States Deny Gender Affirming Care to Transgenders

Republican-led states have been passing laws that restrict access to gender affirming care for transgender individuals, a discriminatory and unconstitutional move. This denial of care has serious negative consequences for the mental and physical health of these individuals, and it undermines their right to make informed decisions about their medical care.

It is worth noting that many medical procedures, including plastic surgery, come with risks that can result in serious negative consequences for patients. Breast implants, for example, have led to numerous cases of scarring and even death, yet Republican lawmakers did nothing to restrict their availability, perhaps because of a societal preference for larger breasts. Similarly, other forms of body alteration surgery, including implants for arms, butts, and even horns, are readily available to those who seek them out.

Despite this, it is only transgender individuals who are being prevented from accessing medically necessary gender affirming care. This is just another attempt by Republicans to erase the LGBTQ+ community from society and further marginalize an already vulnerable population. It is unacceptable for mostly male politicians to make decisions about the medical care of families, and it is essential that we promote greater acceptance, inclusion, and respect for all individuals, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

It’s important to be critical of the motives behind laws and policies, especially when they target marginalized communities. We should always seek to understand the real impact of these measures and resist efforts to obfuscate or misrepresent their true intentions.

Thank you, sometimes the people passing the laws try to paint a different pictures, and hide the real truth of what they are trying to accomplish. They want you to believe it’s a cat, but really it’s a dog.

Mississippi OKs more state policing in mostly Black city

Mississippi's Republican governor has signed a controversial bill expanding the authority of a state-run police department in Jackson, the state's majority-Black capital city as part of a wider effort to undermine the authority of local Black leaders in the state.

Mississippi's Republican governor has signed a bill on Friday to extend the authority of a state-run police department in the majority-Black capital city of Jackson, prompting expected legal action from the NAACP. The majority-white and Republican-controlled state House and Senate approved the legislation. Jackson is governed by Democrats and is a Black city with around 83% of residents being Black. The governor has stated that the Jackson Police Department is severely understaffed, and he believes that the state-run Capitol Police can provide much-needed stability.

The state has ignored requests for funds to repair the city's water system, which left tens of thousands of people without running water following a near-collapse of the system that is now under the control of a federally appointed manager. Governor Reeves has vetoed several spending proposals for other projects inside Jackson, including $1 million for parking at the city's convention center and $2 million for downtown infrastructure. 

The new law will establish a temporary court within the Capitol Complex Improvement District inside a portion of Jackson. The courts will handle misdemeanor cases, traffic violations, and initial appearances for some criminal charges. Most municipal judges are appointed by city officials, including a Black mayor and a majority Black city council. However, the judge of the new court is not required to live in Jackson and will be appointed by the Mississippi Supreme Court chief justice. The current chief justice is a conservative white man. New prosecutors will be appointed by the white state attorney general. The Capitol Police is run by a white chief who answers to a white public safety commissioner who, in turn, answers to a white governor.

Alabama secretary of early childhood education forced out over ‘woke’ teacher training book

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey announced on April 21, 2023, that she had replaced her director of early childhood education due to the use of a teacher training book. The book was written by a nationally recognized education group and contained language about inclusion and structural racism, which the Republican governor denounces as teaching “woke concepts.”

In a statement, Ivey said, “The education of Alabama’s children is my top priority as governor, and there is absolutely no room to distract or take away from this mission. Let me be crystal clear: Woke concepts that have zero to do with a proper education and that are divisive at the core have no place in Alabama classrooms at any age level, let alone with our youngest learners.”

The governor’s office cited two examples from the book in a press release. One example discussed white privilege and that “the United States is built on systemic and structural racism,” while the other claimed to teach LGBTQ+ inclusion to four-year-olds. However, an analysis of the book’s contents by the Alabama Reflector revealed that it only instructs teachers to be aware of these issues when teaching but does not instruct them to teach the concepts directly.

Ivey’s criticism of the book is part of a growing trend in which politicians influence curriculums, claiming that some teaching concepts are “woke.” Alabama currently ranks 39th in reading and 40th in math in the nation among fourth-grade students, according to a report from the National Assessment of Education Progress, as reported by WHNT

Separation of Church and State

(The ongoing battle for freedom)

 Texas public schools will be forced to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom under a bill passed by the state Senate Thursday.

 Senate bill 1515 was introduced by Republican Phil King, who has said it “will remind students all across Texas of the importance of the fundamental foundation of America.” The bill now heads to the Republican-dominated House for review, and will go to the Governor’s desk upon approval.

Legislators also passed Senate Bill 1396, which would require schools to set aside time for students and staff to read the Bible. Both bills follow the 2021 policy that required schools to display “In God We Trust” signs donated by community members.

 The laws clearly contradict separation of church and state, which has even some conservative Christians concerned. John Litzler, general counsel for the Texas Baptists Christian Life Commission, told the Senate that he and his organization oppose using taxpayer money on religious education.

 Litzer also cited content in the Commandments which may not be appropriate for young children, that goes against the state’s own recently implemented content standards.

 “I should have the right to introduce my daughter to the concepts of adultery and coveting one’s spouse,” Litzler said in a committee hearing, via The Texas Tribune. “It shouldn’t be one of the first things she learns to read in her kindergarten classroom.”

 Texas lawmakers recently approved legislation that bans “sexually explicit” books from school libraries, and mandates parental consent for “sexually relevant” books.

 The ACLU of Texas called the recent bills an “example of failed priorities and failed leadership.”

 “The U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits the entanglement of church and state, and the Texas Constitution guarantees the freedom of worship,” David Donatti, an attorney for the ACLU of Texas, told The Washington Post. “Whether we choose to belong to one religion or none at all, people of all faiths and creeds should together resist the state’s endorsement of one particular religion.”

 Published by “The Advocate” on April 23, 2023

THE ABORTION DEBATE BETWEEN THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT

The issue of abortion is a highly divisive one, with differing views held by those on the political left and right. While there is some overlap between the two, there are also key differences in their respective views on the issue. While conservatives view abortion as the taking of a human life and prioritize the rights of the fetus, liberals prioritize a woman’s right to control her own body and access healthcare services. While there is some overlap in their views, there are fundamental differences in the way they approach this contentious issue. This article is not promoting one side over the other.  We will examine the differing views on abortion held by those on the political left and right, with a focus on the key differences between conservatives and liberals. By analyzing factors that shape their positions on this contentious issue. Ultimately, we seek to provide a comprehensive overview of the abortion debate and the perspectives that drives it, in order to promote a better understanding of this complex topic.

Conservatives or “Right-Wing” Republicans:

 Conservatives view life is sacred and believe that life begins at the moment of conception. This believe is grounded in their religious and moral conviction. Because of this belief, conservatives are opposed to abortion because they see it as the taking of a human life. To them, it is no different than murder.

 They argue that a woman who becomes pregnant has a responsibility to carry the baby to full term and give birth, regardless of the circumstances. They believe that the baby is a person with the same rights as any other individual, and that those rights should be protected. However, the issue of conjoined twins presents a complex ethical dilemma. In cases where separating the twins will result in the death of one of them, conservatives may struggle to reconcile their belief in the sanctity of life with the difficult decision of who should live and who should die.

 Furthermore, when the life of the mother is at stake, conservatives may face a similar ethical dilemma. While they believe that taking the life of another person is a sin, they also believe that the mother’s life is just as valuable as the baby’s. Therefore, they may be forced to make a difficult decision regarding whose life to prioritize.

 Some conservatives argue that in cases where the mother’s life is at state, it may be permissible to terminate the pregnancy to save her life. However, they maintain that this decision should not be taken lightly, and that all possible alternatives should be explored before resorting to abortion. There are those conservatives who believe that no alternatives should be considered when it comes to abortion, no matter what the consequences are.

 Finally, conservatives may also argue that the baby should not be punished for the actions of the mother. If the mother dies during childbirth, the baby will grow up without a mother, but that does not mean that the baby should be denied the chance to live. Rather, they believe that the baby should be given the opportunity to be raised by loving adoptive parents who will provide a nurturing environment for them to grow up in.

Liberal “Left-wing” Democrats

Liberals believe that a woman has a right to control her own body and make decisions about her own reproductive health. This includes the right to access safe and legal abortion services if she chooses. Access to abortion is a matter of social justice and equality. Restrictions on abortion disproportionately impact low-income women, women of color, and those living in rural areas who may have limited access to healthcare services.

 Liberals tend to support policies that promote comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, and other reproductive healthcare services in order to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion.

 Liberals tend to view abortion as a medical procedure, rather than a moral or ethical issue. They believe that women should be able to make their own decisions about whether to have an abortion, without interference from politicians or religious groups. Many liberals believe that the decision to have an abortion should be made between a woman and her doctor, and that politicians should not be involved in making medical decisions.

 Some liberals argue that access to abortion is a fundamental human right, and that denying women the right to choose is a violation of their basic freedoms. Finally, some liberals believe that access to abortion is necessary to promote women’s health and well-being, and that denying women the right to choose can have negative consequences for their physical, emotional, and economic health.

The fundamental difference.

 Conservatives generally oppose abortion, believing that life begins at conception and that the fetus has the same rights as any other individual. They view abortion as the taking of a human life and argue that women have a responsibility to carry the baby to full term and give birth, regardless of the circumstances. Conservatives may struggle to reconcile their belief in the sanctity of life with difficult decisions such as those surrounding conjoined twins or the life of the mother. They may also argue that the baby should not be punished for the actin of the mother and should be given a chance to be raised by loving adoptive parents.

 On the other hand, liberals generally support a woman’s right to access safe and legal abortion services. They believe that a woman has a right to control her own body and make decisions about her own reproductive health. They may view access to abortion as a matter of social justice and equality, arguing that restrictions on abortion disproportionately impact marginalized groups. Liberals may also believe that access to abortion is necessary to promote women’s health and well-being, and that denying women the right to choose can have negative consequences for their physical, emotional, and economic health.