyed her high school career and her lifelong memories,” Norton lamented. “I saw the light in my daughter’s eyes gleam with future plans of organizing and attending prom, participating in and leading senior class traditions, speaking at graduation, and going off to college with the confidence and joy that any student like her would have after a successful and encouraging high school experience. And 203 days ago, I watched as that life was extinguished.”

Currently, the girl attends school online.

None of the board’s nine members responded to Norton, a seven-year district employee who had received exemplary evaluations prior to November.

The treatment of transgender children has become a contentious issue nationwide over the past few years. Florida is one of at least 25 states that have implemented bans on gender-affirming care for minors and one of at least 24 states that have enacted laws prohibiting transgender women and girls from participating in certain women’s and girls’ sports.

The board was scheduled to vote on Tuesday regarding Superintendent Howard Hepburn’s recommendation to terminate Norton’s employment, but this decision has been postponed for at least a month. A district committee had recommended a 10-day suspension for Norton, but Hepburn overruled it without providing an explanation. The board could choose to fire Norton, suspend her, or take no action.

Monarch Principal James Cecil and three other administrators were temporarily reassigned when the investigation began but were reinstated following student protests. The state’s athletic commission fined the school $16,500.

Broward is one of Florida’s most politically liberal counties, with twice as many Democrats as Republicans, and it has a significant LGBTQ+ community. The countywide school district is the nation’s fifth-largest, serving nearly 255,000 students across 327 schools.

According to the district investigative report, board member Daniel Foganholi contacted the district’s police department after receiving the anonymous tip. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed Foganholi last year following the disqualification of the elected board member.

Since 2021, DeSantis has enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act and other legislation targeting the transgender community. The Nortons are plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit challenging the act.

Foganholi did not respond to emails seeking comment last week and on Monday.

Norton’s child began taking puberty blockers at age 11 and estrogen but has not undergone gender-affirming surgery, which is rarely performed on minors.

Her parents assert that she often sat on the bench for Monarch’s volleyball team and does not have athletic advantages from being born male. When investigators asked Principal Cecil to describe the child, he said, “She looks like a girl to me. … she seems very small, very skinny.”

In response to Foganholi’s complaint, Broward schools assigned two officers to investigate. The state education department also appointed an investigator.

The investigation involved pulling and securing school records for Norton’s daughter, interviewing officials at Monarch and the daughter’s previous schools to determine who knew about her being transgender and when and how her records were changed. Investigators also interviewed Norton and three Monarch volleyball players.

Norton, who has two older children, said she enrolled her youngest child in kindergarten as a boy in 2013, four years before starting her employment with the district. The child transitioned to a girl in first grade, and this was known by other parents and children, so it was never a complete secret.

When her child was in second grade, Norton asked a school employee to change the child’s gender on school records. She claimed then-Superintendent Robert Runcie told her that was the procedure. Runcie, who left the district in 2021 after an unrelated controversy, was not contacted.

The district maintains that such changes are only permissible if the parent first amends the child’s birth certificate. Norton amended her child’s birth certificate in 2021, after she began working for the district. The district asserts that Norton should have reverted her child’s gender to male on school records in 2017 upon learning the policy.

Norton told investigators she didn’t comply because the amended records were accurate—her child is a girl.

Aware of the new state law barring transgender girls from playing girls’ sports when her daughter entered high school in 2022, detectives asked why she allowed her daughter to play volleyball and marked “female” on a permission form asking the child’s “sex at birth.”

“Because she’s my child and she wanted to play,” Norton replied. Norton also coached the junior varsity volleyball team.

Investigators interviewed Monarch volleyball players, who said the team did not change clothes or shower together, so they were never disrobed with Norton’s daughter. All three players knew or suspected Norton’s daughter was transgender but were not bothered by her participation. The Knights had a 13-7 record last season.

“I didn’t really have a problem with it because I didn’t think she was a threat or anything to anyone else,” one girl told investigators.

0

Trans Teen in Minnesota Has a Broken Jaw After Alleged Attack Outside a School Bathroom | THEM

This blog originally appeared at THEM.

Authorities in Minnetonka, Minnesota are currently investigating the reported assault on 17-year-old Cobalt Sovereign as a potential hate crime.

The following contains graphic descriptions of violence against a transgender child.

Last week, a 17-year-old transgender student in Minnesota found herself hospitalized following an attack by a classmate in the school restroom. The disturbing incident, captured on video, unfolded at Hopkins High School in Minnetonka, MN.

Cobalt Sovereign, a junior at the school, recounted to NBC affiliate KARE that on May 30, she encountered verbal abuse from a fellow student while attempting to use the restroom. Despite the availability of gender-neutral facilities, Sovereign, who prefers she/they pronouns, opted for the boys’ restroom due to convenience, though it caused considerable discomfort.

Recalling the ordeal, Sovereign shared how the assailant peered over the stall and hurled derogatory slurs, including the use of the word “faggot,” which was allegedly repeated several times. Upon leaving the restroom, Sovereign was confronted by three students, one of whom initiated an unprovoked attack. Subsequent examination revealed Sovereign suffered a broken jaw in two places, with a shattered molar and potential traumatic brain injury (TBI). Hospitalized for two days, Sovereign continues to grapple with the physical and psychological aftermath, including recurring nightmares.

Hopkins High School promptly addressed the situation, initiating disciplinary measures against the alleged attacker. Further legal action rests with the Hennepin County attorney’s office, while local authorities are investigating the incident as a possible hate crime. Citing student privacy laws, the identity of the alleged perpetrator remains undisclosed.

Reflecting on the incident, Cobalt’s brother, Wilder Sovereign, expressed dismay over the escalation of transphobia, emphasizing the severity of the assault as an unprecedented manifestation within their community.

At Hopkins High on Wednesday, another segment of Sovereign’s community gathered in solidarity, demanding justice and accountability. Local LGBTQ+ organizations, such as the Queer Equity Institute, mobilized alongside Minnesota Rep. Leigh Finke, the state’s pioneering openly transgender legislator.

Addressing the assembly, Finke underscored the fundamental right to restroom usage without fear of violence, lamenting the fact that such a basic act has become perilous for marginalized communities. “The simplest act imaginable for a human is to just pee in peace, and our community is beaten and killed because that’s what we are trying to do,” Finke articulated, emphasizing the pervasive nature of such incidents. “We are here at Hopkins because this happened here, but this happens everywhere.”

In an Instagram post shared on Wednesday, Rep. Leigh Finke drew attention to what they described as “frightening similarities” between the violence endured by Cobalt Sovereign and the February assault on Oklahoma teenager Nex Benedict. While officials have stated that Benedict’s subsequent death was attributed to suicide, purportedly linked to medications found in their system, this narrative has been met with skepticism by some LGBTQ+ advocates, who demand further investigation.

Highlighting the disparities in official response, Finke expressed concern over the lack of immediate action taken by the school following both incidents. “The school did not call an ambulance. The school did not file a police report. Students and families were not notified. It wasn’t until our rally was announced yesterday that authorities began to move,” Finke wrote, juxtaposing the contrasting reactions to the two attacks. “Cobalt lived. Thank goddess. Nex did not. Please help us make sure there is no next time.”

0

Texas Supreme Court rejects call to clarify exceptions to state abortion bans | Courthouse News Service

This blog originally appeared at COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE.

The high court, siding with the state, concluded that the laws adequately specify the circumstances under which an abortion to save the life of the mother is allowed.

AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — In a highly anticipated decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the state’s total abortion ban permits the procedure if the pregnancy poses a risk of serious bodily impairment or death.

“Texas law permits a life-saving abortion,” wrote Justice Jane Bland in her 38-page majority opinion. “Under the Human Life Protection Act, a physician may perform an abortion if, exercising reasonable medical judgment, the physician determines that a woman has a life-threatening physical condition that places her at risk of death or serious physical impairment unless an abortion is performed.”

The unanimous opinion from the all-Republican high court vacated a lower court injunction that had blocked the state from enforcing the ban against doctors performing life-saving abortions, establishing a new standard for physicians to follow. The state had filed an accelerated appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which stayed the injunction.

The lawsuit at the center of this case began over a year ago when five women who experienced life-threatening pregnancy complications, along with two doctors, sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the Texas Medical Board. Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, they sought clarity on the law. As the lawsuit gained attention, an additional 15 women with similar experiences joined. The plaintiffs argued that the laws as written deprived them of their right to equal protection under the state constitution.

The lawsuit challenges three laws: the Human Life Protection Act, the Texas Heartbeat Act, and a 1925 abortion ban that was revived following the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

The Human Life Protection Act and the 1925 ban impose both civil and criminal penalties for anyone found to have performed an abortion. Doctors face up to 99 years in prison, a minimum fine of $100,000, and the loss of their medical license if found guilty. The Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8, imposes a civil private right of action, allowing any citizen to sue anyone they believe performed or facilitated an abortion for a minimum of $10,000.

Molly Duane, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights and lead attorney in the case, described the court’s ruling as providing a “feeble answer” to the question of when a person in Texas can receive an abortion under the medical exception. Despite the ruling, she believes it falls far short of what is necessary to ensure the safety of pregnant individuals.

“I am disturbed that the court rejected so many of our clients’ claims to a constitutional right to life, health, and fertility,” Duane said on Friday. “These are women who came to court citing risks to their physical and mental health and continuing a pregnancy that would never result in a new baby joining their families. But now we know the courthouse doors are closed to them.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights argued that the exceptions in the state’s three abortion bans are too vague, causing doctors to avoid providing necessary care due to fear of prosecution. To address this, the group requested that courts establish a standard allowing the procedure when a doctor has a “good faith belief” that an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life or prevent severe bodily impairment.

However, Justice Bland pushed back against the Center’s request to clarify what “reasonable medical judgment” means under the statute. The Center argued that a “good faith belief” standard would create uniformity in the standard of care among doctors, whereas “reasonable medical judgment” could vary from one physician to another.

While acknowledging that not all doctors would reach the same conclusion, the state must demonstrate that a reasonable physician would not have determined that a woman with pregnancy complications required a life-saving abortion.

“The Center’s ask is for a court to substitute a different standard for the one that is expressly written in the statute,” Bland wrote in Friday’s opinion. “This is a call for amending the law, not for interpreting it.”

The 20 women central to the case were not directly mentioned in Bland’s opinion. Instead, the court focused on explaining why it believes the exception to the laws, as written, is sufficient.

Justice Bland did, however, address lead plaintiff Amanda Zurawski’s experience, using it as an example of how the law should function. During her second trimester, Zurawski’s pregnancy became nonviable when the membrane surrounding her daughter, Willow, prematurely ruptured. Despite being informed by doctors that she faced a serious risk of infection, they refused to terminate the pregnancy because Willow still had a heartbeat, fearing prosecution. After being sent home, infection set in, causing damage to Zurawski’s reproductive organs and placing her life in jeopardy.

“Ms. Zurawski’s agonizing wait to be ill ‘enough’ for induction, her development of sepsis, and her permanent physical injury are not the results the law commands,” wrote Bland.

Zurawski said Friday that the ruling felt like a gut punch.

“The Texas Supreme Court had the opportunity to provide clarity, but they didn’t, and we are right back where we started. While this feels like the end of Zurawski v. Texas, it is not the last that you will be hearing from us in this fight for justice,” Zurawski said.

All but one of the plaintiffs’ claims survived the court’s ruling. Damla Karsan, an obstetrician from Houston, was found to have standing to sue the state because she was threatened with enforcement by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The threat came after a judge in Austin issued an order allowing Kate Cox, a mother of two from Dallas, to terminate her nonviable pregnancy. Karsan was set to provide the procedure when Paxton sent letters to three hospitals, warning they could be held liable if Karsan was allowed to perform the abortion at their facilities. The Center for Reproductive Rights is still determining how it will proceed with this final claim.

While the court did not provide guidance on the state’s abortion laws, it left open the possibility for the Texas Medical Board to intervene. The board is currently considering new guidance for physicians to clarify when a patient qualifies for the exception. However, this has sparked controversy, with abortion rights advocates arguing that the proposed plans do not sufficiently protect women.

In a statement praising the ruling, Paxton said he would continue to defend the state’s pro-life laws.

“Today, the Supreme Court of Texas unanimously upheld the Human Life Protection Act, one of our state’s pro-life laws,” Paxton said. “I will continue to defend the laws enacted by the Legislature and uphold the values of the people of Texas by doing everything in my power to protect mothers and babies.”

For abortion rights advocates, federal action remains the only viable solution to what they see as dangerous state laws. During Friday’s press call, Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, renewed calls for a law legalizing abortion nationwide.

“It is clear that the state of Texas and many other states are not going to protect their own pregnant people,” Northup said. “The federal government must step in and reestablish a nationwide right to abortion.”

0

Biden’s Title IX protections for LGBTQ students struck down by Texas court | NBCNews

This blog originally appeared at NBC NEWS.

A judge ruled on a guidance indicating that schools could lose federal funding if they discriminate against students based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

A federal judge in Texas on Tuesday determined that the Biden administration improperly attempted to reinterpret federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools by extending it to include LGBTQ students.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed by the state’s Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton. He declared that legal guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education three years ago was invalid, asserting that the agency lacked the authority to implement it and that it could not be enforced in Texas.

The non-binding guidance indicated that schools could be denied federal funding if they discriminated against students based on gender identity or sexual orientation, such as by requiring students to use facilities that correspond to their sex assigned at birth.

A federal judge in Tennessee had already blocked the Education Department from enforcing this guidance in 20 Republican-led states that had also sued to overturn it in 2022. The Biden administration is currently appealing that decision.

The guidance was issued in response to a landmark 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that extended federal workplace sex discrimination protections to LGBTQ employees. The Education Department argued that the same logic applied under Title IX, as both laws use similar language.

However, O’Connor, in a 112-page ruling, stated that the Education Department did not have the authority to apply that Supreme Court ruling to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

“To allow Defendants’ unlawful action to stand would be to functionally rewrite Title IX in a way that shockingly transforms American education and usurps a major question from Congress,” wrote O’Connor, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush.

The Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In a statement, Paxton said the ruling thwarts Democratic President Joe Biden’s “effort to weaponize Title IX for his extremist agenda.”

“Threatening to withhold education funding by forcing states to accept ‘transgender’ policies that put women in danger was plainly illegal,” Paxton stated.

In April, the Education Department adopted formal, binding regulations applying Title IX to LGBTQ students. Tuesday’s decision does not impact those rules, which Texas and other states are currently challenging in court. However, it does indicate that these regulations could be susceptible to future legal challenges.

0

Republicans introduce measure banning DEI in federal government | TheHill

This blog originally appeared at THE HILL.

Republicans propose legislation to prohibit DEI initiatives in the federal government.

Congressional Republicans have proposed legislation to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and funding within the federal government.

The Dismantle DEI Act, introduced on Wednesday by Senator JD Vance (R-Ohio), aims to abolish all federal DEI initiatives and cease DEI-related funding for agencies, contractors, organizations, and educational accreditation bodies that receive federal support.

“DEI is a harmful ideology that fosters hatred and racial division,” Vance stated. “It should not be present in our federal government or anywhere in our society. I am proud to introduce this bill to remove DEI from our federal system by terminating such programs and cutting off funding for DEI policies. Americans’ tax dollars should not be used to promote this radical and divisive ideology—this legislation ensures they will not be.”

In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to “cultivate a workforce that draws from the full diversity of the Nation,” aiming to remove structural barriers faced by underserved and minority communities.

Representative Michael Cloud (R-Texas), the bill’s primary sponsor in the House, stated that DEI initiatives, while presented as promoting fairness, “have instead fostered division and racial bias within our institutions and culture.”

Cloud emphasized the necessity of the bill, framing it as a crucial measure to reinstate merit and equality, rejecting the concept of equity, within America’s government institutions. He argued that the DEI bureaucracy not only fosters division but also wastes taxpayer money. “It’s absurd to fund these divisive policies, especially using American tax dollars, and it’s time for Congress to put an end to them once and for all,” Cloud stated firmly.

Fifteen House Republicans have thrown their support behind the bill, reflecting the ongoing Republican resistance to DEI initiatives, often characterized as part of a broader “woke” agenda. This sentiment was underscored last year when Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed legislation prohibiting public universities from funding DEI programs and requiring diversity commitments in hiring statements. The law also removed majors and minors related to critical race theory and what was deemed “radical” feminist or gender theories. In a similar vein, Texas Governor Greg Abbott instructed public universities in his state to cease considering DEI statements in their hiring procedures in February.

Across the nation, legislation aimed at reducing DEI spending and altering hiring guidelines at colleges and universities has been introduced in a dozen states. The Dismantle DEI Act represents the latest attempt to ban such programs at the federal level, following the disbandment of the House Office of Diversity and Inclusion in March as part of a government spending bill.

Senator Rick Scott, who co-introduced the act with Vance, criticized the Biden administration for promoting what he sees as far-left policies that prioritize ideology over merit. “Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for federal government agencies to push their woke DEI agenda,” Scott asserted, highlighting the necessity of the Dismantle DEI Act.

In addition to revoking Biden’s 2021 executive order, the act would dismantle the Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility within the Office of Personnel Management as well as the Chief Diversity Officers Executive Council. Senator Eric Schmitt, a co-sponsor, labeled DEI rhetoric and programs as “poisonous ideology,” expressing his commitment to eradicating DEI programs from federal institutions.

0

CBS News: Texas man details wife’s miscarriage amid state’s abortion laws | Khou

This blog originally appeared at CBS NEWS.

A Texas father told CBS News that he and his wife are living a nightmare after she suffered a miscarriage following multiple unsuccessful attempts to receive medical treatment.

DALLAS — Some families are experiencing medical challenges due to Texas’ abortion law, as highlighted in a CBS News report that featured one family’s struggles.

A Texas father shared with CBS News that he and his wife are enduring a nightmare after she suffered a miscarriage following numerous attempts to obtain medical treatment.

Ryan Hamilton, a 43-year-old radio host, garnered significant attention on social media after sharing about his wife’s miscarriage.

CBS News did not reveal his wife’s name in their report, and she remains not ready to discuss the incident publicly.

“When you find out your baby doesn’t have a heartbeat, that’s only the beginning,” Hamilton told CBS News. “So, the conversation becomes, what do we do?”

On May 16, Hamilton’s wife, over three months pregnant with their second child, learned that the baby no longer had a heartbeat.

Medical records obtained by CBS News indicate that Hamilton’s wife was treated at a North Texas emergency room, where doctors informed her that the baby had no heartbeat.

“We were told she could take medication to start the process to finish… to finish what had already started at home,” Hamilton explained to CBS News.

Doctors prescribed misoprostol, a labor-inducing drug used for miscarriages and abortions. She was instructed to take the medication at home and return if it did not work within two days.

Hamilton told CBS News that the medication didn’t work, and when they returned to the hospital, the doctor said they couldn’t prescribe the medicine.

Confused, Hamilton and his wife sought other options and went to another hospital, only to be denied treatment once again.

“You want to panic, but you can’t,” Hamilton told CBS News. “At this point, you’re just thinking, ‘Get my wife safe.'”

While waiting for answers at the second hospital, Hamilton sensed that the doctors were uncertain about what they were permitted to do.

“That’s what it feels like. They feel scared. The doctors feel scared,” he said in the interview.

Texas law prohibits abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, except in medical emergencies. Hamilton explained that the doctors told them it wasn’t a significant enough emergency to perform the procedure.

The procedure they were denied is called “dilation and curettage,” but the law does not require a medical emergency for it to be performed if there is no cardiac activity.

In a statement to CBS News, the hospital said they follow Texas and federal laws in accordance with national standards of care.

Hamilton and his wife still didn’t know what to do. Doctors gave her stronger medication and sent her home. In the following days, Hamilton found his wife unconscious on the bathroom floor, surrounded by blood. He rushed her to the hospital, where doctors confirmed the medication had worked.

Hamilton told CBS News they are not planning to sue any of the hospitals involved, but he hopes his story will help others in the future. He said his wife is focused on healing and therapy.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑