Tag: Supreme Court

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Regarding Transgender Healthcare Ban

(Credit: Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash)

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard arguments in the case regarding gender-affirming care for Tennessee youth.

The case of United States v. Skrmetti challenges Tennessee’s ban on trans healthcare for minors in the state. This hearing marked the first time SCOTUS has heard a case regarding healthcare for the trans community.

In September of 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed for the law restricting transgender youth from accessing gender-affirming medical care to remain in effect. 

The ruling came months after the court initially blocked the law from taking effect in July of the same year. 

The state law was signed by Governor Bill Lee in March of 2023 and prohibits healthcare professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors. This legislation makes gender-affirming hormone therapy and puberty blockers inaccessible and trans people in Tennessee will not have access to this care until they reach the age of 18. 

GLAAD (formerly the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) said this is one of approximately 25 bans passed by Republican-led legislatures. They, along with other national and local leaders, said the court’s ruling could affect gender-affirming care for youth nationwide.

Prior to today’s hearing, Senator Heidi Campbell (D-Nashville) called the ban unconstitutional and condemned Tennessee leaders for “waging a costly legal battle” as opposed to addressing issues such as traffic and “unaffordable healthcare.”

“This political gamesmanship, funded by our hard-earned tax dollars, is not only cruel but also a violation of fundamental rights,” Campbell said in a statement. “Tennessee’s discriminatory ban is unconstitutional, and it does nothing to improve the lives of our citizens. Tennesseans deserve leaders who focus on solving real problems — not manufactured culture wars that harm families and divide our communities.”

In a release issued after arguments were heard, the office of Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said the case seeks to “protect vulnerable kids from risky and unproven medical practices.” Skrmetti added that his office reviewed medical evidence and cited instances in European countries where healthcare such as puberty blockers are restricted.

“The Office of the Tennessee Attorney General presented a robust legal and evidence-based defense of the State’s legislative response to the recent explosion of childhood gender-transition interventions. The law at issue restricts the provision of irreversible medical interventions to minors with gender dysphoria — a psychiatric condition marked by mental distress from a conflict between a person’s sex and asserted gender identity,” the statement said.

Skrmetti added that their arguments were based on “constitutional clarity and common sense.”

Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said today’s arguments highlighted the lack of any legal or medical basis for denying transgender youth the same protections afforded under the U.S. Constitution. Robinson said despite Skrmetti’s team’s efforts to disprove this logic, “Transgender healthcare is best practice, medically necessary, and supported by almost every medical association in the country.”

“It’s healthcare, plain and simple, and no politician should be able to interfere in the healthcare decisions best made by families and doctors,” Robinson said. “Now the Supreme Court has the opportunity to follow the facts, the science, and the law, and affirm our constitutional promise of equal protection for all.” 

The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision in this case by June.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Tennessee’s Gender Affirming Care Ban for Children Goes to U.S. Supreme Court for Arguments

(Credit: Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash)

Tennessee’s Attorney General is set to defend the state’s gender affirming care ban for minors in the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday against challengers who say the 2023 law endangers children.

While attorneys for the plaintiffs claim the law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said lawmakers took “measured action” in 2023 when they prohibited gender affirming care for children to protect them from “irreversible, unproven medical procedures.”

“Lawmakers recognized that there is little to no credible evidence to justify the serious risks these procedures present to youth and joined a growing number of European countries in restricting their use on minors with gender-identity issues,” Skrmetti said in advance of oral arguments at the high court in Washington, D.C.

One of Tennessee’s main claims is that the Constitution doesn’t stop states from regulating medical practices involving “hot-button social issues.” Primarily, though, the state says the law doesn’t discriminate based on sex.

“Little to no credible evidence to justify the serious risks these procedures present to youth,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti of gender affirming care for minors. (Photo: John Partipilo)

But the father leading the legal challenge against Tennessee’s law said the ban on gender affirming medical care is “an active threat” to his daughter’s future.

“It infringes not only on her freedom to be herself but on our family’s love,” the father said Monday morning in an online press conference. He said his daughter started taking puberty-blocking medications and then hormone therapy at age 13, only after nine months of conversations and consultation with experts and physicians, and is “happy and healthy” as she prepares for college.

Another father, an Ohio lobbyist who identified himself in the press conference as a Republican, said his son was near suicide in 2012 before starting the years-long process of changing sexes.

“One thing I learned was being transgender is a real thing, and if it’s a real thing, in my view, it transcends any political ideology,” the man said.

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, three families of transgender children say Tennessee’s law violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Dr. Susan Lacy of Memphis is among the plaintiffs as well.

Chase Strangio, an attorney for the ACLU, said Tennessee banned hormone therapy and puberty-delaying medication for children only when prescribed to allow adolescents to live and identify with a sex “inconsistent” with their sex at birth, making it a violation of their rights.

“We are simply asking the Supreme Court to recognize that when a law treats people differently based on their sex, the same equal protection principles apply regardless of whether the group impacted by the law happens to be transgender,” Strangio said.

It’s about whether politicians can restrict access to healthcare treatments in order to impose their narrow, harmful, stereotypical view of gender.

– Sasha Buchert, Lambda Legal

Sasha Buchert of Lambda Legal said the case’s outcome will determine whether families will continue to have the freedom to make medical decisions with their doctors. Otherwise, “unqualified politicians will step into the shoes of families and medical professionals to make those decisions in ways that undermine the care, safety, and dignity of transgender youth,” Buchert said.

Buchert said the argument goes beyond access to gender affirming care, which has been restricted in 24 states, to whether the courts will uphold decades of legal precedent affirming that the state must “show its work when it chooses to discriminate on the basis of sex.”

“It’s about whether politicians can restrict access to healthcare treatments in order to impose their narrow, harmful, stereotypical view of gender,” Buchert said.

Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson (R-Franklin) and House Majority Leader William Lamberth (R-Portland) filed the gender affirming care ban bill in 2023 after a right-wing media outlet reported that Vanderbilt University Medical Center was providing the treatment to children. The hospital said it wasn’t performing surgeries on minors.

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn headlines anti-transgender rally in Nashville

Johnson and several other lawmakers introduced the bill in a rally at the Capitol attended by hate groups. It passed the legislature largely along party lines, although three Democrats voted for it in the House.

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, Skrmetti backed up his argument by saying European countries that pioneered gender affirming care treatment started pulling back because of concerns about safety and effectiveness. The brief said Tennessee lawmakers considered European restrictions and listened to accounts “of regret and harm” from people who switched back to their original sex.

Skrmetti’s brief says the federal government, which entered the legal battle on the side of the plaintiffs, is trying to displace Tennessee’s law “by reading its preferred policies into the Constitution.” The attorney general’s brief says Senate Bill 1 contains no sex classification and differentiates between minors seeking gender transition drugs and those seeking treatment for other medical purposes.

Plaintiffs in the case say the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down the lower court’s decision to block the law, failed to look at the case with “heightened review,” a legal standard for evaluating constitutionality based on characteristics such as gender.

But Skrmetti’s brief says the court should decline such “doctrinal revolution” because sex isn’t a “but-for cause of SB1’s age- and used-based restrictions.”

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and X.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Advocacy Organizations Welcome SCOTUS’ Decision To Rule on Trans Healthcare Ban

Photo: Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Advocacy groups and organizations have shared their thoughts on the Supreme Court of The United States’ (SCOTUS) decision to hear a challenge on Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors in the state.

While the case will not be heard until next fall, organizations such as the ACLU and OUTMemphis are hoping that SCOTUS rules in favor of trans youth.

“This case started with trans youth in the Mid-South and Tennessee and the folks who care for them, after our state passed laws denying life-saving health care,” Molly Quinn, executive director of OUTMemphis said. “ A year later, with more than 20 states outlawing this care and over 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills, this fight is a centerpiece of the pathway to queer and trans justice in our country, which we will never give up on. If the court sides with Tennessee’s unlawful ban, the state can and will escalate its discrimination against trans people and the broader LGBTQ+ community.”

In September of 2023 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed for the law restricting transgender youth from accessing gender-affirming medical care to remain in effect. 

The ruling came months after the court initially blocked the law from taking effect in July of the same year.

The state law was signed by Governor Bill Lee in March of 2023, and prohibits healthcare professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors.This legislation makes gender-affirming hormone therapy and puberty blockers inaccessible and trans people in Tennessee will not have access to this care until they reach the age of 18. Similar restrictions have been made in states like Arkansas and Alabama.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) they along with the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP asked the Supreme Court to review the September ruling.

“The United States intervened in the plaintffs’ case at the district court and also asked the court to review the Sixth Circuit decision,” the ACLU said in a statement.

Quinn added that trans youth want “the freedom to live joyful and authentic lives,” and said their livelihood could be at stake if the court sides with the state.

“A better and freer world takes every kind of effort, and we hope the court will limit state overreach as Tennessee and states like it attempt to stand in the way of our futures,” Quinn said.

Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, a plaintiff’s attorney on the case and OUTMemphis Board of Directors member, said this case is about “curbing government interference in our lives.” In a statement released by ACLU-TN, Cameron-Vaughn shared Quinn’s sentiments regarding Tennessean’s rights to live their truth.

“Tennesseans deserve the freedom to live their lives as their authentic selves without government interference, yet every day this law remains in place, it inflicts further pain and injustice on trans youth and their families,” Cameron-Vaughn said. “The Court has the power to protect trans youth’s right to access the healthcare they need by striking down this discriminatory law.”

Other organizations are hoping that SCOTUS can provide more guidance and relief nationwide and that this will set the proper precedent for the country moving forward.

During a press conference to reflect on the two-year anniversary of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi CEO Ashley Coffield said it’s remarkable that the law will be heard.

“I agree with the Biden Administration that this is a really confusing time for families of minors with gender dysphoria and that it is critical that we have legal guidance to follow so that this is not like abortion, where it is state-by-state and is a total mess, and people are confused and scared and don’t know what’s going on,” Coffield said.

Categories
At Large Opinion

A Matter of Honor

Abe Fortas (Photo: Supreme Court of the United States, Public domain Wikimedia Commons)

Maybe it’s an age thing, but I find that when I’m alone, my internal monologue often turns into an external mutter-logue. The other day, for instance, I found myself muttering the name of Abe Fortas. Fortas, as you may or may not recall, was a Supreme Court justice from Memphis, appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. He was a Rhodes College (then called Southwestern College) graduate (like Justice Amy Coney Barrett) before going on to graduate second in his class from Yale Law School.

Known as “Fiddlin’ Fortas” for his prowess on the violin, old Abe had a brilliant career, first as a law professor at Yale, then as an advisor to the Securities and Exchange Commission for President Roosevelt, and later as a delegate appointed by President Truman to help create the nascent United Nations. Fortas was an accomplished man.

Then, in 1969, just four years into his term at SCOTUS, Fortas was discovered to have accepted a $20,000 loan from financier Louis Wolfson, who was being investigated by the Justice Department for possible insider trading. President Nixon, seeing a chance to gain a SCOTUS appointment and push the court in a more conservative direction, asked Fortas to resign. He did.

So why was I muttering this man’s name? Because I’d been reading about the brouhaha(s) surrounding Justice Samuel Alito’s flags flying at his house(s). You know, the upside-down American flag at his home in Washington, D.C., and the QAnon/January 6th conspiracist “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his vacation home in New Jersey. Alito blamed the first flag on his wife, Martha Ann, who allegedly put it up while engaged in a dispute with a neighbor over yard signs. He refused to address the controversy about the second flag.

For the record, the U.S. flag code states that an upside-down American flag can be displayed only “as a signal of dire distress.” I’m not a legal scholar, but I’m thinking a pissing match over a neighbor’s yard sign doesn’t qualify. And I’m thinking Alito knew that.

At this writing, it appears that the Senate is about to stir itself and call Chief Justice Roberts into its chambers to demand some sort of action. No one has yet shown the courage to demand that Alito resign, but at the least, Roberts could urge Alito to recuse himself from any cases related to January 6th. Even that seems unlikely, given that Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted literally millions of dollars worth of gifts and trips from billionaire Harlan Crow — who has had cases before the court — and has suffered absolutely no consequences. Additionally, Thomas’ wife, Ginni, was among those urging Trump administration officials to overturn the 2020 election. Democrats have called for Thomas to recuse himself from election-related cases, a demand he has ignored.

The recusal statute standard that applies to federal judges and justices is not limited to actual bias — it also includes the appearance of bias. For that reason, many legal experts have said that Alito and Thomas should recuse themselves from any January 6th-related cases. Recuse? Resign? Meh. That’s so … 1969.

It’s all about expectations. Lower them far enough, and you can get away with anything. It was expected that Hillary Clinton would be fastidious about her emails. When it was discovered she was sloppy with some of them, the media outrage machine went into front-page overdrive for weeks, probably costing her the 2016 election (and three SCOTUS appointments). Trump’s hiding thousands of top-secret government documents after leaving office? Not so much. That’s just Trump being Trump. In short, if we think someone “should” be acting with integrity and they don’t, it’s news. Otherwise, nah.

So here we are, 55 years after Fortas’ resignation, with a Supreme Court majority mostly hand-picked by the conservative Federalist Society and put forth for Republican presidents to nominate. The justices are mostly Catholic (six of nine members), mostly anti-abortion, and mostly Neanderthal in their attitudes toward the rights of women and minority groups.

Back in 1969, it was expected that Supreme Court justices would avoid any appearance of impropriety. Abe Fortas recognized that what he’d done had irrevocably damaged his standing as a jurist and would become a distraction for the rest of his career at SCOTUS, so he did the honorable thing. Honor. What a concept. It’s a word that’s got me muttering.

Categories
At Large Opinion

The Pander Posse

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Photo: United States Supreme Court, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, Photographer Fred Schilling)

Right-wing radio host, election denier, and rabid Trumper Charlie Kirk said last week that MSNBC host Joy Reid, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and former First Lady Michelle Obama “used affirmative action” because they “do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously, so they had to steal a white person’s slot.”

This racist and misogynistic statement was part of Kirk’s response to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina could no longer use affirmative action or any other race-based criteria in their admissions policies.

Did SCOTUS rule thusly because racism doesn’t exist any longer? (Maybe they don’t listen to Charlie Kirk.) Or because people of color are no longer discriminated against in the United States? Or because economic and educational opportunities are no longer intrinsically more difficult for minorities to attain? Or because white supremacist media stars with millions of listeners and viewers have ceased to exist?

Or did the Supreme Court rule against affirmative action because it has become a bought-and-sold verdict factory for the Republican Party’s troglodyte wing? I’m going with the latter, but that’s just me.

Not missing an opportunity to get some media attention, Tennessee’s noisy GOP attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti, immediately jumped on the “reverse racism” bandwagon, along with GOP attorneys general from Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Montana, Kentucky, and West Virginia. This pander posse proudly announced that they’d sent a letter to each of the country’s Fortune 100 CEOs warning them not to try any of that nefarious DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) stuff in their states, by God.

Here’s the money shot from the letter: “The Supreme Court’s recent decision should place every employer and contractor on notice of the illegality of racial quotas and race-based preferences in employment and contracting practices. As Attorneys General, it is incumbent upon us to remind all entities operating within our respective jurisdictions of the binding nature of American anti-discrimination laws. If your company previously resorted to racial preferences or naked quotas to offset its bigotry, that discriminatory path is now definitively closed.”

In other words, “You bigoted companies better not try any of that ‘woke’ stuff in our state or we’ll see you in court!” Ron DeSantis would be proud. These 13 gas-bags are pursuing the same economically suicidal policies that caused Florida’s largest employer (The Walt Disney Company) to drop plans for a nearly $1 billion corporate campus in Orlando that would have brought 2,000 high-paying jobs to the state. DeSantis’ anti-woke crusade has also resulted in the cancellation of several major conventions and conferences, a “brain drain” of the state’s scientists and teachers, and a drop in tourism. ‘Woke’ isn’t going to die in DeSantis’ Florida,” wrote the editorial board of the Miami Herald. “It’s just taking its dollars elsewhere.”

Tennessee, it should be noted, is headquarters to two Fortune 100 companies: FedEx and HCA Healthcare. Both corporations have active DEI programs. Google “DEI FedEx,” if you doubt it. I guess this means General “Stonewall” Skrmetti is about to absolutely, positively come down on them hard, right?

Tennessee is also home to facilities for several other companies on the Fortune 100 list, including Nike, Sysco, State Farm, Lowe’s, The Home Depot, and, not least, Ford, which is in the process of constructing a $5.6 billion plant in Western Tennessee to build EV pickup trucks.

Just for fun, here’s Ford’s DEI statement from its corporate website: “For more than a century, Ford has been a pioneer in providing opportunity to people regardless of race, gender, ability, sexual orientation and background. We view this less with pride than the sober realization that we must go further to create a company where our differences are truly valued and every team member can bring their whole selves to work. Creating a culture of belonging isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also the smart thing. Diversity breeds innovation and the companies that attract the most talented and diverse workforce will succeed in our rapidly changing world. We are family. We celebrate our differences. We all belong.”

What kind of snowflakey bilge is that? Built Ford Tough? Really? It’s clear these woke assholes need to straighten up or get the heck out of Tennessee. Your move, General.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

TN Attorney General Threatens Legal Action Against Fortune 100 Companies For “Racially Discriminatory” Employment Practices

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has signed a letter addressed to Fortune 100 CEOs that threatens legal action if they refuse to “refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ or otherwise. 

This letter was sent in  response to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, and was signed by 12 other attorneys general in Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Montana, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

“As the Supreme Court recently emphasized, both our Constitution and our civil rights laws guarantee every American the right to be free from racial discrimination,” said Skrmetti. “The Court’s reasoning means that companies, no matter their motivation, cannot treat people differently based on the color of their skin. Corporate America continues to have many avenues to help disadvantaged people and communities of all races without resorting to crude racial line-drawing.”

While the SCOTUS case Skrmetti cited struck down Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action policies, the letter also noted that the Supreme Court “recognized that federal civil-rights statutes prohibiting private entities from engaging in race discrimination apply at least as broadly as the prohibition against race discrimination found in the Equal Protection Clause.”

The signees argued that “well-intentioned racial discrimination is just as illegal as invidious discrimination.” They also stated that the Supreme Court has “repeatedly and emphatically condemned racial quotas and preferences,” and cited the case of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1 , 551 U.S. 701

“Sadly, racial discrimination in employment and contracting is all too common among Fortune 100 companies and other large businesses,” the letter said. “In an inversion of the odious discriminatory practices of the distant past, today’s major companies adopt explicitly race-based initiatives which are similarly illegal.”

The letter also stated that explicit racial quotas and preferences in hiring, recruiting, retention, promoting and advancement fall under “discriminatory practices.” It also called out companies such as Goldman Sachs, Apple, and Microsoft for adopting “race-based practices.”

“If your company previously resorted to racial preferences or naked quotas to offset its bigotry, that discriminatory path is now definitively closed. Your company must overcome its underlying bias and treat all employees, all applicants, and all contractors equally, without regard for race,” the letter said.

If companies do not cease to “continue treating people differently because of the color of their skin,” the attorneys general have promised that they will be held accountable.

Sen. London Lamar (D-Memphis) said that Skrmetti’s move is “an abuse of power” and that he is trying to “undermine economic opportunity for Black workers and business owners. There is an appalling lack of representation in corporate America. For instance, there are only eight Black CEOs leading Fortune 500 companies — and that’s a record high number,” said Lamar.

Lamar also said that if Skrmetti succeeds in “bullying companies into ending their programs,” the consequences will be “devastating.”

Categories
Letter From The Editor Opinion

Mismanagement, Fraud, or Forgiveness

Photo: Alexander Grey | Unsplash

Last Friday, in a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court shot down President Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan, which would have reduced or canceled federal student loan debt for millions of borrowers. Payments and interest have been paused since March 2020 as part of Covid-19 emergency relief. According to studentaid.gov, after the hiatus, interest will start accruing again this September, with payments becoming due the following month. Some people are very upset about this ruling. Others were very upset about the possibility of folks having their loans forgiven.

A few years ago, I proudly exited college with a hard-earned journalism degree and a shiny new debt of nearly $26,000. Welcome to adulthood, you’re starting off in the negative, good luck! I worked service and retail jobs until I landed an internship here at the Flyer my senior year, and even then, held two jobs for a while just to be able to pay bills and buy groceries. There wasn’t much left over for savings. When the loan came due, I applied for a brief deferment, and later income-driven repayment. The interest really got me. I was getting nowhere for a long time. I bemoaned how dumb it was to have taken the max loans each semester. But at the time, I was stoked to receive a “refund” check after tuition was covered. Silly me didn’t ask questions, didn’t speak to financial aid counselors to fully understand what I was getting into — which wound up covering college expenses and additional money to help me get by, but with a good $7,000 in interest piled on over time.

No one is to blame but me, but what does society expect of 18-year-olds, fresh out of their parents’ homes, who have no clue what they’re doing? Making a laughable income with mounting new responsibilities at every turn. Taking out loans and cashing the refunds and having a big ol’ time until graduation when reality hits.

Of course I understand that when you’ve agreed to take out a loan, you commit to repaying it. You can’t have your mortgage or car note forgiven. But — hear me out — student loans are a sham. Furthering education should be affordable. Walking out with $25k+ in debt — because you must have a degree to pursue just about any career — is total horse shit. I can’t imagine how much it must sting for those with six-figure loans. Bless you, and I’m sorry, and I hope your income reflects that value.

The goal of the debt relief program was to assist low- to middle-income debtors — $10,000 in federal student loan debt would be canceled for borrowers making below $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 income per year. An additional $10,000 would be forgiven for Pell Grant recipients, who historically have a greater need.

Thankfully, I’ve paid most of my student loan debt. Would I like to have the rest dismissed? Absolutely. Would I be upset that this happened after I’ve doled out over $30,000? I mean, it sucks, but I’d still be supportive of offering relief to those who need it. College tuition and textbook costs increase year over year. The cost of living continues to increase, too. Why not give people attempting to better themselves a little break?

Are we as upset about bank bailouts? Three banks failed earlier this year, and the United States Federal Reserve loaned more than $300 billion to the “cash-short” institutions through its ​emergency Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) in March. Forbes reported in March that “many experts note the Treasury Department’s plan to save depositors doesn’t constitute a bailout because it draws from insurance funds paid by banks — and not taxpayer dollars — others worry the implications could ultimately fall to consumers through economic consequences like inflation.” Last week, Cointelegraph reported that the reserve’s “bailouts” reached a new weekly high of $103 billion for the week ending June 28th, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

What about the more than $200 billion in pandemic business loans that appear to have been fraudulent? The U.S. Small Business Administration, in its “COVID-19 Pandemic EIDL and PPP Loan Fraud Landscape” report, said of the $1.2 trillion given in COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funds, at least 17 percent went to “potentially fraudulent actors” in the “rush to swiftly disburse” funds. New studies show this could have been a driver in inflation, particularly in the housing market. About $742 billion in PPP loans were forgiven.

So we’ve got corporations, big banks, scammers, and regular people seeking financial relief and assistance. Are we mad at the kids who took out loans to attend college because the world told them they had to? The big banks whose expertise is finance but can’t seem to manage their own accounts? The scammers who got billions in free government money?

There’s mismanagement, fraud, or forgiveness. And a whole lot of moolah tangled up between. It’s pretty clear who could use the help. It’s the average hard-working American. The “consumer” struggling to live amid inflation. Maybe one day, someone will vote and act in our favor.

Categories
At Large Opinion

Triggered

photo: © Mikephotos | Dreamstime.com Demonstration in Melbourne, Florida, after Roe v. Wade was overturned.

So, it’s likely you read about the 10-year-old rape victim who couldn’t get an abortion in Ohio. The story came to light shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24th. Ohio’s six-week “trigger ban” came into effect three days later and prohibited the child from getting an abortion in her home state. Her pediatrician called a colleague in nearby Indiana and arranged for the traumatized child-abuse victim to have an abortion there. (Indiana legislators have since indicated they will pass an abortion ban in an upcoming special session.)

The Ohio case has become something of a flash point for the abortion debate. A sampling of commentary on social media: 

“My heart absolutely BREAKS for that child but who are we to question what God is doing?” 

“God has a plan and a purpose for everything, and it’s not our place to try and take matters into our own hands no matter how badly the situation hurts.” 

“Every life is precious in His sight.” 

Others see it differently: 

“Why did God create the doctors and medicines that allow her to have a safe abortion?” 

“Why is God’s will behind the rape and Satan’s will behind the abortion?” 

“If everything is God’s will and she has an abortion, isn’t that abortion then also God’s will?”

And on it went and on it goes.

Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves declared June to be “Sanctity of Life Month” in celebration of SCOTUS’ overturning of Roe v. Wade. Mississippi, it should be noted, has the highest infant and fetal mortality rates in the U.S. and the lowest life expectancy, so Reeves is totally on-brand with his pro-life bilge. 

And, to demonstrate that it’s not just Southerners who can utter evangelical garbage with a straight face, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem went on national television Sunday, mostly to fluff Donald Trump in hopes of enhancing her vice-presidential ambitions for 2024. But moderator Dana Bash had the poor taste to perform journalism and confront Noem with the case of the Ohio girl. It didn’t go well for Noem, who shuffled and deflected and avoided answering the question for several minutes. Which answered the question.  

Former Vice President Mike Pence came out of hiding long enough to speak the GOP’s fetal-attraction fever dream out loud, calling for a national ban on abortion, because God hates abortion — and also little girls, I guess.

Have any of these people ever actually known a 10-year-old girl? At 10, a little girl is in fourth or fifth grade. Fourth or fifth grade. Let it sink in. Think about a 10-year-old girl you know or have known — their innocence, their joy, their spirit. If they get pregnant, it is by definition because they were raped. It doesn’t matter if it was an uncle, a brother, a father, or a random evil stranger. An innocent child was the victim of a brutal, heinous crime. And now the law of the land in more than half of these dis-united states is (or soon will be) that that child deserves to be punished. 

The emphasis on child-rape and incest is helpful in illustrating the horrid absurdity of the SCOTUS ruling, but the most important thing to recognize is that the right to privacy and bodily autonomy for half the American population has been taken away. A 10th-grader, a mother of three with an ectopic pregnancy, a 40-year-old rape victim — all will be legally mandated to carry their pregnancy to term in much of the U.S. Their faith doesn’t matter — Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshippers. What matters is that American women are now required to adhere to a pseudo-religious tenet held by 13 percent of the country’s adults. A tiny minority has spent years working on packing the Supreme Court for the express purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade. They have succeeded. They have taken away an American woman’s right to decide what’s best for her body. 

It’s time to rage, folks. It’s time to get triggered and get organized and get loud. In a free country — in a real democracy — this cannot stand. 

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Impressions of Amy Coney Barrett by Former Rhodes Classmates

So we stand at Armageddon, doing battle for the Lord, do we? That’s the essence of what you hear these days from diehard Democrats and other self-declared liberals, and, as often as not, this desperate war cry is sounded, not about the forthcoming presidential election, but about President Trump‘s nomination of one Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Supreme Court Justice.

Both the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Roe v. Wade are on the chopping block, you hear, and Barrett as a freshly confirmed Justice, will start wielding the axe as soon as the high court begins hearing the ACA case in mid-December. No one doubts that the Republicans have the numbers to confirm Trump’s nomination of Barrett, and no one doubts her determination, along with five GOP-appointed colleagues, to slash away at ACA, Roe, and any number of other Democratically inspired legal landmarks having to do, say, with labor relations, voting rights, and firearms issues.

The sky, say many, is falling, while those of more conservative persuasions cry, “Let it fall!” But who is this Amy Coney Barrett, this imagined scourge of things as they are and harbinger of a vastly different constitutional future?

As it turns out, there are those among us who shared turf and air with her when she was a student at Rhodes College in the early 1990s, and at least one somewhat younger Memphian, current City Councilman Worth Morgan, for whom Barrett once served as a babysitter. Former Councilman Shea Flinn was at Rhodes when Barrett was, and remembers her as “an attractive KD” (member of the Kappa Delta sorority), but that’s about it.

My son Justin Baker, another Rhodesian, remembers her similarly, but has no personal memories, nor does Kemp Conrad, yet another council member who was aware of her presence on campus: “Rhodes was small. You could notice people without knowing them.”

But Chris Gilreath, a transplant from Knoxville, lawyer, and Rhodes Class of ’94 grad, like Barrett, not only remembers the young, ultra-serious student from New Orleans, he seems to have faith in her sense of fairness. In a statement on his Facebook page, he put it this way:

“I went to Rhodes with Amy Coney Barrett. We’re both in the Class of 1994. I dated one of her sorority sisters. Amy was friendly and personable, just as she is now. Rhodes challenged us to think critically about big issues and wrestle with them, arriving at enlightened answers after vigorous debate.

“I’m liberal-minded and a Democrat. I oppose several of the perspectives and conclusions Amy draws on significant legal issues. But she’s a really good person.”

Gilreath was aware that his classmate was a serious Catholic (a fact that all her biographies make clear) and one clearly prone to rely on the elements of her faith. As a student, she was “strictly the academic type” but friendly enough. Rhodes, then as now, had active Democratic and Republican cadres on campus, but Gilreath does not remember that she took part in any activity.

“We can disagree without tearing others down,” says Gilreath. “I’ve never personally known a Supreme Court pick until now. For her sake, I hope the debate is about her philosophy and politics, not about who she is” — the “who she is” aspect reflected in the generally favorable viewpoints others have had of her.

“I regret that Amy has to live through the coming circus. She deserves better — and so do we,” says Gilreath.

Meanwhile, how much of the sky is really falling? Yes, the high court is scheduled to rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in mid-December, and, yes, it is highly possible Barrett will be ensconced as a Justice by then and will tip the balance against the ACA. What then? Should the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, they would then have the impetus to vote in one of the several Medicare-for-All measures they discussed during their primary debates earlier this year.

Roe v. Wade is a chancier circumstance. Famously, there has so far been no middle ground between proponents and opponents of legalized abortion. Perhaps it is not impossible that a conservative SCOTUS under the institutional-minded John Roberts, and including Barrett, could find one. Stranger things have happened.

Categories
News News Blog

Tennessee Dreamers Rally as Supreme Court Holds Hearing on DACA

CREDIT: Facebook/TIRRC

Facebook/TIRRC

Tennessee DACA recipients rally in front of U.S. Supreme Court


The U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments Tuesday in the case that will decide the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program.

Twelve DACA recipients — or Dreamers — from Tennessee joined thousands more outside of the Supreme Court to rally in support of the program while the nine justices heard arguments inside.

DACA was created in 2012 to provide temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrant youth, enabling them to attend school and work.

Yuritza Sanchez, a 20-year-old student from Memphis was one of the Dreamers rallying outside the court Tuesday. Sanchez, said she came to the United States when she was three years old.

“Having DACA has meant the world to me because I can accomplish my dreams, have a good job with benefits, and finally get my drivers license, which was big for my family,” Sanchez said. “As the first person who could drive without fear of deportation, it’s made our whole family a little bit safer.”

Sanchez said she would not only like to DACA to be preserved, but she also wants to see a more permanent solution for the future.

“I hope the Congress and Supreme Court see all of us here and that they understand that this is about our lives,” Sanchez said. “We need a permanent solution — without compromising our families or our communities.”

Sanchez’s sister, Kristal Sanchez, was also there Tuesday. Kristal, a 19-year-old freshman at the University of Memphis, said receiving DACA protection has been “transformative.” She said it allowed her to work as well as attend college on a scholarship.

[pullquote-1]

“I’m here representing my community and all DACA recipients from Memphis,” Kristal said. “It’s powerful to be here with thousands of DACA recipients, and I hope the Supreme Court justices see what’s at stake. I hope the justices make the right decisions, and that they preserve DACA because this is our home.”

In 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order terminating the program. That decision was challenged in lower courts and blocked.

Now, three cases, consolidated into one are before the Supreme Court will decide whether or not the president has the authority to legally end DACA.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision in 2020. If DACA does end, about 700,000 recipients — 8,000 Tennesseeans — would lose the right to work and protection from deportation.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in 2020 will define our nation,” the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition said in a Tuesday statement. “If the Supreme Court justices let the Trump Administration end DACA, they will be putting the lives of millions in immediate danger. Without protection, DACA recipients could lose their homes and their livelihoods.”

Tennessee Dreamers Rally as Supreme Court Holds Hearing on DACA