Connect with us


I agree with Grassley, the Equality Act will ‘fundamentally manipulate’ how society deals with sex, gender and faith



sen chuck grassley

The Senate Judiciary Committee Equality Act hearing Wednesday is one that everyone should be paying attention to because it’s not just about LGBTQ rights, it’s about how we as a society will handle the issues of sex, gender and faith for generations to come.

It was a point driven forward by ranking Senate Judiciary member Chuck Grassley in his opening statement Wednesday on Capitol Hill. He argued that the bill appears to remove the rights from many people, specifically women, by reshaping how we view genders in the United States. He’s right, every human being should be treated with equality and dignity. I absolutely advocate for LGBTQ community but not at the expense of erasing and removing the rights of millions of young women, who are now having to compete against men in sports because some men are identifying as women.

The Equality Act, which passed the House in February, would actually violate those tenets by trampling on religious freedoms as well as the right of those who do not fit in the LGBTQ category, like some young women who are being forced to compete against men.

President Biden said during his campaign that the Equality Act would be one of his top priorities at the beginning of his tenure. The legislation didn’t have a problem getting through the House and was largely voted along party lines. Only three Republicans broke with the GOP and voted with Democrats to pass the bill but it’s not going to be as easy in the Senate.

During his opening statement, Grassley shared a story regarding a young all-star high school student athlete Chelsea Mitchell, whose story was part of the testimony at the hearing.

He said that Mitchell, like many female athletes he spoke with, would “like to retain the right to compete on equal footing against other biological girls. Instead, this accomplished athlete has been forced to compete against biological men.”

“Many women and girls before her fought for the legal protections under Title IX, which recognizes that sex-specific distinctions are appropriate in some instances,” he said. “As a father, a grandfather, and a husband, I have celebrated the athletic successes of talented young women in my own family. So I also am deeply concerned about this Act’s potential negative implications for all girls and women in sports.”

Grassley argues that this bill under the pretense of ‘Equality’ is manipulative. I agree.

“Laws to end hateful discrimination can be tailored to prevent injustices in various contexts, like banking or housing, and thereby end those injustices,” said Grassley. “But this bill is drafted in an entirely different way. It would fundamentally manipulate how our society deals with sex, gender, and faith.”

Here is what Grassley is saying in simple terms.

The Equality Act would amend existing federal civil rights laws. As explained in the Fox News Opinion piece by Doreen Denny in February, it would also actually eliminate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the “sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics, seeks to erase the understood binary definition of sex as male or female, and enshrines a new definition of sex that includes a person’s perception of his or herself – not the actual chromosomal DNA that identifies his or her true sex.”

These fundamental issues can’t simply be erased by this law because in the end it will do exactly the opposite of what it intends. Look at what’s happening now with men competing in women’s sports and the inequality in allowing it to take place. This week’s hearing will bring that all to the forefront.

This act will not stop discrimination against the LGBTQ community but increase divisions in an already divided nation.

Denny, in my opinion, said it best:

“Ponder this. Under the Equality Act, everything women have done and achieved over the last half century to improve opportunities and protections in education, sports, the workplace and society could be overruled by any male claiming ‘womanhood.’”

Doreen Denny, Senior Director of Government Relations for Concerned Women for America, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

An employer who wants to cut health care and parental leave costs could choose a transgender person over a woman of child-bearing age and still get credit for the “woman hire.” A college coach could choose to give a scholarship to a transgender athlete over a female athlete knowing the biology of the former gives the team a competitive advantage.

How can we enact a law that fails to recognize women and young girls, which I frankly can say has been one of the most discriminated of all groups since the beginning of humankind.

And what about religious institutions, parental rights and religious rights? What will happen to private hospitals or religious hospitals and their ability to practice medicine based on their faith.

Grassley noted in his opening remark at the hearing that lawmakers much hear “other perspectives will help the Senate better understand what would happen to certain basic services on which many Americans rely, if this Act is adopted.”

“For example, what will happen to Catholic or Methodist-affiliated hospitals, which provide excellent services to the public, if this bill is enacted? In some areas these facilities may be the only hospitals for miles around,” Grassley said.

He added, if “a faith-based organization has partnered with a community to provide social services that would otherwise not exist, like a soup kitchen or an adoption agency for hard-to-adopt special needs children, what happens to the people who relied most heavily on those services? To whom do they turn?”

It’s unfortunate but common sense is serious lacking in our nation. It’s understandable that we are all looking for equality and fairness. Women have fought brutal political and judicial battles throughout American history for equal rights, why are we now going to remove that in 2021, disguised as fairness.

You can follow Sara A. Carter @SaraCarterDC

Continue Reading


Biden Administration Relies on Discredited Reports to Claim Imminent Famine In Gaza



Screen Shot 2023 11 20 at 3.46.25 PM

Follow Steve Postal: @HebraicMosaic


Despite sounding an alarm that northern Gaza would face an impending famine, an organization backtracked on its own analysis mere months later. USAID, and likely the State andDefense departments, relied on the research from this organization to pressure Israel on what was portrayed as an impending famine in northern Gaza.

On March 18, the Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET) issued a report stating that famine with “reasonable evidence” would occur from March to July in the northern Gaza Strip, “with expectations that it will imminently emerge by May.” On May 31, FEWS NET followed up with a second report stating that it “…finds it is possible, if not likely, that all three IPC thresholds for Famine (food consumption,acute malnutrition, and mortality) were met or surpassed in northern Gaza in April. But on June 4, The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Famine Review Committee (FRC) reviewed the FEWS NET analyses, and found them severely flawed on several accounts. Interestingly, according to a former IDF spokeswoman, FRC is at a higher, review level of the same organization as FEWS NET, so in June the organization essentially reviewed its own work.

Reliance by the Biden Administration. The Biden administration relied on the work of FEWS NET/FRC to chastise Israel on Gaza’s “imminent” famine. Sonali Korde, Assistant to the Administrator of USAID’s Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance, admitted such reliance explicitly in in an April 23 press briefing:Assessments on famine are based on a very rigorous methodology that is undertaken by the IPC, the Integrated Phase Classification, which is the expert body that both collects and reviews data. So, we will wait for their determination. But over a month prior, the March 18 FEWS NET report (or a March 18 FRC report) was likely the “heart-wrenching assessment” of “food security experts” that USAID Director Samantha Power cited that same day as evidence “that Famine is imminent in Northern Gaza.” In an apparent reference to the March 18 FRC report, on March 19, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that “according to the most respected measure of these things, 100 percent of the population in Gaza is at severe levels of acute food insecurity.  That’s the first time an entire population has been so classified.

The ”risk of famine” canard continued to be peddled by the Biden administration. In the above-mentioned April 23 press briefing, Ambassador David Satterfield, the Special Envoy for Middle East Humanitarian Issues stated that “the risk of famine throughout Gaza is very high, especially in the north. Israel must do everything possible to facilitate efforts to avert famine in Gaza. This followed an unnamed State Department official telling Reuters that “While we can say with confidence that famine is a significant risk in the south and centre but not present, in the north, it is both a risk and quite possibly is present in at least some areas. Additionally, in an April 4 press briefing, Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder stated that “Secretary Austin again raised the need for a rapid increase of aid coming through all crossings in the coming days, particularly to communities in northern Gaza that are at risk of famine.

But while apparently captivating USAID, State, and Defense,FRC burst its own bubble through its June criticism of earlier FEWS NET analyses:

Analysis based on “assumptions and inference.” The FRC conceded that FEWS NET relied on “major gaps in publiclyaccessible evidence, including direct and indirect evidence for food consumption and livelihood change, nutritional status, and mortality…” and had “relied on multiple layers of assumption and inference, beginning with food availability and access in northern Gaza and continuing through nutritional status and mortality.” In other words, FEWS NET did not have the facts to support its assertion that a famine was imminent. FRC admitted that as much, stating that “While the use of assumptions and inference is standard practice in IPC generally, the limitations of the available body of evidence and the extent of its convergencefor northern Gaza in April leads to a very high level ofuncertainty regarding the current food security and nutritional status of the population.

Analysis did not factor in shipments to bakeries or contracted/commercial trucking. The FRC also noted that the FEWS NET analysis excluded 940 metric tons of flour, sugar, salt, and yeast delivered by WFP [the United Nations’ World Food Program] to bakeries in northern Gaza.Additionally, the FEWS NET analysis excluded the contributions of private commercial and contracted trucking, whose deliveries comprised “…about 1,820 [metric tons] (low estimate) and 3,850 [metric tons] (high estimate) in the month of March and for about 2,405 [metric tons] (low estimate) and 4,004 [metric tons] (high estimate) in the month of April 2024.” FRC estimated that if the FEWS NET analysis incorporated these food sources, the estimated caloric availability in the area would have increased from what FEWS NET estimated as only 59-63% of the population’s needs in April, versus 75% to 109%, and even 157% if a higher estimate was used. FRC stated that FEWS NET could have taken such sources of food into account “for a more thorough analysis.”

The Biden administration relied on flawed and incomplete research to make an unsubstantiated claim that Israel was putting Gaza at risk of famine. Rather than take a “guilty until proven innocent approach,” the Biden administration must allow Israel to defeat Hamas.

Continue Reading