Author: Edward Bartlett

SAVE Commends Sen. John Kennedy for ‘Ensuring Fairness for Students Act’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date April 4, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

SAVE Commends Sen. John Kennedy for ‘Ensuring Fairness for Students Act’

WASHINGTON / April 4, 2023 – Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana recently introduced the Ensuring Fairness for Students Act, a bill that is designed to codify due process protections in campus Title IX proceedings. In introducing the bill, Kennedy charged the Biden White House is seeking to “roll back fair proceedings on school campuses by making students guilty until proven innocent.” (1)

The bill would provide for a number of due process protections, such as assure that both parties are provided written notice of the allegations, require objective evaluation of the evidence, uphold the presumption of innocence, eliminate conflict of interest, and allow cross-examination.

Just three days after the Kennedy bill was introduced, a news account revealed the deplorable state of Title IX procedures on many campuses (2). The report highlighted the case of a former University of Maryland student who had been accused of sexual misconduct. Even after he was cleared of the charge, two students undertook a campaign to accuse him of being a rapist, causing him to be kicked off the university’s lacrosse team. Saying the university Title IX office failed to intervene to stop the defamation campaign, the lawsuit is seeking over $1 million in damages.

A recent national survey conducted by FIRE found that (3):

72% of universities failed to provide timely notice of allegations to students accused of wrongdoing.
60% of schools do not assure the presumption of innocence.
Only 15% of institutions guarantee that accusers and the accused could see the evidence being presented to fact-finders.

SAVE commends Senator Kennedy for introducing the bill, and encourages other members of Congress to take steps to support the bill’s prompt enactment into law.

The Ensuring Fairness for Students Act can be viewed online (4).

Links:

Title IX

Parental Rights Bills Advance Across the Nation

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date March 27, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Parental Rights Bills Advance Across the Nation

WASHINGTON / March 28, 2023 – In a historic move, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act this past Friday (1). The bill requires schools to notify parents of their rights regarding the education of their children, including the rights to review the curriculum, meet with teachers, inspect the books, and more (2).

Long-time observers say this is the first parental rights bill that has been ever approved by the House of Representatives.

Thus far in 2023, parental rights bills have been introduced in 25 states across the country. In some states, two or more parental rights bills are under consideration:

Alaska – HB 105 and SB 96
Alabama – HB 6
Arizona – SB 1005
Connecticut – SB 280, SB 269, SB 279, and SB 278
Georgia – SB 88
Hawaii – HB 1363
Iowa – SF 496
Indiana – HB 1407 and SB 413
Louisiana – HB 152
Maine – LR 1329
Maryland – HB 666 and SB 566
Minnesota – HF 682, HF 353, and SF 76
Missouri – SB 4, HB 165, HB 482, SB 134, and S.J. Res 29
Mississippi – HB 509
North Dakota – HB 1403 and SB 2260
Nebraska – LB 374
New Hampshire – HB 10
Ohio – HB 8
Oklahoma – SB 95
South Carolina – HB 3197, HB 3463, HB 3485, and SB 234
Texas – HB 42, H.J.R 58, HB 631, SB 394, and SJR 29
Utah – SB 93 and SB 100
Virginia – HB 2170 and HB 1707
Washington – SB 5024
West Virginia – HB 3118

These bills reveal how parental rights has become a hot-button issue as growing numbers of parents from across the political spectrum express alarm over policies that allow schools to promote sexually charged agendas to students. Many of these policies are based on controversial interpretations of the federal Title IX law, which was originally intended to stop sex discrimination in schools (3).

Parental rights has become a bipartisan issue. For example, the New York Times published an article highlighting the concerns of parents in liberal Westchester County, NY, who were kept in the dark about their child’s gender dilemmas (4). In January, Democrat Jimmy Gomez of California established the first-ever Congressional Dads Caucus (5).

Links:

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

Republican Lawmakers Lead National Movement to Thwart the ‘Gender Agenda’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date March 7, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

R. Stewart: 301-801-0608

Email: info@savesevices.org

Republican Lawmakers Lead National Movement to Thwart the ‘Gender Agenda’

WASHINGTON / March 8, 2023 – The “Gender Agenda” refers to the movement to promote gender transitioning, curtail parental rights, allow biological males to compete in women’s sports, curtail free speech, and diminish due process on college campuses. A major goal of the Gender Agenda is to overhaul the Title IX law to redefine sex to include “gender identity.”

Republican lawmakers across the country have been at the forefront of efforts to stop the Gender Agenda. Following is a listing of measures introduced thus far in Congress in 2023:

Greg Steube: Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act (H.R. 734) [1]
Marjorie Taylor Greene: Protect Children’s Innocence Act (H.R. 8731) [2]
Jeff Van Drew: My Choice, My Child Act of 2023 (H.R. 216) [3]
Julia Letlow: Parents Bill of Rights (H.R.5) [4]
Debbie Lesko: Parental Rights Amendment (H. J. Res 38) [5]
Jim Banks: Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act (H.R. 1276) [6]
Tim Scott: PROTECT Kids Act (S. 200) [7]
Tommy Tuberville: Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023 (S. 613) [8]

In addition, Congressman Jim Banks is spearheading a new group called the House Anti-Woke Caucus, now with over 25 members [9.

The following state-level bills already have been enacted into law in 2023:

Tennessee: SB 0001 – Prohibits minors from receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and transgender surgeries [10]
Tennessee: HB 0009 – Outlaws drag shows in public spaces and restricts them to age-appropriate venues [11]
South Dakota: Help Not Harm Act (HB 1080) – Prohibits certain medical and surgical interventions on minor patients [12]
Mississippi: Regulate Experimental Adolescent Procedures (REAP) Act (H.B. 1125) – Forbids any person to “knowingly provide gender transition procedures to any person under eighteen years of age” or “engage in conduct that aids or abets” such procedures. [13]

To date, SAVE has identified 82 bills in 28 states, including proposals that address Parental Rights (36 bills), Gender Transitioning (29 bills), and Women’s Sports (16 bills).

At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference held near Washington DC, SAVE sponsored a booth titled, “Stop the Gender Agenda.” [14] At the booth, 377 individuals signed a petition to Stop the Gender Agenda. Signers included the Lieutenant Governor of a southern state, a woman who transitioned to the male sex and later de-transitioned to being female, and other persons from Spain, Peru, Austria, Norway, Sweden, and Japan.

Links:

14. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/

Bills Civil Rights Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Growing Wave of Bills Frustrate Biden Plan to Allow Biological Males to Compete in Women’s Sports

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 13, 2023

	Dating		Married
	Male %	Female %	Male %	Female %
Any physical violence	14.6	17.4	13.6	12.1
Severe physical violence	11.9	5.6	4.9	4.4

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Growing Wave of Bills Frustrate Biden Plan to Allow Biological Males to Compete in Women’s Sports

WASHINGTON / February 14, 2023 – Surfer Bethany Hamilton is speaking out against the World Surf League’s newly announced policy that would allow biological males to compete against women in professional surfing events (1).

Hamilton’s comments spotlight the growing controversy arising from a Department of Education proposal, issued last June, to redefine the meaning of “sex” in the Title IX law to include “gender identity” (2). Such a change would impose a competitive disadvantage on biological females (3).

In response, a milestone court decision was handed down, and a series of proposed bills have been introduced at the federal and state levels that are designed to protect women’s sports.

On January 5, 2023, the Southern District Court of West Virginia ruled in favor of the Save Women’s Sports Bill, which defines “girl” and “woman” as biologically female for the purpose of secondary school sports (4).

In Congress, Rep. Greg Steube recently introduced the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. The bill, which now has 20 co-sponsors, would require that sex “be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth” (5).

In 12 states, lawmakers recently have introduced bills designed to protect women’s sports:

Alaska: HB 27 (6)
Colorado: HB 23-1098 (7)
Connecticut: SB 468 (8)
Hawaii: HB 508/SB 1429 (9)
Kansas: HB 2238 (10)
Maryland: HB 359 (11)
Minnesota: HF 551 (12)
Missouri: SB 48 (13)
New Jersey: SB 589 (14)
North Dakota: HB 1249 (15) and HB 1489 (16)
Texas: HB 23 (17)
Virginia: HB 1387 (18)

Eighteen states previously enacted laws designed to ban biological males from competing in female sports: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia (19).

A SAVE opinion poll found that 71% of Americans oppose allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports (20). SAVE urges lawmakers to discourage attempts the redefine “sex” and work to assure fairness in women’s sports (21).

Links:

Domestic Violence

Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Australia

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 7, 2023

Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Australia

Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance

February 7, 2023

Seven population-based or large-scale surveys have examined the sex-specific prevalence of physical domestic violence in Australia. Studies with the strongest methodologies surveyed a large, random sample of the population, and asked about the occurrence of specific abusive behaviors, e.g., slap, shove, hit, etc., consistent with the Conflict Tactics Scale.[1]

The surveys were conducted among adolescents (Gibbon et al), university students (Straus), newlyweds (Halford et al), and the general adult population (Headey et al, Grande et al, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Ahmadabadi et al).

The following surveys found higher rates of male victimization or female perpetration:

Headey et al
Straus
Halford et al
Ahmadabadi et al (among persons currently in a relationship)
Gibbon et al

The following surveys found higher rates of female victimization or male perpetration:

Grande et al
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Ahmadabadi et al (among persons currently not in a relationship)

We conclude that overall, men and women in Australia experience domestic violence at similar rates. Summaries of each survey are shown below, in chronological order of year of publication:

Headey B, Scott D, & de Vaus D (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are women and men equally violent? Data from the International Social Science Survey/Australia 1996/1997 was examined. A sample of 1,643 subjects (804 men, 839 women) responded to questions about their experiences with domestic violence in the past 12 months, as assessed by responses to three questions about a slap, shake, or scratch; hit with fist or threw something; or kicked. Results reveal that 5.7 % of men and 3.7 % of women reported being victims of domestic assaults.[2]
Grande ED, Hickling J, Taylor, & Woollacott T (2003). Domestic violence in South Australia: A population survey of males and females. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 27(5), 543–550. A representative random sample of South Australian adults responded to items related intimate partner violence. Results reveal that 2.9 % of 2,596 men and 3.4 % of 2,884 women reported experiencing physical violence perpetrated by their partners.[3]
Straus M (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review 30 (252-275). As part of an international study of dating violence among students in 32 countries, Straus surveyed university students in Adelaide. Among the respondents, 20.2% admitted to pushing, grabbing, slapping, throwing something, twisting the arm or hair, punching, kicking, choking, slamming against a wall, beating up, burning, or using a knife or gun against their dating partner within the past year. These incidents were of the following type (Table 2):

Male-only: 14.0%
Female-only: 21.0%
Both violent: 64.9%

Halford W, Farrugia, C, Lizzio A, & Wilson K (2010). Relationship aggression, violence and self-regulation in Australian newlywed couples. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(2), 82–92. A sample of 379 newlywed couples in Australia responded to a short version of the CTS. Results reveal that 22% of couples experienced a least one act of physical violence in the past year. Female perpetration of violence was more common that male perpetration. Authors report that in violence couples the more common pattern was for women to be violent (59%) followed by violence by both partners (34%) and least common was violence by men only (7%).^[4]
Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey (2017). A large, nationally representative survey inquired about persons’ experience of “violence.” The two components of physical violence are defined as:
1. Physical assault is any incident that involved the use of physical force with the intent to harm or frighten a person.
2. Physical threat is any attempt to inflict physical harm or a threat or suggestions of intent to inflict physical harm, which was made face-to-face and which the person believed was able and likely to be carried out. Excludes incidents of violence in which the threat was actually carried out.

Of all incidents committed by an intimate partner in the past year, 35% of victims were male and 65% female.[5]

Zohre Ahmadabadi, Jackob M. Najman, and Peter d’Abbs (2017). Gender Differences in Intimate Partner Violence in Current and Prior Relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36 (1-2). The sample consisted of 2,060 young adults (mean age = 30 years) who had participated in the 30-year follow-up of the Mater Hospital and University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy. Percentages of persons who had experienced physical abuse in the previous 12 months:[6]
1. Currently in a relationship: 12.0% of males and 5.9% of females
2. Not currently in a relationship: 22.6% of males and 27.2% of females

Gibbon KF, Meyer S, Boxall H, Maher J, Roberts S (2022). Adolescent family violence in Australia: A national study of prevalence, history of childhood victimisation and impacts. ANROWS conducted a national online survey of over 5,000 adolescents ages 16-20 regarding their abusive actions directed to family members. The survey found that 23% of females and 14% of males reported they had ever perpetrated some form of abuse against a family member (Table 2):

Physical violence — Males: 7%; Females: 11%
Verbal abuse — Males: 9%; Females: 17%
Emotional/psychological abuse – Males: 2%; Females: 6%

The age of onset among female adolescents tended to be earlier than male adolescents (Figure 1.5). The violence was directed to siblings (68%), mothers (51%), and fathers (37%).[7]

Citations:

[1] http://rzukausk.home.mruni.eu/wp-content/uploads/Conflict-Tactics-Scale.pdf

[2] http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14651403/

[4]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00049530902804169

[5] https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/latest-release

[6] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0886260517730563

[7] https://anrows-2019.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/06192210/RP.20.03-RR1_FitzGibbon-AFVinAus.pdf

Child Custody Domestic Violence False Allegations Istanbul Convention Law & Justice Legal

CONSEQUENCES OF THE LAW OF GENDER VIOLENCE AND GENDER IDEOLOGY IN SPAIN

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 6, 2023

CONSEQUENCES OF THE LAW OF GENDER VIOLENCE AND GENDER IDEOLOGY IN SPAIN

D. Jesús Muñoz

Dª María Legaz

National Association for Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence (Asociacion Nacional de Ayuda a Victimas de Ayuda de Violencia Doméstica)

24 January 2023

The passage of the LIVG, the comprehensive law against gender-based violence, in Spain in 2004 has led to the violation of the fundamental rights of all heterosexual citizens, especially loss of the “presumption of innocence.”

The socialist party, from which this ideology of copyright criminal law
originated, had on the table, according to public statements by one of its proponents, safeguarding the protection of victims or the presumption of innocence. They opted for the protection of victims, destroying the “presumption of innocence” for hundreds of thousands of men in the past 18 years.

The gender violence law is based on the study of the Minneapolis mandatory arrest law.

From 2004 to 2022, there have been more than 2,260,000 judicial
proceedings, with more than 1,705,000 defendants ending up being declared innocent. This means that innocent people have been prosecuted with public money, depriving them of their liberty. By applying Article 544 TER of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, they have been separated from their children, with jail detentions of 24 and 72 hours. These detentions normally take place on weekends, beginning on Fridays, so the man spends the whole weekend in a jail with deplorable hygienic conditions. The man is in a state of shock, not knowing why he has been deprived of liberty, expelled from his house with only what he was wearing. and deprived of his children’s visitation regime.

An average of more than 455 men are arrested every day in Spain for allegations of gender violence, based solely on the word of a woman. An average of 160,000 men are prosecuted each year as terrorists. Year after year, it has been shown that more than 80% of them, who have been deprived of their liberty, are declared innocent, according to data from the General Council of the Judiciary.

Hundreds of billions of euros are spent in Spain, coming from the European Union, squandered by political parties. As an example, between 2014 and 2016 the Junta de Andalucía spent a whopping sum of more than of 66,000 millions of euros.

The European Union allocates €366 billion a year to addressing gender violence. None of these grants are audited.

An estimation of the costs of gender violence in the EU, according to a study carried out by the United Kingdom, estimated that Spain received from more than 24,000 million euros in 2012. With these funds, networks of feminist associations related to political parties have been created, which obtain economic revenue through their gender ideology.

The Spanish gender violence law is based on author’s criminal law, as
stated on page 92 and 93 of the CGPJ’s, LIVG draft report and
Constitutional Court Judgment 59/2008, dated July 4. The Particular
vote of five magistrates, including Judge Jorge Rodríguez Zapata, states
in writing, on folio 25 of the sentences, that this law would make the
dreams of Edmund Mezger, German jurist from Nazi Germany, come true.

He writes in the seventh paragraph:

“Finally, I express my wish that this Judgment not to be the
beginning in our order of the fulfillment of Mezger’s dream: two
Criminal Laws; a criminal law for the generality, in which, in essence, the principles that have governed up to now will remain in force. And, along with it, a completely different criminal law, for special groups of certain people. I leave a record of my position in this Vote.
In Madrid, on May fourteenth, two thousand and eight. Jorge
Rodriguez Zapata Perez. -Signed”.

In addition to this, a renowned member of the Socialist party and expresident of the Spanish Government, Alfonso Guerra, publicly declared that he spoke with an acquaintance of his, who had been the president of the Constitutional Court in 2004, who confirmed to him that the seven magistrates who approved the unconstitutional law, that they did so under pressure from feminist lobbies, and from the socialist party of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero:

Alfonso Guerra reveals the pressure on the TC on the LIVG.

In Spain we are suffering from what Poland and Hungary already warned about, which is why they withdrew from the Istanbul Agreement.

If we add to this, that the socialist government subsidized women’s allegations with public money, since the higher the number of allegations, the more women are declared mistreated and the more
money the feminist associations receive. So says the BOE of 2005, Number 215 on page 30453.

Currently, in addition to all of the overhead, a lot of women in a divorce or children custody proceeding, profit from Articles 92.7 and 94 of the Civil Code. These women use the gender violence law so that fathers cannot fight for joint child custody. And with article 94, during the investigation and judicial process, the man is deprived of child visitation rights, despite the fact that 80% of them are eventually declared to be innocent. You can imagine the ordeal they suffer, when one to five years can pass without being able to see their children.

ANAVID asks that all of these discriminatory laws, which violate constitutional, fundamental and human rights, be repealed. These laws are destroying the lives of men, children, and entire families, and are not protecting the truly mistreated women. We demand laws that protect and punish all people equally, regardless of sex, age, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

Furthermore, we ask that any person declared innocent, that had been
deprived of their liberty to be compensated with €600 per day and for
those who have suffered a restraining order being found innocent, we ask for a compensation of €110 per day.

Note: The original Spanish version of this statement is available on the ANAVID website.

Bills Gender Agenda

Twelve States Have Introduced Bills to Affirm Parental Rights. More Bills Are Expected.

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 5, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Twelve States Have Introduced Bills to Affirm Parental Rights. More Bills Are Expected.

WASHINGTON / February 6, 2023 – Following reports of secretive school policies that marginalize and exclude parents, parental rights has become a hot-button issue across the United States (1). For example, the New York Times recently published an article highlighting the concerns of parents who were kept in the dark about their child’s gender dilemmas (2).

In response, 12 states have introduced bills in the past month designed to affirm and strengthen parents’ rights. These bills can be classified in terms of whether they affirm fundamental principles of parental rights, assure parental notification, address curriculum and instruction issues, or relate to gender transitioning of children:

Fundamental Principles

Alabama: H.B. 6 prohibits the government from burdening certain fundamental rights of parents (3).

Hawaii: H.B. 1393 states, “Each parent in the State shall have the right to direct the upbringing, education, care, and welfare of the parent’s child.” (4)

Indiana: H.B. 1407 affirms no government entity shall “infringe on the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of the parent’s child” without a “compelling governmental interest of the highest order.” (5)

Minnesota: H.F. 682 seeks to amend the state Constitution to affirm that parents have a fundamental right to “direct the education of their child.” (6)

Mississippi: H.B. 509 states, “The liberty of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of that parent’s child is a fundamental right.” (7)

New Hampshire: H.B. 10 establishes a “parental bill of rights.” (8)

North Dakota: H.B. 1403 prohibits “governmental entities from interfering with parental rights.” (9)

South Carolina: H. 3485 includes a provision that the government “shall not substantially burden the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of that parent’s child….” (10)

Texas: HJR 58 proposes an amendment to the state constitution that states in part: “A parent has the right to direct the education of the parent’s child…” (11)

Parental Notification

Indiana: S.B. 413 proposes that schools “may not discourage or prohibit parental notification of and involvement in decisions affecting a student’s social emotional, behavioral, mental, or physical health.” (12)

South Carolina: H. 3197 states that no public school employee shall “withhold from a child’s parent information that is relevant to the physical, emotional, or mental health of the child.” (13)

Texas: H.B. 61 affirms: “The Texas Education Agency shall adopt procedures for notifying a student’s parent if there is a change in the student’s services or monitoring related to the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being.” (14)

Utah: S.B. 100 states that “each school and each local governing board shall ensure that no policy or action of the school or LEA [local education agency]: (a) operates to shield any student’s information from the student’s parent.” (15)

Curriculum and Instruction

Indiana: H.B. 1608 states that teachers may not provide instruction on ambiguous concepts of “gender identity” to children in grades K–3. (16)

Missouri: S.B. 4 says that parents have a “right to know what their minor child is being taught in school including, but not limited to, curricula, books, source materials, and other instructional materials.” (17)

Oklahoma: S.B. 95 states no school “may provide any sexually explicit material…to a student …without written consent from the student’s parent or legal guardian.” (18)

Gender Transitioning

Indiana: H.B. 1407 protects a parent’s right to raise “the child consistent with the child’s biological sex” and to decline to consent to the child undergoing gender transitioning. (5)

Additional parental rights bills are expected be introduced in the near future in other states (19). A listing of current lawsuits, federal court rulings, and model legislation is available on the SAVE website (20).

Links:

Department of Education Gender Identity Legal Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Clandestine Gender Transitioning at California School Triggers Lawsuit, Call for Legislative Hearings

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 30, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Clandestine Gender Transitioning at California School Triggers Lawsuit, Call for Legislative Hearings

WASHINGTON / January 30, 2023 – A lawsuit has been filed against a California school district for promoting the gender transitioning of an 11-year-old girl without parental knowledge. Many school districts across the nation have adopted similar policies that prevent parents from being informed about their own children changing their gender.

The lawsuit alleges the girl was seeing a counselor at Sierra View Elementary School in Chico, California for mental health issues. One day the girl told the counselor she felt “like a boy.” Subsequently, the school began to secretly transition the girl without parental knowledge or consent. Subsequently, the girl’s mental health began to deteriorate (1).

The girl later changed schools and reverted to her female identity. The lawsuit against the Chico Unified School District was filed earlier this month (2).

A recent report from the American Principles Project notes that transgenderism is marked by a “deadly and destructive combination of ideology, politics, and profits,” and reveals the global market value of sex reassignment surgery to be more than $316 million (3).

The unregulated growth of gender transitioning has resulted in a growing number of persons, known as “detransitioners,” who have decided to revert to their original sex (4).

Sixty-three leading organizations are now calling on Congress to “Conduct hearings on experimental medical practices involving gender transition of under-age children, e.g., puberty blocking drugs, opposite-sex hormones, breast removal, and castration.” (5)

In addition, state lawmakers are being called up to hold hearings to assess the science, ethics, and financial backing of gender transitioning of underage students. To date, federal courts in Florida, North Dakota, and Texas have ruled in favor of placing restrictions on underage gender transitioning surgery (6).

In June, the U.S. Department of Education proposed a new Title IX regulation that would redefine the meaning of “sex” to include “gender identity.” Such a change would serve to promote gender transitioning and have profound, long-lasting effects on child safety, the family structure, and parental rights (7).

Links:

Civil Rights Department of Education Domestic Violence Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sex Education Sexual Harassment Title IX

63 Organizations Urge Congress to Halt the Weaponization of Title IX

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 25, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

63 Organizations Urge Congress to Halt the Weaponization of Title IX

WASHINGTON / January 26, 2023 – Sixty-three leading organizations today are calling on Congress to take strong measures to stop the proposed overhaul of Title IX, the law that was designed to curb sex discrimination in schools. On June 23, 2022 the Department of Education proposed a new Title IX regulation that would redefine the meaning of “sex,” limit free speech, and hobble due process protections (1).

The letter notes that Title IX activists also are seeking to “marginalize the role of parents, promote gender transitioning among minors, make a mockery of fairness in women’s sports, and curtail free speech and due process.”

The letter urges Congress to therefore undertake the following actions:

Pursuant to H. Res 12, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, investigate how the U.S. Department of Education has collaborated with private sector and non-profit entities to alter the regulatory definitions of “sex” and “sexual harassment,” with the aim of changing the foundational legal definition of “sex” and infringing on First Amendment free speech rights.
Reduce the appropriations to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) by $25 million.
Conduct hearings on experimental medical practices involving gender transition of under-age children, e.g., puberty blocking drugs, opposite-sex hormones, breast removal, and castration.
Vigorously oppose passage of the Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act, introduced in December 2022.
Oppose legislation that seeks to expand definitions of “sexual harassment,” promote “trauma-informed” investigations, or seek to weaken free speech, due process, or the presumption of innocence.
Work for the passage of the following legislation:
1. Parents Bill of Rights Act
2. Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act
3. Campus Free Speech Restoration Act
4. Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act

A SAVE public opinion poll reveals strong public support for these actions (2).

The 63 organizations are members of the Title IX Network (3). The letter to Congress can be viewed online (4).

Links:

Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

The Waxman Cometh: London’s Commissioner for Which Victims, Exactly?

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 25, 2023

The Waxman Cometh: London’s Commissioner for Which Victims, Exactly?

Sean Parker

January 25, 2023

Claire Waxman is London’s first Victims Commissioner. In 2011, she won a case to overturn the decision not to prosecute her stalker, university friend Elliot Fogel.

Fogel was first convicted in 2003 over repeated phone calls. The former Sky Sports producer denied he had done anything wrong, but was convicted by a jury of stalking and breaching a restraining order.

Waxman was a contributor to a successful campaign for change in stalking laws, and in 2013 founded campaign group Voice4Victims to continue lobbying for legislation. V4V proposed victims’ rights amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill, passed in the House of Lords in 2016.

Also in 2016 V4V launched the Abuse of Process campaign, which aimed to tackle the problem of alleged victims being abused by alleged perpetrators through legal platforms. Whether this would be following verdict, when a complainant legally becomes a victim, is unclear. V4V also drafted the Sexual Offences Bill, to improve protection for alleged victims of rape and sexual assault. What, if any, connection Waxman has to Betsy Stanko (Operation Soteria grande fromage, charged with increasing UK sexual assault convictions) is as yet undeclared.

Waxman was subsequently reappointed by Sadiq Khan in May 2021. She claims to have undertaken work to transform the criminal justice system to provide a better experience for victims of crime, working alongside victims to amplify their voices, and promoting their interests throughout the ‘criminal justice journey’. Does this also include victims of false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault, wrongful conviction or incarceration, or men and boys in general?

In December 2022 Waxman issued a series of social media posts that appeared to erase the existence of male victims of domestic abuse, and vilified men. Here are some examples:

December 7: “Our campaign is making a real difference in our fight to end the epidemic of male violence against women and girls for good.”
December 9: “We should reflect on Violence Against Women and Girls in the 21^st Century, and the huge proportion of abuse that takes place online and using technology.”
December 12: “Much more must be done to tackle the harmful behaviors of men.”
December 14: “Zara’s future was stolen by a man with no regard for her life or the law.”
December 18: “We are in an epidemic of violence against women and girls.” December 19: “Everyone has a responsibility to challenge misogynistic views and attitudes.”

Also in 2022, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab declined to renew national Victims Commissioner Dame Vera Baird’s contract. Baird is a well-known radical feminist of the ages. See False Allegations Watch‘s annotated notes on a statement given during her tenure.

According to sources Claire Waxman has been used by the legal-dominance feminist lobby to campaign against the recognition of Parental Alienation in the Domestic Abuse Bill. She allegedly went to the President of the Family Division with a list of names of professionals working on Parental Alienation cases. The source suspected that this was why he referred to people having their professional reputation destroyed in a key speech on Parental Alienation in October 2021. The President didn’t take any action.

So the Victims Industry rolls on unquestioned, due to nobody in power wanting to be seen as denying alleged victims justice. But there are many kinds of victims, and in a world where good is bad, right is wrong, left is right and male can be female, there are also potentially 8 billion victims.

Subjectivity ultimately goes in only one direction – inwards; and let it not be forgotten that prisons also are full of ‘victims’. Those who are charged with creating alleged victims are by and large victims themselves, and even if they claim not to have been, have possibly not yet been correctly coerced into seeing themselves that way.

As is increasingly the case, it’s the terminology that’s the problem: If victimhood is seen as a monetisable virtue, then the image of wrongdoing, pain and suffering must be maintained at all costs, and for as long as possible. Otherwise any possible pretence or change of state might be seen through, and fatal doubt sown. Using negative experience as an emotional crutch is a very dangerous business, as crying wolf is a one-way street; once done, rarely recovered from. And don’t even start on the potential false memories in historical cases, or the social contagion of a million believed stories becoming the industrialised wheels before the new culture-wars ambulance-chasers (MeToo lawyers and their ilk).