Federal Judge Just Smacked Down Biden's Transgender Overreach—Again

Will she get home in time to watch Judge Judy?

Oh, look, another day, another federal judge reminding the woke crowd that biology isn't a suggestion. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. tossed out a Biden-era rule that tried to shoehorn gender identity into Title IX protections and strong-arm doctors into performing transgender procedures like it was just another flu shot.

Guirola backed Tennessee and a posse of 14 other red states that dragged the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to court over this nonsense. The judge basically said HHS went full rogue, twisting "sex discrimination" into something it was never meant to be.

"Congress only contemplated biological sex when it enacted Title IX in 1972," Guirola wrote, dropping truth bombs like it's 1972 all over again. "Therefore, the Court finds that HHS exceeded its authority by implementing regulations redefining sex discrimination and prohibiting gender-identity discrimination."

This gem of a rule dropped on May 6, 2024, back when Biden's crew was still pretending they could rewrite reality with a pen stroke. Fast-forward to the Trump era, and the states weren't taking any chances. They figured why wait for the next round of bureaucratic bullying? 

Trump's HHS lawyers tried to calm everyone down, swearing up and down that with the boss cracking down on transgender ideology, no one's getting sued over this. But Guirola wasn't buying the "trust us, bro" routine. He called the threat of enforcement "real" and said sorting this out now would finally give everyone the clarity they've been begging for.

Under this rule, states would've been stuck footing the bill for transgender surgeries through Medicaid and Medicare, while hospitals lost the right to keep bathrooms and locker rooms where they belong—segregated by actual biology. It would've nuked state health exchanges that dared to say no to the procedure parade.

Guirola laid it out plain: "When it enacted Title IX, Congress's concern was prohibiting sex discrimination in education. It was particularly concerned with inequality that female students experienced. It did not at that time contemplate gender identity, transgender status, or 'gender-affirming care,'" he wrote. In other words, Congress wasn't dreaming up a future where "sex" means whatever TikTok says it does.

Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti was popping champagne over the win, and who could blame him?

"When Biden-era bureaucrats tried to illegally rewrite our laws to force radical gender ideology into every corner of American health care, Tennessee stood strong and stopped them," Skrmetti said. "This decision restores not just common sense but also constitutional limits on federal overreach, and I am proud of the team of excellent attorneys who fought this through to the finish."

Skrmetti hammered home how this would've forced hospitals into sex-segregated space chaos and made states subsidize the whole "gender-affirming" circus via Medicaid. 

The suit had the full Republican AG squad from Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia all piling on, because when it comes to fighting federal fairy tales, strength in numbers.Meanwhile, President Trump, never one to let Biden's legacy linger—is on a tear with executive orders to undo the transgender takeover. He's already kicked off a full audit of every Biden move on this front, making sure the madness gets the boot it deserves. 

Score one for sanity, zero for the ideologues.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

Planned Parenthood of Calif. lost $300 million after being defundedc

Alright, let’s get real about what’s happening in California. The state’s Planned Parenthood affiliates, the biggest baby-killing operation in the Golden State, just got hit with a $300 million gut punch. 

A new federal law, signed by President Donald Trump, called the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," because of course it is, yanked Medicaid reimbursements from any nonprofit health clinic that slaughters babies and rakes in over $800,000 a year from Uncle Sam. That means California’s 114 Planned Parenthood clinics are now cut off from the federal gravy train. 

Now, some liberal judge in Massachusetts, Judge Talwani, threw a tantrum and issued a preliminary injunction to partially block the law, letting a handful of Planned Parenthood's nearly 600 abortion mills across the country keep their taxpayer cash, for now. But here’s the kicker: none of California’s clinics made the cut for that exemption. Tough luck, Jodi Hicks, the president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, who’s whining that "the harsh reality is, the Planned Parenthood defund will be felt in every corner of the state." 

Cry me a river, Jodi. Maybe stop prioritizing the slaughter of the unborn over actual health care, and you wouldn’t be in this mess.

Let’s be clear, Planned Parenthood could keep the taxpayer funds if they just stopped killing babies. But no, they’d rather cling to their abortion altar than provide legitimate health services. Their own annual report brags about terminating over 400,000 babies in 2023 and 2024 while pocketing nearly $800 million from taxpayers. The Hyde Amendment supposedly stops federal funds from directly paying for abortions, but Planned Parenthood’s $700 million in Medicaid reimbursements and Title X grants conveniently frees up their budget to keep the abortion machine humming. Pro-life leaders have been saying this for years, and now someone’s finally doing something about it.

The national Planned Parenthood crew is crossing their fingers for some future court ruling to restore their funding, dreaming that California’s clinics might get back on the federal dole. Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services is fighting back with an appeal, so this legal cage match is far from over. Hicks won’t say which locations might close, but pro-life folks are praying those abortion factories shut down for good.

This is what happens when you build an empire on the backs of the unborn. You can’t keep pretending it’s “health care” while the body count piles up. California’s Planned Parenthood is learning that the hard way, and I’m not shedding a single tear.

Hey amazing readers! If you enjoy my content, please consider supporting Brain Flushings. A quick coffee donation via Buy Me a Coffee fuels late-night writing sessions and fresh ideas. Every sip—er, dollar—helps me create more of the posts you enjoy. Join the crew, toss in a coffee, and let’s keep the good vibes brewing! 

Tweet

UCLA Med School sued for racial discrimination: aka racism

UCLA’s medical school is in a hot mess, and it’s about time. A federal class-action lawsuit just dropped, accusing the school and its officials of thumbing their noses at both California law and a Supreme Court ruling by using race as a factor in admissions. Racism much?

That’s right—despite affirmative action being illegal in the Golden State since 1996 and getting the boot nationwide in 2023, UCLA’s allegedly been playing fast and loose with racial preferences. And the evidence is overwhelming.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in California’s Central District federal court, comes courtesy of Do No Harm, a group founded in 2022 to squash affirmative action in medicine. Students for Fair Admissions, the folks who took down Harvard’s race-based admissions at the Supreme Court, and Kelly Mahoney, a college grad who got the cold shoulder from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, worked to stop the medical school and UCLA officials from “engaging in intentional discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity in the admissions process.” 

Good luck finding a clearer case of alleged wrongdoing and what one might consider to be racism where one group of folks with immutable characteristics is favored over another group, usually White people, particularly White men.

This mess kicked into high gear last year when the Washington Free Beacon blew the lid off UCLA’s admissions practices. The report zeroed in on Jennifer Lucero, the dean of admissions, who is accused of prioritizing race over merit. Things got spicy during a 2021 admissions meeting when a Black applicant with grades and test scores “far below the UCLA average” came up for review. Some committee members dared to question if this candidate was cut out for a top-tier medical school. Lucero’s response? She lost her excrement.

“Did you not know African-American women are dying at a higher rate than everybody else?” Lucero reportedly snapped at an admissions officer. The candidate’s subpar scores were irrelevant to the discussion. 

“We need people like this in the medical school,” she insisted. Translation: Forget qualifications, it’s all about the agenda.

California banned affirmative action in admissions nearly three decades ago, and the Supreme Court doubled down in 2023. This kind of race-based decision-making is supposed to be dead and buried, but under Lucero's watch, starting in 2020, it’s allegedly been business as usual. 

The results have been catastrophic. 

UCLA’s medical school plummeted from 6th to 18th in U.S. News & World Report’s rankings for medical research within three years of Lucero’s hiring. In some cohorts she admitted, over 50 percent of students flunked standardized tests in emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. We’re talking future doctors who can’t hack the basics in medical intervention.

Naturally, it gets worse. 

One professor recounted a student in the operating room who couldn’t identify a major artery when asked, then had the gall to berate the professor for calling her out. Another said students finishing clinical rotations were clueless about basic lab tests and, in some cases, couldn’t even present patients properly. This is what happens when you ditch merit for quotas.

Lucero, who moonlights as the vice chair for equity, diversity, and inclusion (D.E.I.) in UCLA’s anesthesiology department, allegedly led the charge to lower the bar for Black and Latino applicants while demanding near-perfect scores from Whites and Asians. One admissions committee member put it bluntly: The bar for underrepresented minorities is “as low as you could possibly imagine.” After all, who needs competency and grades when you have diversity, yadda yadda.

Here’s the kicker: Lucero’s too slick to openly admit it’s about race. Instead, she reportedly used proxies like zip codes to achieve the same discriminatory results. Sneaky, but not sneaky enough. The Free Beacon’s bombshell last May sparked an investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in March 2025. 

HHS’s Office of Civil Rights is now digging into whether Lucero’s admissions office holds Black and Hispanic applicants to a lower standard than their White and Asian peers. “HHS will not tolerate informal admissions practices and institutional policies that promote racial discrimination at HHS-funded institutions,” the agency told the outlet. “This investigation reflects the Administration’s commitment to honor the hard work, excellence, and individual achievement of all students and not just those of particular racial backgrounds.” 

By lowering requirements for any group of people clearly implies that they are considered to be inferior to those one expects the highest standards. This is what might be called 'quiet racism.'

But wait, there’s more. Just days before the lawsuit hit, The Free Beacon dropped another bombshell: UCLA is still doing it and thus is breaking the law.

On April 8, the medical school circulated a memo outlining “guiding principles for student representation on the admissions committee,” which includes third- and fourth-year medical students alongside faculty. The guidelines mandate considering race when picking student admissions officers. “The Chairs of the [admissions committee] will review all submitted recommendations to ensure representation from those who identify as BIPOC and LGBTQ+,” the memo reads, according to a screenshot obtained by The Free Beacon.

 

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call. 

 
Legal experts are floored. “Putting in writing, while under federal investigation for discrimination, that your faculty will ‘review’ the proposed slate of students included in a program ‘to ensure representation from those who identify as BIPOC and LBGTQ+’ is astonishingly brazen,” said Dan Morenoff, executive director of the American Civil Rights Project. “You have to wonder how it’s possible for no one either in the administration or with its outside counsel to even roughly read either the law or the room.” 

Let’s cut to the chase: This is as clear-cut as it gets. California law and federal law both say race-based admissions are illegal. UCLA’s medical school, led by Lucero, is allegedly flouting both while producing doctors who can’t pass basic tests or identify arteries and might even pass out at the sign of blood, for all we know.

The lawsuit needs to deliver a wake-up call—fire Lucero, recommit to merit, and stop this discriminatory nonsense. If not, UCLA’s not just failing its students; it’s failing every patient who’ll one day depend on them. Stay tuned, because this fight’s just getting started.

Tweet

Columbia U. lays off 180 staff since Trump admin revokes their grants

Columbia University’s getting hit hard. The Ivy League giant’s slashing about 180 jobs this week after the Trump administration pulled the plug on $400 million in federal grants back in March. Why? Because Columbia dropped the ball on protecting Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment. 

Acting President Claire Shipman didn’t sugarcoat it: “Across the research portfolio we have had to make difficult choices and unfortunately, today, nearly 180 of our colleagues who have been working, in whole or in part, on impacted federal grants, will receive notices of non-renewal or termination.” 

That’s a hefty 20% of the folks tied to those grants, by the way. She’s not done: “In the coming weeks and months, we will need to continue to take actions that preserve our financial flexibility and allow us to invest in areas that drive us forward.” 

Translation? More tough calls are coming, and it’s gonna be a bumpy ride. Shipman admits it’s a “deeply challenging time” for higher ed, and navigating this mess with “precision” is, well, “imperfect at times.” 

Back in March, the feds—DOJ, HHS, Education, and GSA—came down like a ton of bricks, canceling that $400 million.  “The school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” 

Columbia’s response at the time was blunt: “There is no question that the cancellation of these funds will immediately impact research and other critical functions of the University, impacting students, faculty, staff, research, and patient care.” That’s a lot of collateral damage.

By April, Columbia was waving the white flag, bending to Trump admin demands to get some of that cash back. They banned masks used to hide identities (good luck enforcing that), gave 36 campus cops new arrest powers, and created a senior vice provost to keep an eye on the Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department, plus the Center for Palestine Studies. Talk about a shake-up.

Shipman says they’re still sweet-talking the feds to restart funding: “Columbia’s leadership continues discussions with the federal government in support of resuming activity on these research awards and additional other awards that have remained active, but unpaid.” 

But with budget cuts looming and federal funding looking shakier than a Jenga tower—especially with talk of slashing reimbursements for “facilities and administration” costs—she’s bracing for impact.

“Increasing budget constraints combined with uncertainty related to future levels of federal funding for research… requires us to make difficult choices,” Shipman said. “We have had to make deliberate, considered decisions about the allocation of our financial resources. Those decisions also impact our greatest resource, our people. We understand this news will be hard.”

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call. 

Tweet

UCLA Med School Doubles Down on Racial Discrimination While Feds Circle the Wagons

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) kicked off a civil rights investigation in March to see if UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine is playing fast and loose with racial discrimination in its admissions. 

And what does UCLA do? Less than two weeks later, they send out a memo that might as well have been titled, “How to Get Sued for Violating Federal Law in One Easy Step.”

According to the Washington Free Beacon, on April 8, UCLA’s medical school circulated a memo—complete with their fancy UCLA watermark—laying out “guiding principles for student representation on the admissions committee.” This committee, a mix of faculty and third- and fourth-year med students, got a crystal-clear directive: make sure race is front and center when picking who gets to play gatekeeper. The memo proudly declares, “The Chairs of the [admissions committee] will review all submitted recommendations to ensure representation from those who identify as BIPOC and LGBTQ+.” 

Because nothing screams “meritocracy” like checking boxes for skin color and identity politics.

This gem was sent to all second- and third-year med students, reportedly green-lighted by the Faculty Executive Committee, which oversees admissions policy. UCLA, apparently too busy to respond to requests for comment, seems to think this is a brilliant move while HHS is breathing down their neck, investigating whether they’re giving “unlawful preference to applicants based on their race.” 

Spoiler alert: When you’re picking committee members based on race, you’re not exactly whispering your discrimination—it’s more like shouting it from the rooftops. "Give us your gays, your dysphoric, your bisexuals, your two-spirited, your BIPOCS, longing to be doctors!"

Legal experts are practically choking on their coffee. Dan Morenoff, head of the American Civil Rights Project, called it “astonishingly brazen,” adding, “You have to wonder how it’s possible for no one either in the administration or with its outside counsel to even roughly read either the law or the room.” 

William Trachman, a former Education Department Office for Civil Rights official, went further, describing the setup as a “Russian nesting doll” of discrimination. He warned, “These committee members need to be prepared to be held personally liable for violations of Title VI.” Translation: UCLA’s got a lawsuit coming, and hopefully, it’s gonna sting.

This isn’t UCLA’s first rodeo with controversy. Whistleblowers—five admissions officials, no less—have already spilled the beans, alleging the school holds black and Latino applicants to a lower bar than white and Asian ones. The result? A flood of students flunking exams left and right, with up to a quarter of one class bombing three or more standardized tests. Leaked data backs this up, and insiders say admissions dean Jennifer Lucero goes full Rambo on anyone who dares question the qualifications of minority applicants. 

Oh, and she’s allegedly stacked the committee with folks who’ll rubber-stamp low grades and test scores. Classy.

Meanwhile, UCLA’s catching heat for a mandatory first-year course, “Structural Racism and Health Equity,” which has featured anti-Semitic speakers and, likely speaking from personal experience, called weight loss a “hopeless endeavor.” 

Even former Harvard Medical School dean Jeffrey Flier has slammed it. The school promised a curriculum review last year, but the course is still required, though one session mysteriously got canceled two days before it was set to happen. 

Associate dean Jason Napolitano sent a vague email on April 21: “I am writing to let you know that we will not be able to deliver the session on Environmental Effects on health that was scheduled for 1-3 PM on Wednesday.” No explanation given.

UCLA’s website doubles down, boasting about its “holistic review” process to “achieve … diversity” with “broad based selection criteria.” They claim the admissions committee “believes that the core values of diversity and inclusion are inseparable from our institutional goals.” 

Sure, but when your “holistic” process involves racial quotas and a memo that screams “we’re ignoring federal law,” maybe it’s time to rethink your life choices.

In a world where common sense hasn’t been completely obliterated, this would be a wake-up call. But at UCLA, it’s just another Tuesday. Stay tuned—this one’s gonna get messier than a pro-Hamasshole campus demonstration.

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call. 

Tweet

Pres. Trump cuts over $400 million in grants to Columbia over anti-Semitism worries: more to follow

Useful Idiots Incognito

The Trump administration has unsheathed its blade, and on Friday it fell with a satisfying thud. More than $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University will be rescinded. The charge? A festering anti-Semitism on campus that the institution has either failed or refused to cauterize. This is no mere bureaucratic shuffle—it’s a gauntlet thrown down at the feet of an elite academy that has long cloaked itself in moral superiority while its corridors echo with the oldest hatred.

Not anymore, boys and girls.

Just four days prior, the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Education (DoED), and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) declared a “comprehensive review” of the $5 billion in federal largesse Columbia has grown accustomed to suckling from the government's teat. The stated reason: “ongoing investigations for potential violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act” tied to the university’s apparent indulgence of Jew-hatred. 

That review barely had time to gather dust before the axe swung—sources, who prefer the shadows to the spotlight, confirm that $400 million from HHS and DoED is already forfeit, with more potentially to follow. Columbia’s sin, it seems, is not merely inaction but a stubborn persistence in letting antisemitism metastasize.

The campus itself offers a grim tableau. This week, anti-Israel/anti-Semitic protests—those rancid echoes of the student encampments that swept Columbia and beyond after Hamas’s slaughter of innocent Israelis on October 7, 2023—reared their head again. 

Students, drunk on self-righteous fury, stormed a library, resulting in nine arrests on Wednesday, per the New York Post. This is not dissent; it is thuggery masquerading as principle, a spectacle that would be laughable if it weren’t so malign.

Enter Linda McMahon, Trump’s Secretary of Education, who descended upon Columbia on Friday to confront its leaders. Her words earlier this week cut through the fog of academic equivocation: “Americans have watched in horror for more than a year now, as Jewish students have been assaulted and harassed on elite university campuses—repeatedly overrun by anti-Semitic students and agitators. Unlawful encampments and demonstrations have completely paralyzed day-to-day campus operations, depriving Jewish students of learning opportunities to which they are entitled.” 

She is not wrong. What we have witnessed is a betrayal of the university’s supposed mission—a descent into a playground for bigots, where Jewish students are not merely inconvenienced but hunted.

McMahon’s verdict is damning: 

“Institutions that receive federal funds have a responsibility to protect all students from discrimination. Columbia’s apparent failure to uphold their end of this basic agreement raises very serious questions about the institution’s fitness to continue doing business with the United States government.” 

This is not hyperbole; it is a statement of fact, grounded in the reality of an institution that has traded its duty for cowardice or, worse, complicity.

The move aligns with President Trump’s executive orders, which have long demanded a reckoning with anti-Semitism—particularly on campuses where progressive pieties too often provide cover for prejudice. A multi-agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, born of those orders, has now flexed its muscle, and Columbia is its first scalp. 

The university’s response is predictably weak: “We are reviewing the announcement from the federal agencies and pledge to work with the federal government to restore Columbia’s federal funding,” a spokesperson bleated, adding, “We take Columbia’s legal obligations seriously and understand how serious this announcement is and are committed to combatting antisemitism and ensuring the safety and well-being of our students, faculty, and staff.” One wonders if they truly grasp the gravity—or if this is just another exercise in platitudes from an institution that has lost its nerve.

This is not merely about money; it is about principle. 

For too long, universities like Columbia have dined out on their reputations while tolerating—or tacitly encouraging—a venom that would shame any society claiming to value civilization. 

The Trump administration has called their bluff. Whether Columbia can muster the balls to confront its demons, or whether it will simply whimper for its lost millions, remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the days of consequence-free cowardice are numbered.

If you would like to support my work, you can Buy Me A Coffee or subscribe to Brain Flushings. Thanks.

Tweet

HHS pronoun mandate [aka pronoun persondate] forces employees to 'deny reality,' violates law: legal eagle

Protecting our ships at sea

A new gender pronoun mandate has been instituted by the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) that requires employees to deny reality and validate the leadership's mental illness. A Heritage Foundation expert who is also a former HHS employee says the mandate violates employee rights and will result in terminations for so called "misgendering."

[H/T Fox News Digital]

"HHS and the federal government is requiring its employees to speak falsehoods," Roger Severino, the Heritage Foundation’s vice president for domestic policy and the former head of civil rights at HHS during the Trump administration, told Fox News Digital. By 'falsehoods,' Severino means outright lies and he initially broke the story on X last week. 

He said that HHS "imposed a transgender pronoun mandate on its employees who will now be forced to deny biological realities with their own words or face firing" and he included a screenshot of an email sent to employees at the department.

Severino told the outlet that the First Amendment protects federal employees from being required to speak falsehoods, being compelled to adopt a state-approved ideology, and requiring people to deny their own faith.

"These policies would require all of those things," said Harvard Law School graduate Severino.

"All employees should be addressed [by] the names and pronouns they use to describe themselves," the email to HHS employees stated as part of its push for "Gender Identity and Non-Discrimination Guidance" that it says protects "employee rights and protections related to gender identity." 

For example, even though Rachel Levine isn't a real Admiral [rear or otherwise] he gets to call himself a woman, wear dresses, training bras, pearls, sensible shoes, and deny biology. If you refuse to refer to him as her, or she, or whatever pronouns he wants you to call him, you're fired faster than Rashida Tlaib can shout an anti-Semitic slogan.

Severino said the policy pressure started with two White House executive orders in January 2021 and June 2022. They were framed to combat "gender discrimination" on the base of "gender identity."

"All applicants and employees should be addressed by the names and pronouns they use to describe themselves. Using correct names and pronouns helps foster workplaces free of discrimination and harassment," the U.S. Office of Personnel Management guidance states. So taken to an extreme, if a female applicant wanted to be addressed as "King Henry," for example, others must address her as such. If, say, a male applicant wanted to be called "Superslut Mary," well that's his prerogative. 

"This practice also creates an inclusive work environment where all applicants and employees are treated with dignity. The isolated and inadvertent use of an incorrect name or pronoun will generally not constitute unlawful harassment, but, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has explained, continued intentional use of an incorrect name or pronoun (or both) could, in certain circumstances, contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment."

The lunatics have taken over the asylum. 

In an unlisted YouTube video linked in the email to HHS employees last week that features Assistant HHS Secretary and Rear Admiral Rachel Levine, who thinks he's a woman, says "who you know yourself to be is valid."

With that rationale, if a person with a severe mental disorder believes him or herself to be a flower, it should be perfectly reasonable to water him or her several times a week. How you do the watering is open to your creative thinking.

Severino explained to Fox News Digital that the "Orwellian" policy means that "misgendering" someone would qualify as violating anti-discrimination law which "gets you fired."

The video also states that employees "can wear clothing" and "use restrooms" based on what gender they identify as regardless of the genitals and chromosomes.

"Men who identify as female have the right to get naked in front of female colleagues in the locker room," Severino said about how this rule relates to HHS locker rooms and bathrooms. Let's not forget how Lia Thomas, a dude who says he's a woman, got sexually aroused in the woman's locker room at swim meets in which he beat actual women.

"It used to be that if you allowed a man to get naked in front of a woman in the workplace that is instantly a violation of civil rights law," Severino said. "That's the quintessential hostile work environment, subjecting women to that. Now, the policy says to the women who may be uncomfortable with that situation, they're the ones who have to leave."

Severino, who said it was "breathtaking" the Biden administration would unveil this policy, said that there are "strong arguments" that employees have legal recourse against policies like this and can "exercise their rights." And hopefully they will by bringing these anti-free speech cretins to court.

"Governments cannot compel speech and certainly cannot compel false speech," Severino said, citing West Virginia vs. Barnette in which even though children being told to say the pledge of allegiance during World War II was a good thing, the Supreme Court ruled that parents and students have a right to dissent from that view. 

Some of those students are now teaching today's students how America is the problem while they support the terrorists.

"We protect the right of political dissent and here it's a pledge of allegiance to the Rainbow flag that's been essentially required," Severino said.

Severino also said that employees have a "right to their faith" and "your boss cannot force you to deny your faith as a condition of working there." 

Tell that to the judge, because it's going to go that far.

Tweet

PINO Biden to remove Trump rule protecting religious health care workers

What a POS our PINO is. 

Biden's puppet master [Ron Klain? Susan Rice?] wants to rescind Trump's protection of religious health care workers that allowed them to refuse to kill babies in the womb or perform genital mutilations on gender dysphoric people, including minors, even though it violates their conscience and moral beliefs.

A spokes-human for the Department of Health and Human Services (a branch of government that, like the Department of Justice, has become an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp) confirmed to Politico on Tuesday that the administration is working to rescind the rule.

“HHS has made clear through the unified regulatory agenda that we are in the rule-making process,” the spokes-human said.

In other words, screw the First Amendment, do as you're told or else.

Trump issued the rule in 2018 and later blocked by the courts. It's intention was to allow religious liberty, especially regarding health care workers who morally and ethically opposed common transgender "treatments" for children, and for the killing of babies in the womb [aka "a woman's right to kill their baby in the womb"]. The latter goes against all Abrahamic religions and is viewed as a mortal sin by Catholics.

Politico said that Trump’s rule would have “allowed doctors, nurses, medical students, pharmacists and other health workers to refuse to provide abortions, contraception, gender affirming care, HIV and STD services, vasectomies or any procedure to which they object.”

Notice how the left plays with language. They use terms like "gender affirming care" rather than "genital mutilation on gender dysphoric minors." The use "pro-choice" when it applies to the mother [or birthing person, as idiots say] rather than considering the right to life of the unborn child.

The reality is that there are plenty of health care workers willing to perform the procedures the left cherishes so much, but they want to force their will upon those of us who morally object to those procedures. Where else have we heard of that? Hmm. . . 

In early April White House Press Secretary and MSNBC shill in waiting, Jen Psaki, said that lawmakers who are trying to protect minors from puberty blockers and transgender genital mutilation have been "put on notice" by the oxymoronic U.S. Department of Justice.

Where is the justice in pissing on the Bill of Rights?

“Alabama’s lawmakers and other legislators who are contemplating these … discriminatory bills have been put on notice by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services that laws and policies preventing care that health care professionals recommend for transgender minors may violate the Constitution and federal law,” Psaki warned at a press briefing.

The ginger's comments were referring to Alabama banning doctors from mutilating children's penis and testicles, or breasts and vagina, or putting them on puberty blockers if they “identify” as the opposite sex because they are children and this isn't out of the ordinary, whereas 70% to 90% of them grow out of it. Alabama is also advancing parental rights by forbidding teachers’ “instruction” on sexuality and gender identity between kindergarten and fifth grade because that's not their freaking job.

Roger Severino, then-director of the HHS Office of Civil Rights, praised Trump’s “conscience” rule in 2019, when it was finalized.

“This rule ensures that healthcare entities and professionals won’t be bullied out of the health care field because they decline to participate in actions that violate their conscience, including the taking of human life,” he said, according to Christianity Today. “Protecting conscience and religious freedom not only fosters greater diversity in healthcare, it’s the law.”

* * *

Sex. Now that I have your attention: for more hard-hitting content, and a few soft-hitting ones too, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against John Kerry's global warming, the heebie-jeebies and the dreaded omicron.

* * *

Then-acting HHS secretary Eric Hargan said Trump’s move was a promise kept.

“President Trump promised the American people that his administration would vigorously uphold the rights of conscience and religious freedom,” Hargan said. “That promise is being kept today. The Founding Fathers knew that a nation that respects conscience rights is more diverse and more free, and OCR’s new division will help make that vision a reality.”

And then came along Joe Biden's administration and a president in name only who agrees to everything he is told to by his handler[s], because if you think Joe Biden is actually running the nation, then you probably also believe that Dr. Jill Biden should be Surgeon General like Joy Behar does.

Tweet

Rachel Levine sworn in as first gender dysphoric male 4-star admiral

He's available, guys

He was born a man and grew up to believe he is a woman. Dr. R. Levine has become the poster boy for woke as he became the first man with gender dysphoria to become a four-star admiral in the uniformed services Tuesday. He was sworn in as U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps [the "s" is silent, so don't listen to any Obama YouTube videos with that word, lest you get confused.]

The Department of Health and Human Services announced Tuesday that Levine was ceremonially sworn in as a four-star admiral, making him the highest ranking official in the commissioned corps and leading 6,000 Public Health Service officers into the jaws of death, into the mouth of hell. 

The former Pennsylvania health secretary became the nation's highest-ranking openly transgender official in March after being nominated by President Biden, who may or may not realize Levine is a dude and his hair smells like sweat.

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

HHS said in a press release that the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is one of eight uniformed services – "and the only one dedicated solely to protecting, promoting and advancing America’s public health" by providing health care to "underserved and vulnerable populations or advancing practice, policy or research."

The department described Levine’s swearing-in as a "major step forward" in creating "a more inclusive society." Soon America plans to include transgender "men" to play in the NFL and NBA.

"This is a momentous occasion and I am pleased to take this role for the impact I can make, and for the historic nature of what it symbolizes," Levine said in the release. "May this appointment be the first of many like it as we create a more inclusive future."

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra called Levine a "cherished and critical partner in our work to build a healthier America." He added that if he weren't a married actual man, he'd ask Levine out on a date.

G_d help us all. America has become a clown show and China is crapping in its boots.

Tweet

Caitlyn Jenner slams Trump over 'relentless attack on transgender community

Caitlyn Jenner, formerly named Bruce Jenner, voted for President Trump in the 2016 election and considers himself a woman and a GOPer. [The latter is factually true, the former is a recently declassified mental disorder.]

Jenner is claiming that President Trump has perpetrated a "relentless attack" on the transgender community because he doesn't actually understand what Trump's administration is doing in that regard.

"Following Trump's election as president, I saw fertile ground for change within the Republican Party on LGBTQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer) issues," he wrote. "Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate to claim to support this valuable, vulnerable community, and I was encouraged by the applause he received when he said at the Republican National Convention in July 2016 that he would stand up for the LGBTQ community."

But Jenner has changed his perception about the president's positions regarding those who believe they are not the biological sex of which they were assigned at birth.

"The leader of our nation has shown no regard for an already marginalized and struggling community" Jenner wrote. "He has ignored our humanity. He has insulted our dignity. He has made trans people into political pawns as he whips up animus against us in an attempt to energize the most right-wing segment of his party, claiming his anti-transgender policies are meant to 'protect the country.' This is politics at its worst. It is unacceptable, it is upsetting, and it has deeply, personally hurt me."

Jenner believes Trump is rolling back Obama-error era transgender protections, but all the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seems to be doing is trying to establish the legal definition of sex under Title IX as a biological, immutable condition determined by the "gear" one is endowed with at birth.

Title IX is the federal law banning gender discrimination in education programs the receive government financial assistance.

HHS simply wants to define gender as determined "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable." They don't want to determine gender on what an individual feels to be his or her gender. So, according to the HHS definition, gender would be legally unchangeable and any dispute over gender would be clarified using genetic testing.

Science deniers win, libtards lose--you can't just say you're a woman and that magically makes you a woman, and vice-versa. Nobody's rights are being taken away other than the right for a guy who thinks he's a woman being able to go into a woman's bathroom and again, vice-versa. Because people who pee standing or sitting have rights too.

Period.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.


Tweet

Trump Admin might narrow legal definition of gender using science over feelings

The failing New York Times had a fake news Sunday headline that read: "Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence." It sounds as if the administration is going to totally get rid of transgenderism, and if you're a leftist, that's probably what you'd believe. Except it isn't even remotely true.

Transgenders exist and nobody is saying they don't. But guys who think they're gals and have their "twig and berries" removed don't magically become gals just because the guy thinks he's one.

The story's lead read: "The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a government-wide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law."

The article then blathered on to say that a series of decisions by Barack Obama, "loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs," leading to "fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept."

Because it is!

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) attempted to ease the "fights" and seeks to define sex under Title IX, which is the federal civil rights law that outlaws gender discrimination in education programs.

"The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined 'on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.' The agency's proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The New York Times. Any dispute about one's sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing," The Times writes.

The HHS memo said, "Sex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth. The sex listed on a person's birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person's sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence."

So when Trump disregards climate change, he's a science denier, but when he wants to use science to determine the sex of a person, he isn't taking into account how a person feels about his or her "true gender," or the science he is using is wrong.

The truth is, if this new definition of gender is accepted, nobody's rights are going to be taken away based on their true gender. But if a man who thinks he's a woman wants to enter a women's bathroom, he's going to have to find a men's bathroom.

Having a part of your body removed or mutilated does not change your gender/sex. You can do it if you want, but you're still the gender your chromosomes dictate that you are.


Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.




Tweet

Health and Human Services? Priceless

U.S. health secretary Tom Price has been flying on the country's dime. He now agrees to pay back $51.887.31 for part of the accrued costs for private charter flights he has taken on government business and now has promised to fly commercial--"no exceptions."

Too little and too late.

The price of the almost $52K only covers the cost of Price's pricey seat but the overcall price may be north of a million simoleons. The case is currently under investigation and Democrats are livid and are acting morally superior over the issue because they don't have good ideas, only personal attacks.

President Trump publicly rebuked Price, and appeared to have been on the cusp of uttering his famous line from his hit TV show "The Apprentice," but he didn't and appears to have allowed Price to bow out gracefully with his resignation, which was tendered Friday morning.

A portion of the
booze bill

"I regret the concerns this has raised [meaning: I regret having been caught and now my screw up is being made public] regarding the use of taxpayer dollars," Price said in a statement. "I was not sensitive enough [meaning: I didn't give a fiddler's flatulence] for the taxpayer." His apology came a day after President Trump's attack on his behavior.

Price admitted Trump spoke with him about his displeasure over screwing the taxpayer, but he didn't put it that way.

But it isn't as if Price is the first politician to fly privately and bilk the taxpayer. 

Trips by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have also come under fire, particularly by hypocrites on the left who forgot about Nancy Pelosi's booze and food parties where taxpayers footed the booze bill that came to about $101,000 over a two year period, or about $1,000 a week when she was House Speaker.

Pelosi provided her guests with top shelf booze such as Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac Bombay Sapphire gin and so on . . . hic. That was part of what was called "in-flight services" for her trips on Air Force jets paid for by us.

We have conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to thank when they obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 2010. It proved Pelosi incurred expenses of about $2.1 million for her use of USAF aircraft for travel.

"Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said at the time. "And these documents suggest the Speaker's congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else."

Nancy Pelosi, however, paid nothing back and was never investigated.

But that isn't the whole story about the misuse of taxpayer money. Obama officials are also involved in taking pricey trips, including personal trips.

Then attorney generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, then-FBI director Robert Mueller and then-CIA director and defense secretary Leon "The Schnoz" Panetta were also guilty of the same personal use and abuse of taxpayer money.

The FBI convinced Congress at the time that two high-tech luxury jets were needed for the fight agains global terrorism [and better leg room]. As it turned out, global terrorism grew and the jets were used to haul Holder's and Mueller's butts around and Holder's predecessors.

The other officials beside Mueller and Holder were former Attorneys General Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales. Between 2007 and 2011, the dynamic duo racked up almost 700 "nonmission" flights at a cost of only $11,400,000, according to the Government Accountability Office. 

Why nothing was reported at the time shows the Accountability Office should also be held accountable.

Those officials are required to use government aircraft, and in some cases, reimburse the government for part of the expenses. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said at the cost incurred, Mukasey and Gonzales should have either cut back their miles or not use the expensive Gulfstream V jets.

"These luxury jets were supposedly needed for counterterrorism, but it turns out they were used almost two-thirds of the time for jet-setting executive travel," Grassley said.

The cost for the attorneys general travel was $5.8 million; the FBI director's was nearly as much. About 70 percent of the AG flights were for business and 28 percent for personal reasons. That leaves 2 percent, possibly for dive-bombing ISIS.

The point is, people in power tend to flaunt their power and don't see a problem with pissing away taxpayer money because it isn't theirs. This isn't only about Tom Price--it's a government thing--we wouldn't understand.


Tweet