Category: Uncategorized

WASHINGTON / December 18, 2024 – Numerous groups and members of Congress have expressed deep concern over the recent report by Parents Defending Education (1) revealing the Department of Education has spent over $1 billion for grants supporting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (D.E.I.) programs in schools around the nation. Such programs openly violate laws designed to end racial and sex discrimination in schools — laws that the Department of Education is charged with enforcing.

Examples of these statements of concern include:

• “DEI is the woke addiction that the Biden-Harris administration simply cannot quit. PDE’s new report is jaw-dropping, and it confirms that this administration was more concerned about contorting the minds of America’s future leaders, rather than educating them.”  — House Education and Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (2)

• “The Department of Education doled out over $1Billion dollars in DEI Grants since 2021.  President Trump will end this woke B.S. on Day One of his term. America’s kids will learn the subjects they’re supposed to be taught, rather than being indoctrinated.” — Senator Ted Cruz (3)

The Parents Defending Education report reveals that since 2021, the Biden administration’s Department of Education has spent over $1 billion for 229 D.E.I. grants. (4)

The PDE report documents grants that were awarded amounting to $489,883,797 on D.E.I hiring efforts, $343,337,286 for D.E.I programming and $169,301,221 for Based Mental Health /Social Emotional Learning (SEL). (5)

K-12 school districts across the country have implemented policies or plans that base the hiring and retention of teachers and staff on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. (D.E.I) (6)

For example, the Illinois Math and Science Academy now requires “that every faculty opening requires interviewing at least two candidates who identify as a Black, Indigenous Person of Color.” The school also states that it will “incorporate best practices on diversity, equity and inclusion” in the hiring process which includes “critical race theory.” (7)

Over the past four years, the Department of Education has allowed itself to become politicized by persons seeking to use the student loan program to gain favor among young voters to win their vote during the November 5 elections; (8) to enshrine into law an unscientific and dangerous definition of “gender identity;” (9) and now to instill un-American D.E.I programs in the nations’ schools. (10)

No wonder so many are now calling for the abolition of the US Department of Education. (11)

SAVE – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – is a 501(c)3 organization working to assure due process and fairness. The Title IX Network consists of 240 national and state organizational members that are working to stop the Title IX Biden regulation and end the Gender Agenda.

Links:

Report to Congress

MEN’S HEALTH PROGRAMS LAG BY A 5:1 MARGIN AT DHHS

A Report By:

Edward E. Bartlett

January 25, 2001

1. Executive Summary

Each year, 30,000 American men lose in their struggle for an equal chance at life. As a result, tens of thousands of women become widows. When these women reach their 70s and 80s, they face a four-times greater risk of being placed in a nursing home. As a result of this social and public health problem, Healthy People 2010, the nation’s blueprint for health, singled out men’s health as a national health priority.

This annual Report to Congress tracks the nation’s progress in achieving the goal of elimination of gender health disparities by the year 2010. This Report also compiles information on the following DHHS men’s health programs with a definable budget: 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—Prostate Cancer Screening Program 2. National Institutes of Health—Prostate Cancer Research Initiative and Urology Program 3. Office of Population Affairs—Male Involvement in Family Planning

The budget allocation of the DHHS men’s health programs is $963.6 million. In comparison, the DHHS allocates approximately $5 billion to women’s health research and education. Despite the fact that the health of men is worse than the health of women on virtually every indicator, men’s health programs lag by a 5:1 margin in terms of budget allocations within the Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional area of concern lies in the DHHS Initiative to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparities. Given the long-standing existence of racial disparities in our society, it is understandable why the Initiative emphasizes racial disparities. But absent any defined focus on men’s health, the Initiative may actually result in a deterioration of gender disparities, as explained in Appendix A.

The DHHS can be justifiably proud of a number of exemplary men’s health programs mounted by a number of dedicated public health professionals. Nonetheless, the DHHS has a long way to go until its programs and policies are consistent with the priorities outlined in Healthy People 2010. If we are to succeed in achieving the goal of eliminating sex-specific health disparities within 9 years, the Department of Health and Human Services will need to give far greater attention to the health of men.

1. Introduction

On January 25, 2000, the Department of Health and Human Service (DHHS) released Healthy People 2010. For the first time, men’s health was identified as a national priority. Healthy People 2010 states:

“The second goal of Healthy People 2010 is to eliminate health disparities among segments of the population, including differences that occur by gender, race or ethnicity. . . Overall, men have a life expectancy that is  6 years less than that of women and have higher death rates for each of the 10 leading causes of death.”

Responding to the challenge of Healthy People, Rep. “Duke” Cunningham and Sen. Strom Thurmond introduced the Men’s Health Act in Congress in 2000. The purpose of the bill is to establish an Office of Men’s Health in the DHHS. Currently, there are offices of women’s health in the DHHS, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, Food and Drug Administration, and Health Resources and Services Administration. To date, none of these agencies have an office devoted to the needs of men’s health.

We are now one year into the decade, and it is time to take stock of our progress. The purpose of this Report to Congress is three-fold: 1. Highlight information on the health status of men. 2. Catalog all the DHHS programs that are specific to men’s health. 3. Provide an overall comparison of gender-specific programs within DHHS.

We used several strategies to assure the information in this Report was accurate and complete:

• Communications with the persons in each DHHS agency participating on the Healthy People Steering Committee
• Search of the DHHS Web search engine: www.hhs.gov/topics/men.html
• Review of various DHHS reports and web sites

Draft program descriptions were sent to agency contacts, who were provided the opportunity to review and comment on the program summaries.

III. Key Indicators of Men’s Health Status

Each year the National Center for Health Statistics releases Health, United States, 2000, a compilation of health statistics. The following statistics provide the most recent summary of the health status of American men. All statistics are age-adjusted and apply to 1998:

1. On average, American men live 73.8 years, and women live 79.5 years, a 5.7 year life span gender gap (Table 28).
2. Men have a higher death rate for every one of the top 10 leading causes of death (Table 30):

Cause of Death       Men    Women

Heart disease       166.9         93.3

Cancer              147.7        105.5

Injuries             43.0         17.8

Stroke                26.6         23.6

Chronic lung dis.    25.9         18.1

Suicide              17.2          4.0

Pneumonia/flu        16.3         11.0

Diabetes             15.2         12.3

Homicide             11.3          3.2

HIV infection         7.2          2.2

Rates per 100,000 population

3. Comparing all racial, ethnic, and gender groups, Black males had by far the highest mortality rates (Table 36):

Racial/Ethnic Group       Men   Women

Overall                    605        376

Black                      921        549

White                      576        358

American Indian            568        364

Hispanic                   455        262

Asian/Pacific Islander     347        212

Rates per 100,000 population

4. Males under 65 years of age were more likely to have no health insurance, compared to females: 18.5% vs. 16.2% in 1997 (Table 128).
5. Among males, 23.2% had no usual source of health care, compared to 11.9% of females (Table 78).
6. Program Descriptions

The following are descriptions of the programs in the Department of Health and Human Services that are specific to men’s health:

Administration on Aging

No men’s health programs identified.

Administration for Children and Families

The Office of Child Support Enforcement at ACF sponsors a Fatherhood Initiative, but it has no defined relationship to reducing the health disparities facing men.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has no defined men’s health program. It has, however, funded several research projects on prostate health. The largest was the Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT). The original PORT grant was awarded to Dartmouth University in 1990 (www.ahrq.gov/research/nov95/feature.htm). PORT-II continued the work of PORT-I, and recently concluded in 2000.

AHRQ has published a number of practice guidelines on prostate health, and continued to support several research projects specific to prostate health. Information on these projects can be found at: www.ahrq.gov/research/may00/0500ra10.htm

www.ahrq.gov/research/jun00/0600ra6.htm

www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr2000/prospr.htm

www.ahrq.gov/research/nov00/1100ra7.htm

Budget: Unknown.

Contact:

Karen Migdail

AHRQ Public Affairs

2101 E. Jefferson St.

Rockville, MD 20852

301-594-6120

kmigdail@ahrq.gov

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CDC sponsors several prostate cancer control initiatives, which are summarized in Appendix B. Overall, CDC is working to build the science base for prostate cancer to deliver appropriate messages that will allow people to make informed decisions about prostate cancer screening and follow-up. The CDC also maintains a database of federal and state legislation related to cancer: www.cdc.gov/cancer/legislat.htm.

Budget: $9.2 million

URL: www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate

Contact:

Karen Richard, MPA

Public Health Advisor

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion 4770 Buford Highway, NE, MS K64 Atlanta, GA 30341?3717 770-488-4737 kmr4@cdc.gov

Food and Drug Administration

No men’s health programs identified.

Health Care Financing Administration

No men’s health programs identified.

Health Resources and Services Administration

No men’s health programs identified.

Indian Health Service

No men’s health programs identified.

National Institutes of Health

The National Institutes of Health is the only DHHS agency that provides breakdowns of overall funding patterns by sex. According to the General Accounting Office report on Women’s Health (GAO/HEHS-00-96, May 2000), the 1999 budget allocation for men’s health research was 6.4%. This percentage formed the basis of the calculation of the NIH men’s health budget, reported below. In contrast,  15.5% was allocated for women’s health in that same year. The GAO report also revealed that since 1988, men’s health research has been funded less than half the amount allocated to women’s health.

Since 1994, the NIH has tracked sex-specific participation in extramural research projects. These percentages are reported in an annual report issued by the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health, “Implementation of the NIH Guidelines on the Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research.” In Fiscal Year 1994, male participation was 44.9%. By 1998, that percentage had fallen to 32.2%.

The NIH has well-defined men’s health programs at the National Cancer Institute (see Appendix C) and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (see Appendix D).

Budget: $949.7 million (FY 1999)

Contact:

NIH Information Office

National Institutes of Health

Building 1, Room 344

Bethesda, MD 20892

301-496-2535

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) is the principal advisor to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on policy development. The ASPE supports the DHHS Fatherhood Initiative, a loosely-coordinated coalition of federal programs concerned with a range of fatherhood issues (http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/).

The Fatherhood Initiative has no defined relationship to reducing the health disparities facing men.

Office of Minority Health

No men’s health programs identified.

Office of Population Affairs

In 1997, the OPA/OFP began an initiative to involve community-based health and social service organizations to improve family planning/reproductive health education and services to men. The OPA/OFP projects are intended to integrate family planning service and education into programs where young males are already receiving other health, education, and social services. In FY 1999, grants were awarded to 24 community-based organization for these projects.

Through HHS regional offices, approximately 30 small grants were awarded to Title X family planning clinics for employing male high school students as interns. This program is designed to provide participants with information about allied health professions and job-skill training, as well as education about family planning, reproductive health, and responsible sexual behavior.

In FY 2000, OPA/OFP established the Title X Training Center for Male Reproductive Health at Morehouse Research Institute at Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA. This Training Center provides science-based information and training to Title X projects that provide family planning/reproductive health information and services to men.

Budget: $4.7 million

URL: www.hhs.gov/opa/titlex/ofp-male-grantees.html

Contact:

Kathy Woodall

Office of Population Affairs

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

4350 East-West Highway, Suite 200

Bethesda, MD 20814

301-594-7608

KWoodall@osophs.dhhs.gov

Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion sponsors a web-based HealthFinder, which includes information on men’s health. The men’s health page includes information on hot topics, news, smart choices, tools for you, and men’s health in the community.

Budget: Unknown

URL: www.healthfinder.gov/justforyou/men/Default.htm

Contact:

Mary Jo Deering, PhD

Office for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

738-G Humphrey Bldg.

200 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20201

202-205-8611

MDeering@osophs.dhhs.gov

Office of Women’s Health

The DHHS Office of Women’s Health sponsors the National Women’s Health Information Center (NWHIC). The Center’s website includes a page on “What About Men’s Health?” The purpose of the website is to help women learn more about the leading health concerns of men.

“What About Men’s Health?” includes sections on alcohol and drug abuse, cancer, diabetes, fitness and nutrition, heart disease and stroke, HIV and AIDS, mental health, men with disabilities, prostate health, reproductive health, smoking, and violence prevention.

Budget: Unknown.

URL: www.4woman.gov/mens/

Contact:

Valerie Scardino, MPA, Program Manager

HHS Office on Women’s Health

200 Independence Ave., S.W., Room  712E

Washington, DC 20201

202-205-0270

vscardino@osophs.dhhs.gov

President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports

No men’s health programs identified.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

No men’s health programs identified.

1. DHHS Budget for Men’s Health

The following summarizes the budget allocation for men’s health programs in the Department of Health and Human Services:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

Prostate Cancer Screening Program          $9.2 million

National Institutes of Health:

Prostate Cancer Research Initiative       $141.5 million

NIDDK Urology Program                       $7.0 million

Other male-specific research              $801.2 million

Office of Population Affairs:

Male Involvement in Family Planning         $4.7 million

TOTAL                                     $963.6  million

In comparison, women’s health is allocated approximately $5 billion, according to the DHHS Office of Women’s Health.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Appendix A

DHHS Initiative to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparities

The DHHS Initiative to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparities outlines 5 disparity-reduction goals: infant mortality, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and HIV infection/AIDS. The absence of a defined focus on men’s health has raised concerns in two of these areas.

1. Cancer

Goal 2 of the Initiative addresses Cancer Screening and Management. Basic public health principles dictate that attention should be directed to persons at highest risk. Overall, men’s age-adjusted cancer mortality risk is 147.7/100,000, compared to 105.5/100,000 for women (Health, United States, 2000, Table 30). Thus, men currently have a 40% greater risk of dying from cancer than women.

But according to information posted on the DHHS website, the strategy for achieving the cancer goal focuses only on breast and cervical cancer. The conclusion that no attention should be directed to cancer in men, especially African-American men, is difficult justify.

2. HIV Infection

Goal 5 of the Initiative addresses HIV Infection. The DHHS plan makes this statement: “We will establish educational outreach to all major medical providers to promote the current standard of clinical care for all persons living with HIV/AIDS, including Medicaid-eligible women and children with HIV” (emphasis added).

Medicaid eligibility rules in most states give preference to custodial parents, who are usually mothers. But many non-custodial fathers are under a court order to pay child support to the mother. If these men become ill and are unable to work, they may be incarcerated due to aggressive enforcement of child support orders.

URL: http://raceandhealth.hhs.gov

Appendix B

Centers for Disease Control

Prostate Cancer Control Initiatives

1. Support six comprehensive cancer control projects that include activities targeting prostate cancer. The six projects are located in in Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Texas, and the Northwest Portland Indian Health Board.
2. Collaborate with the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials to ensure that health departments provide accurate and useful information to the public about the benefits and risks associated with PSA screening tests.
3. Develop communications tools in Oklahoma, Texas, and the District of Columbia to help men decide whether to be screened for prostate cancer.
4. Analyze print media messages to determine what prostate cancer information is currently being provided to the public in general and to the African-American community in particular.
5. Work to increase the recruitment of African-American men into the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trials. These trials are designed to answer the critical question of whether screening for prostate cancer prevents deaths.
6. Examine clinical and demographic factors among African-American and white men that may explain increased risk for prostate cancer.
7. Conduct a study with the Alliance of Community Health Plans to compare the medical records of patients with their own report of whether they received a PSA test.
8. Study the effectiveness of PSA and digital rectal exam (DRE) screening in the managed care setting by examining medical histories of men who died of prostate cancer.

URL: www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate

Appendix C

National Cancer Institute

Prostate Cancer Research

In 1997, the NIH established the Prostate Cancer Progress Review Group, charged with helping the National Cancer Institute sharpen its focus on the prostate cancer agenda. In its 1998 report, “Defeating Prostate Cancer: Crucial Directions for Research” (http://osp.nci.nih.gov/PRGReports/PPRGReport/toc.htm), the Group identified about 500 NCI-funded projects supporting prostate cancer research.

At the request of Congress, NIH then developed a 5-year plan for a coordinated, NIH-wide prostate cancer research initiative. “Planning for Prostate Cancer Research: Expanding the Scientific Framework”

(http://www.nci.nih.gov/prostateplan.html) was submitted in July 1999. Current research projects include the following:

• 246 clinical trials in prostate cancer, including 80 Phase III studies and 37 Phase II studies. • The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) to determine if the drug finasteride can prevent prostate cancer. • The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial

(PLCO) to assess the efficacy of prostate cancer screening.

• The Surveillance and End Results (SEER) Program to identify differing patterns of care among black and white men with prostate cancer.

Budget: $96 million (FY 1999)

URL: www.nci.nih.gov/disease-initiatives/prostatecancer/index.html

Contact:

Barry Portnoy, PhD

National Cancer Institute

Building 31, Room 10A49

31 Center Drive, MSC 2580

Bethesda, MD 20892-2580

301-496-9569

bp22z@nih.gov

Appendix D

NIDDK Urology Program

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

(NIDDK) Urology Program supports basic and clinical research on the normal and abnormal development, structure, and function of the genitourinary tract and studies on the genitourinary effects of diabetes mellitus and other diseases. The NIDDK is especially interested in research on these urological conditions: • Benign prostatic hyperplasia • Erectile impotence • Other sexual dysfunctions • Chronic inflammatory disorders of the genitourinary tract, such as prostatitis, epididymitis, and orchitis.

The NIDDK currently has several large-scale men’s health studies

underway:

1. Minimally-Invasive Surgical Therapies Treatment Consortium for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

The NIDDK recently announced the establishment of a 5-year multi-center trial to study the effectiveness of minimally invasive surgical therapies for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The study will be known as MIST: Minimially Invasive Surgical Therapies Treatment Consortium for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. The purpose of this project is to conduct randomized clinical trials of the long-term efficacy and safety of the major “minimally-invasive” approaches for the treatment of symptomatic BPH.

Budget: Year 1: $3 million. Years 2-5: $6 million/year.

Contact:

Dr. John Kusek, Deputy Director for Clinical Program Administration 6707 Democracy Blvd., Rm. 617, MSC 5458 Bethesda, MD 20892-5458 301-594-7717 kusekj@ep.niddk.nih.gov http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-DK-01-024.html

1. Alternative and Complementary Therapies for Symptomatic BPH

Alternative medicine approaches to the treatment of disease are often used for many urological conditions that affect quality of life. Alternative therapeutic agents are often used to treat BPH symptoms. This initiative will assess the efficacy of widely used alternative strategies for treatment of BPH, and compare these agents with FDA-approved drugs for the treatment of this condition.

Budget: $3.0 million.

1. Innovative Therapeutic Interventions for Chronic Prostatitis

The purpose of this initiative is to expand the Chronic Prostatitis Collaborative Network, a consortium of six clinical centers and a data coordinating center. The purpose of the Chronic Prostatitis Collaborative Research Network is to define the epidemiology of this condition and start clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for men with Chronic Prostatitis.

Budget: $0.5 million.

1. Minority Recruitment in Chronic Prostatitis Cohort Study

The Chronic Prostatitis Collaborative Research Network will be expanded by addition of new clinical facilities to strengthen the recruitment of African-American men with chronic prostatitis.

Budget: $0.5 million.

Contact:

Leroy M. Nyberg, MD, PhD, Clinical Urology Program Director 6707 Democracy Blvd., Room 654, MSC 5458 Bethesda, MD 20892-5458 301-594-7717 nybergl@ep.niddk.nih.gov

SAVE State Lawmaker Program Yields 11 New Laws in Seven States

WASHINGTON / November 13, 2024 – In January of this year, SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) launched a new program to identify state lawmakers working to thwart the Gender Agenda. (1) Over the course of 10 months, a total of 121 candidates from 32 states signed a six-point pledge to “Protect Schools, Children, and Families from the Federal Title IX Plan.” (2)

Out of the 32 states, bills were enacted during the 2024 legislative session in seven states:

Idaho:

• HB 538 bars teachers from referring to a student by a name or pronoun that doesn’t align with their birth sex, without parental consent. (3)

• HB 668 bans the use of public funding to cover sex-change procedures. (4) This bill was introduced by Pledge Signer Rep. Bruce Skaug.

Louisiana: HB 121 prohibits the use of transgender and nonbinary youths’ chosen names and pronouns in K-12 public schools without parental permission. (5)

New Hampshire:

• HB 1205 protects participation on female K-12 sports teams based on sex. (6)

• HB 619 “ensures that life-altering, irreversible surgeries will not be performed on children.” (7)

Ohio:

• HB 68 blocks gender-affirming care for trans youth. (8)

• HB 68 prevents transgender athletes from playing women’s sports. (9)

Tennessee:

• SB 2749, titled the ‘Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act (11)

• SB 1810 requires schools to alert parents if their child has requested to go by a name, or set of pronouns, that differs from their school forms. (12)

In addition, the following pledge signers from Kansas and Oregon introduced Title IX legislation in 2024, and/or are planning to introduce legislation, in 2025:

Rep. Steven K. Howe (KS) supported House Substitute for SB 233, ‘Forbidding Abusive Child Transitions Act’, but the bill was vetoed by the Governor, (14)

Rep. Boomer Wright (OR) has submitted legislation for 2025 to specify that women’s sports are for women and girls.  Men and boys, transitioned or not, do not belong in women’s sports, bathrooms, nor locker rooms.

Rep. Ed Diehl (OR) introduced a bill in 2024 that would have prohibited boys in girls’ sports, additional legislation is planned for 2025.

SAVE urges state lawmakers to begin planning now how they can fight the Gender Agenda in 2025.

1)    https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Candidate-Pledge-to-Protect-Schools-Children-and-Families2.pdf

2)    https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/lawmakers/pledge/

3)    https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2024/legislation/h0538/

4)    https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2024/legislation/h0668/

5)    https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=245685

6)    https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1205/id/2868559

7)    https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB619/2024

8)    https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_135/legislation/hb68/05_EN/pdf/

9)    https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_135/legislation/hb68/05_EN/pdf/

10)    https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/bills/4624.htm

11)    https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Billinfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB2749&ga=113#:~:text=This%20bill%20prohibits%20any%20branch,parent%20as%20provided%20under%20this

12)    https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1810&ga=113

13)    https://legiscan.com/WY/bill/SF0099/2024#:~:text=AN%20ACT%20relating%20to%20public,of%20a%20physician’s%20or%20health

14)    https://www.kslegislature.gov/li/b2023_24/measures/sb233/

WASHINGTON / August 14, 2024 – False allegations have become a major problem in the United States (1).  A national survey revealed that 10% of Americans report they have been falsely accused of abuse. The representative survey found 13% of males and 8% of females had been targeted by a false allegation of domestic abuse during their lifetimes. (2)

In 2015, Yale University student Saifullah Khan was accused of rape by Jane Doe. News of the accusation became public knowledge, triggering fevered calls for his immediate removal from the campus. The case was then brought to criminal court, where he was eventually acquitted of sexual assault.

But inexplicably, Khan was later found responsible for sexual misconduct under Yale’s flawed Title IX proceedings. The man was expelled from Yale in 2019. These contradictory decisions prompted him to sue both Yale and Jane Doe for $110 million for wrongful defamation. (3)

Typically, witnesses in criminal cases are afforded immunity from defamation lawsuits over what they say during the proceedings. But the Connecticut Supreme Court determined that Yale’s campus disciplinary process did not offer the same protections as a criminal process, that it was not “quasi-judicial.” (4) So the Court allowed Khan to move forward with his defamation complaint against Jane Doe.

In addition to his lawsuit against Yale and false accuser Doe, Khan filed another defamation complaint in May 2024. He is suing attorney Jennifer Becker and 15 advocacy organizations concerning their amicus brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court that labeled him a “rapist,” even though he had already been cleared of the heinous charges in a criminal court. His lawsuit charged the groups with “defamation, false light, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process action.” (5) The damage to his good name and reputation had been done, and the harmful amicus brief still remains on the Internet. (6)

Feminist activists apparently believe they should be able to make accusations of “rape” or “sexual assault” in bad faith and not face legal consequences, even after the accused person is found innocent in a court of law. Defamation lawsuits are one of our nation’s strongest protections against false allegations of a heinous crime.

Links:

1)    https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/false-accusations-and-abuse-claims.html

 2)    https://endtodv.org/2023/02/27/survey-one-in-10-falsely-accused-of-abuse-women-usually-the-accusers-men-most-often-the-targets/

3)     https://www.chronicle.com/article/talking-about-campus-sexual-assault-could-get-you-in-trouble-a-long-running-legal-fight-shows-how

4)      https://www.chronicle.com/article/2-former-students-face-defamation-lawsuits-for-talking-about-sexual-assault

5)    https://www.thecollegefix.com/acquitted-former-student-sues-15-groups-for-defamation-after-they-called-him-a-rapist/

6)      https://www.chronicle.com/article/talking-about-campus-sexual-assault-could-get-you-in-trouble-a-long-running-legal-fight-shows-how

SAVE Invites Persons to Become Local Watchdogs to Assure Title IX Compliance

WASHINGTON / August 5, 2024 – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) today is announcing a new Citizen Watchdog initiative to assure Title IX compliance in 26 states in which judges have ruled against the Biden Administration’s controversial Title IX regulation, and to push back against the Gender Agenda in the other 24 states. (1) 

Over the last two months, federal judges issued a series of strongly worded rulings that blocked the implementation of the Title IX regulation, which redefines sex to include “gender identity.” The judicial decisions currently apply to 26 states around the country: LA, MS, MT, ID, TN, KY, OH, IN, VA, WV, KS, AK, UT, WY, TX. AR, MO, IA, NE, ND, SD, AL, OK, FL, GA and SC. (2) 

On August 1, 2024, the controversial Title IX regulation went into effect in the 24 states not covered by the judicial decisions.  The Department of Education released a statement claiming the new regulation is designed to “ensure that Title IX promotes educational equity and opportunity for all.”  This statement is disingenuous because the new regulation actually serves to remove fundamental civil rights from women competing in athletic events, from students who wish to exercise their free speech rights, and from falsely accused male students who expect to enjoy 14^th Amendment due process protections.

While the injunctions handed down against the Title IX rule have been encouraging, some schools are expected to attempt to sidestep the decisions. For example, schools in the 26 states may claim to be following the letter of the law, but individual teachers or counselors may continue their efforts to indoctrinate vulnerable students into Gender Ideology, while school administrators turn a blind eye.

A recent report from the Heritage Foundation reveals that schools in over 1,000 districts are allowed to hide a child’s gender identity from the child’s parents. (5) 

Aaron Lacey, a partner at Thompson Coburn, recently claimed said institutions affected by the injunctions could choose to adopt only certain elements of the new Title IX rule, as long as they remain in compliance with the 2020 Title IX regulation – an approach that could be described as a “disruptive nightmare.” (6) 

In response, SAVE is in the process of identifying hundreds of Citizen Watchdogs around the country who are willing to monitor their schools to assure compliance with the judicial decisions and counter the Gender Agenda. (7) 

If a Citizen Watchdog discovers non-compliance in their local school(s), they should take steps to stop the problem. These approaches include:

1. Meet with the school principal and/or education superintendent
2. Speak out at meetings of the local school board
3. Refer the non-compliance to the state Attorney General office.    

To volunteer for the Watchdog program, persons should send a message to Watchdog@saveservices.org. Please indicate your city and state, and your area of concern, such as women’s sports, due process, etc. To learn about the Citizen Watchdog program, visit: https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/  

The Title IX Network consists of 233 organizational members who are working to stop the new Title IX regulation and end the gender agenda.

Links: