Posted by Curt on 29 June, 2022 at 10:14 am. 3 comments already!

Loading

by ZACH SCHONFELD, title via Ed Driscoll:

A group of House Democrats on Tuesday announced they would move to codify federal protections for transgender people.
 
The proposal, dubbed the “Transgender Bill of Rights,” would codify the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision that protects employees against discrimination for being gay or transgender.
 
The proposal would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly include protections for gender identity and sex characteristics, expand access to gender-affirming care and ban conversion therapy.
 
It would also require the attorney general to designate a liaison dedicated to overseeing enforcement of civil rights for transgender people and invest in community services to prevent anti-transgender violence.
 
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and co-chair of the Transgender Equality Task Force, said in a statement that the resolution would ensure transgender people can lead “full, happy lives.”
 
“As we witness Republicans and an extremist Supreme Court attack and roll back the fundamental rights of trans people across our country, and as state legislatures across the country target our trans community with hateful, bigoted and transphobic attacks, we are standing up and saying enough is enough,” Jayapal said.
 
Jayapal introduced the proposal alongside Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Marie Newman (D-Ill.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.). The bill has 84 other co-sponsors.
 


 
The bill’s proponents cited Friday’s Supreme Court decision overturning the constitutional right to an abortion.
 
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that the court should also consider overturning some of its other precedents decided under the same substantive due process protections at the heart of Friday’s decision, like rights to same-sex marriage and contraception.
 
The Bostock decision was not mentioned in Thomas’s concurring opinion and involved a different legal question.

Read more
 

4 1 vote
Article Rating
3
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x