Connect with us


Female CA prison guards traumatized having to strip search men under gender-inclusion rules



GettyImages 180089432 scaled

Female prison guards in California are detailing their trauma after state laws have forced them to perform naked strip searches on male felons. The regulations fall under the state department of corrections’ gender-inclusion rules.

“Incarcerated individuals who are transgender, non-binary, or intersex must be searched according to the gender designation of the institution where they are housed or based on the individual’s search preference,” according to official prison policy obtained by National Review.

Previously the department prohibited female officers from conducting strip searches on naked male inmates, except for in emergency circumstances. Examples included when a same-sex officer was not available, or if the male was at risk of harming themselves or others.

National Review explains that this sudden shift in policy, officially implemented in 2021, has shaken female staff at the California Institution for Men, colloquially known as Chino. Some male inmates who identify as women, or have even undergone transition surgeries and hormone therapy, choose to stay at Chino rather than request a housing transfer to a women’s facility, such as the California Institution for Women.

Recently retired after 22 years as a corrections officer at Chino, Paula James experienced firsthand how the decision to accommodate trans-identifying inmates has made the state prison a scary and unfair place to work.

“As a corrections officer myself, I wasn’t supposed to be stripping male inmates down,” James told National Review. “You’re not supposed to unless it’s an emergency situation. You can get in trouble, it’s considered rape. . . . I’ve been taught that my whole career. Then all of a sudden, now some of these men are saying they are women, but they still have all the parts.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


House Speaker Mike Johnson Vows to Take Legal Action After DOJ Declines to Prosecute Merrick Garland



Screen Shot 2021 02 22 at 12.40.15 PM scaled

House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed disappointment on Friday over the Justice Department’s (DOJ) decision not to prosecute Attorney General Merrick Garland after the House voted to hold him in contempt for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. Johnson announced plans to take the subpoena to federal court and certify the contempt reports.

The DOJ stated that Garland’s refusal to comply with the subpoena, which instructed him to turn over an audio recording of President Joe Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, did not “constitute a crime.” This decision follows the GOP-led House’s vote on Wednesday to hold Garland in contempt, passing the resolution with a 216–207 vote.

“The House disagrees with the assertions in the letter from the Department of Justice,” Johnson wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter). “As Speaker, I will be certifying the contempt reports to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. It is sadly predictable that the Biden Administration’s Justice Department will not prosecute Garland for defying congressional subpoenas even though the department aggressively prosecuted Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for the same thing.”

Johnson criticized the DOJ’s decision as “another example” of what he perceives as the Biden administration’s two-tiered system of justice. He emphasized that the House would pursue the enforcement of the subpoena against Garland in federal court. The contempt order was issued after President Biden invoked executive privilege over the tapes, though Congress has received a transcript of the interview.

In a statement following the House’s contempt vote, Garland blasted the decision, accusing House Republicans of weaponizing their power for partisan purposes. “Today’s vote disregards the constitutional separation of powers, the Justice Department’s need to protect its investigations, and the substantial amount of information we have provided to the Committees,” Garland stated. “I will always stand up for this department, its employees, and its vital mission to defend our democracy.”

The Justice Department’s refusal to prosecute Garland underscores ongoing tensions between the executive branch and the GOP-led House. The situation reflects broader disputes over congressional oversight, executive privilege, and the handling of classified information.

As Speaker Johnson moves forward with legal action, the outcome could set significant precedents for the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch. The decision to pursue enforcement of the subpoena in federal court will be closely watched, as it may influence future interactions between legislative investigators and executive officials.

Continue Reading