Our friends at Nevada Family Alliance informed us today about a critical development late last night at the state capitol. We encourage you to take action this afternoon if you haven’t already – and then pass this along to others.

A new bill was dropped late last night by Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro under the cover of darkness with only four days left in the legislative session.

It is a state version of the federal Equal Rights Amendment that we have told you about recently.

SJR8, the Nevada State Equal Rights Amendment, will mean tax-funded abortions, loss of religious liberty and more:

Please contact your state senator right away, as the measure is likely to be voted on this afternoon.

Here is a suggested message: Vote No on SJR8, the so-called State ERA, which will mean taxpayer-funded abortions and loss of religious liberty. It is wrong to bring this up at the last minute with no opportunity for citizens to respond! (Or write your own message.)

And here is a list of senators’ email addresses. Please contact your own senator and any or all of the others as well.

All Senate Democrats: 

Chris.Brooks@sen.state.nv.us

Yvanna.Cancella@sen.state.nv.us

Moises.Denis@sen.state.nv.us

Marilyn.DonderoLoop@sen.state.nv.us

Dallas.Harris@sen.state.nv.us

James.Ohrenschall@sen.state.nv.us

Melanie.Scheible@sen.state.nv.us

David.Parks@sen.state.nv.us

Julia.Ratti@sen.state.nv.us

Pat.Spearman@sen.state.nv.us

Marcia.Washington@sen.state.nv.us

Joyce.Woodhouse@sen.state.nv.us

All Senate Republicans:

Heidi.Gansert@sen.state.nv.us

Pete.Goicoechea@sen.state.nv.us

Scott.Hammond@sen.state.nv.us

Ira.Hansen@sen.state.nv.us

Joe.Hardy@sen.state.nv.us

Ben.Kieckhefer@sen.state.nv.us

Keith.Pickard@sen.state.nv.us

James.Settelmeyer@sen.state.nv.us

Thank you for making your voice heard on this urgent matter!

The Family Policy Alliance Team

 

By Stephanie Curry, Esq., policy manager for Family Policy Alliance®

A new and original study, authored by Woman Means Something, has been released showing that reported sexual offenses have risen significantly since Target changed their bathroom policy to be “gender inclusive”.

It’s no surprise that when men have access to women’s and girls’ bathrooms, sexual incidences will increase.

This is one of the reasons Family Policy Alliance fights “Bathroom Bills,” which legally allow men (who identify as transgender) into women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. We fight against these policies because we believe the safety and privacy of women and children are at risk. This new study concludes that this is indeed true.

Woman Means Something used Target’s new bathroom policy to analyze the incidences of sexual- predatory behavior reported in Target bathrooms. In April of 2016, Target changed its bathroom policy from having female-only bathrooms and male-only bathrooms to a “gender-inclusive” policy. This meant men, who said they were women, could enter women’s bathrooms (and vice versa). The study authors analyzed media-reported offenses before and after the policy change.

The top sexual offenses the study tracked were upskirt incidences, Peeping Tom incidences (voyeurism), and men exposing their bodies to women. The study tracked over 200 reported incidences between 2003 and 2017 from Target bathrooms. The study showed that “women and children comprised 99.1% of victims in the offenses,” 34% of those being children.

The graph below clearly shows the increase in reported incidences after Target changed and implemented new bathroom policies throughout its stores across the nation.


Source: Women Means Something “A Longitudinal Analysis of Media Reports at Target Stores,”

The most likely reason for this increase, study authors concluded, “is that Target’s policy signaled to sexual offenders that voyeuristic offenses would be easier to perpetrate in [Target] stores than elsewhere”. It is certainly not conclusive that people who identify as transgender are more likely to commit sexual offenses. But what is true, according to the study, is “gender-inclusive bathroom polices” attract sexual predators.

Study authors explained that sexual offenders actually do care about signs on bathroom doors. Offenders will assess the risks and benefits of committing a sexual offense and choose their environments carefully. When deciding whether to peep at women (for example), a sex-offender likely concludes that bathrooms that are gender-inclusive are more “friendly” to accommodate their crime.

“Gender- Inclusive” bathroom signs imply the presence of men is permissible and desirable in women’s spaces. These signs are seen as an “invitation,” by people who are already sexual predators, to offend. Without the sign, the predator may have chosen not to offend in that particular bathroom. Target’s policy also makes it more likely sexual offenders will choose Target stores as opposed to another store that does not have an open bathroom policy.

Perhaps most importantly, the study authors declare bathroom policies like Target’s “bring about increased harm to women and children”. And the harm is even greater when states are passing policies that require all public bathrooms to be gender inclusive.

This is why Family Policy Alliance and our state allies work tirelessly to protect the safety of women and children by fighting for their right to sex-specific vulnerable spaces, like bathrooms and locker rooms. Last year, you probably saw the battle North Carolina Family Policy Council successfully fought in keeping their public bathrooms from being open to both sexes. Other state allies like Center for Arizona Policy, Florida Family Policy Council, and The Family Foundation in Virginia have also successfully fought off their state legislatures from opening bathrooms to anyone.

With your help we can continue to partner with state allies to protect the privacy, safety, and dignity of women and children in bathrooms!

To read the full study click here.

We alerted you several weeks ago that the LGBTQ agenda is alive in well in Idaho and has been working its mayhem through the Department of Health and Welfare. Their next line of attack is your city council. In fact, the City Council of Meridian is currently considering passing a nondiscrimination ordinance which will carve out special protections for a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity. We must work together to ensure that this ordinance does not get passed in Meridian.

Since 2011, over a dozen cities in Idaho have passed sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination ordinances, otherwise known as SOGIs. To some extent, these ordinances sound innocuous – they appear to just add protections for people who identify as LGBTQ to nondiscrimination statutes. However, these ordinances are being used to prosecute individuals like Jack Phillips in Colorado and Barronelle Stutzman in Washington for simply living according to the dictates of their faith.

What is even more detrimental about city ordinances is that they are enforced through the criminal system, rather than through the civil system. Thus, when  business owners attempt to live according to their faith, the city could charge them a fine or even imprison them.

Unfortunately, there is a renewed push to pass these laws in Idaho. We have a chance to stop this ordinance in Meridian. The Meridian City Council plans to introduce the proposed ordinance in July and then hold a public hearing.

If you live in Meridian, it is vital that they hear from you. The council members have expressed interest in determining how much interest there is in your community for passing this ordinance. Please let the council know you strongly disagree with these laws by sending an email through our Action Center. It is up to us to use our voices to ensure that our communities continue to reflect our values.

If you do not live in Meridian, please forward this email to any of friends or family who live in the city. It is vital that they be aware of what is going on in their own community and use our cherished democratic process to fight these destructive ordinances. We will continue to update you on the events occurring in Meridian and other cities in Idaho.

Standing Together,

Brittany Jones
Interim Policy Director

By Stephanie Curry, Esq. Public Policy Manager for Family Policy Alliance®

In 2012, federal prison guidelines required prisons to start considering “gender identity” when placing inmates. This meant a man could be issued women’s clothing, use women’s showers or even be transferred to an all woman’s prison by saying he identified as a woman, without having had a sex change operation. Just as disturbing is that a woman could be transferred to an all men’s prison as well. Once these guidelines were passed and implemented, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was the target of multiple lawsuits from women who were threatened and abused as a result of the new policy.

The Women of Fort Worth

One group of prisoners who sued the BOP were female inmates in Fort Worth, Texas. Their lawsuits declared that it was dangerous and degrading for the Bureau of Prisons to allow men (who identified as women) into women’s bathrooms and showers. The behavior of the men caused the women to suffer “disgust, embarrassment, humiliation, stress, degradation, fear and loss of dignity.”

Certainly, prisoners live in a world very different than the one we’re accustomed to. But the Supreme Court has been very clear that prisoners have basic constitutional rights that belong to all citizens and cannot be taken away by the government. For example, prisoners have the right to be free from cruelty, inhumane treatment, and humiliation. This means even inmates retain the right to bodily privacy and dignity.

In a larger sense, the right to bodily privacy means that prisoners cannot be subject to physical humiliations, such as the refusal of clothing or showers. It also means being free from sexual violence and harassment and having the right to use a bathroom with privacy, especially and particularly from the opposite sex. This is not only to protect the prisoner’s safety, but also to protect their dignity.

The good news is the Bureau of Prisons recently updated their policies (in light of the multiple lawsuits and Trump Administration guidance) declaring prisoners’ safety to be paramount above gender identity considerations. Biological sex will once again be the first factor considered when placing prisoners.

But that leads us to our next question:

If bodily privacy is a basic right that belongs to prisoners, why doesn’t it also belong to our students in schools?

Standing for Students

The women of Fort Worth asked themselves that same question when the Obama Administration handed down the “Transgender Mandate,” a policy that would allow men and boys into girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms in public schools. These female inmates were horrified at the government’s willingness to compromise our children’s safety in schools. These women had experienced men in their bathrooms and found it to be a traumatic violation. The women rose up on behalf of students in Texas schools– from their prison cells. They requested to be intervenors in the lawsuit to stop the Obama administration rule from going into effect. (Intervenors are those who are not a party to a lawsuit, but they offer an important perspective on an issue.) They certainly had a unique perspective because they had lived through this policy being implemented and found it to be dangerous, fundamentally unfair, and a deep violation of their privacy and bodily integrity.

A Texas Federal Court did block the school Transgender Mandate.  The Trump Administration also issued a memo officially reversing the school Transgender Mandate from Obama’s era. But the damage had already been done.

Schools are still implementing policies that allow men and boys into girls’ bathrooms! Of course, it is absurd to think that prisoners have a more protected right to privacy than our children. Yet, that is what is happening across the country as schools implement “non-discrimination” policies or “transgender rights” policies.

Family Policy Alliance and our allied groups in over 40 states want to partner with you to protect your child’s privacy at school in your state. The government does not and cannot have the power to take away the privacy, safety, or dignity of our children. If you have children in schools, learn your school’s bathroom and privacy policies. If you have questions about the policy or if the policy violates your child’s privacy rights, please reach out to Family Policy Alliance or your state-based ally. Finally, please support candidates in the upcoming election who are willing to protect the privacy and safety of our children in schools!

How important is your vote for privacy this Tuesday?

For women and girls who live in or visit Anchorage, your vote could make the difference between their privacy being violated or not.  Even if the polls weren’t close, that’s a huge reason to make your voice heard with your vote – simply because it’s right.

But the polls are close – close enough to remind me of two previous elections.

And countless races – including major races – have been decided by a single vote per precinct.

Will you be that vote?  Be sure your ballot is postmarked no later than this Tuesday, April 3.

And even if you’ve already voted, will you remind friends, family and church members to vote YES to protect privacy in Anchorage?  If they need more information, here’s a helpful article to share with them.

This vote is critical.  That’s why Family Policy Alliance has invested so much in this effort, joining with our allies at Alaska Family Action.

And thank you for making a difference with your vote!

John Paulton
Family Policy Alliance

P.S.  Please also forward or share this information with others, as every vote is critical!  If you live outside of Anchorage, please share with Anchorage voters.  Thank you!

By Stephanie Curry, Esq., policy manager for Family Policy Alliance

This past August, President Trump issued a memorandum giving the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security (the “Departments”) the opportunity to extensively study the impact of allowing transgender individuals into the military.

Now the Departments have completed their extensive studies, after assembling a Panel of Experts and pouring through mountains of data. Their findings, which were submitted to the White House, are not surprising.

Medical History Causes Substantial Risk

The Departments concluded that there are “substantial risks associated with allowing the accession and retention of individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria and require, or have already undertaken, a course of treatment to change their gender.” The military explored the extensive treatment related to gender transitions such as cross-sex hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery. Since these treatments have not been shown to cure or even reduce the mental health problems associated with gender dysphoria, the Departments were concerned persons with gender dysphoria, even if being “treated,” could not be mentally or physically “ready” to serve.

The medical findings alone show how gender transitions cause insurmountable obstacles to military “readiness”. The Departments cite the Endocrine Society guidelines, where 91.5% of transitioning persons are taking cross-sex hormones, which requires continuous medical monitoring—monitoring that could not take place on deployment or on a mission.

In addition, the recovery time from sex reassignment surgery is 3-6 months (assuming no complications) and requires a strict hormone regime at least a year prior to surgery. In many cases, a transitioning individual could be non-deployable for two to two-and-a-half years! The Departments’ Panel of Experts concluded that this exposes all troops to harm because of a transitioning individual’s inability to perform combat required skills while deployed, in which instance that individual would be sent home. Yet, sending individuals home renders a unit more vulnerable because it now must operate with less manpower. The Department noted “it is imperative that the force be manned with Service members capable of meeting all mission demands. . . including the ability to deploy rapidly, without impediment or encumbrance.”

Privacy and Unfairness

The Departments’ report found many other reasons for not accepting transitioning individuals, such as violations of privacy (e.g. allowing men who self-identify as women into female showers, which raised complaints) and fundamental unfairness in physical requirements and competition. Perceived unfairness affects unit cohesion, good order and discipline. For example, a situation in which a male (who identifies as female) is held to female standards, is unfair not only for biological males who see another male receiving exceptions, but also for biological females who are forced to compete against a male. The report stressed that vigorous physical competition is “central to military life and indispensable to the training and preparation of warriors.”

Medical Costs

Finally, the Departments’ report cited the medical costs for serving transitioning Service members is nearly 300% percent the medical costs of an individual without these concerns. The military expects the costs to rise as more and more members request medical support for their transitions and noted 77% of transitioning individuals in the military have requested transition-related surgery.

The Departments’ Conclusion

The Departments concluded “the clear sex-differentiated lines with respect to physical fitness; berthing, bathroom, and shower facilities; and uniform and grooming standards, which have served all branches of Service well to date, risks unnecessarily adding to the challenges faced by leaders at all levels” and fundamentally interfering with the mission of the Armed Forces. Therefore, the findings recommended those individuals who are transitioning or will want to transition should not be eligible to serve in the Armed Forces.

The Trump Administration Memo

In light of these extensive findings, the Trump Administration issued a new memo on March 23rd that allows the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland security to implement any appropriate policies that support their findings. These policies would allow individuals who have already transitioned to remain in the military, only under certain conditions, such as having been admitted into the military under the Obama directive. Yet, unlike the former Obama directive, it does not require the military to accept new recruits who are transitioning genders or have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Why This Matters

The reason this is important for all Americans is because the military defends our nation. We have the right to expect a certain level of physical and psychological health from all military members. It is not discrimination to deny entrance into the military because of medical standards that apply to everyone based upon their biological sex. The military must be free to maintain its stringent entrance requirements because that is how it best protects our nation. The Department of Defense wrote 71% of Americans are disqualified from service and “transgender persons with gender dysphoria are no less valued members of our Nation than all other categories of persons who are disqualified from military service.”

As an Anchorage voter, you have a chance to shape the nation with your vote on or before April 3.

That’s because leaders around the country are watching to see what Anchorage voters will do on Prop 1, the Protect Our Privacy measure.

As you may know, in September 2015, the Anchorage Assembly passed a new law – Ordinance 96 – that gives men the right to enter women’s intimate facilities such as locker rooms and restrooms simply by claiming a “gender identity” different from their biological sex. This intrusive and dangerous ordinance forces everyone – even private facilities like athletic clubs – to open their restrooms, changing rooms, and showers to members of both biological sexes. Similar laws have been passed in other cities and states – opening a Pandora’s box of problems.

That’s why Family Policy Alliance has invested significantly in Prop 1, which was initiated by our allies at Alaska Family Action to overturn that dangerous policy.

Ballots have been mailed, and your YES vote on Prop 1 will help to accomplish the following:

Family Policy Alliance has invested in this critical project by making a $10,000 matching grant to help encourage Anchorage citizens to vote YES on Prop 1.  Protect Our Privacy is also using two of our Ask Me First videos on their website.

Nobody bothered to ask women in Anchorage before they passed Ordinance 96.  Prop 1 is giving all Alaskans, but especially women and children, their voice back.

For more information, please visit the Yes on 1 – Protect Our Privacy website.

And click here if you need more information on the voting process.

Thank you for making your voice heard with your vote!

The Family Policy Alliance Team

P.S. Please also forward or share this information with others, as every vote is critical! If you live outside of Anchorage, please share with Anchorage voters.

In a win for families and small businesses, the Parkersburg, West Virginia, City Council rejected an ordinance that would have violated the privacy rights of moms and daughters. The ordinance would have created special rights to four new classes, including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

If passed, the privacy and safety of Parkersburg’s women and girls would no longer have been protected, as any male willing to assert that he “identifies as female” would have had free access to girls’ restrooms, locker rooms and showers. In addition, Christian employers would have been open to lawsuits over hiring practices.

But families and business owners arrived four hours early and filled the chamber. Then they boldly shared their concerns with the council. Allen Whitt with our ally Family Policy Council of West Virginia was actively engaged in helping city leaders understand the issue.

“The message: Our third biggest city is on to you,” he explained. “We know the truth about SOGIs, and we courageously move to protect privacy, and defend businesses against the intentionally vague ordinance.”

After the vote, he heard an activist yell “I hope you die early!” at a Democrat council member who voted for women’s safety.

While the defeat of the ordinance is good news for the people of Parkersburg, the vote reminds us that people in cities large and small are wrestling with such laws and ordinances. State battles have garnered much attention, like in South Carolina and Texas, making it easy to forget city-councils are often at the front-lines of promoting a nation where God is honored.

Scottsdale, Arizona, is another city where a stand for truth is taking place at city hall. A small group of activists are trying to stop the city from partnering with a charter school to build a park and athletic facilities that would be open to the public. The reason: The school maintains that boys are boys and girls are girls.

The local level is where we can be most effective in protecting our families, schools, and small businesses. Let’s continue to stand together for liberty and truth both in the state house and city hall.

LEARN MORE
Ask Me First is a place to hear the stories of women and girls who have been affected by these misguided ordinances. And we invite you to share your own story.

Our allies at Alaska Family Action celebrated a huge success recently by gathering enough signatures to put a “bathroom-privacy” initiative on the 2018 ballot. The measure—originally named the Protecting Our Privacy Initiative—would protect the dignity, safety and privacy of women and girls in showers, restrooms and locker rooms by requiring intimate spaces to be segregated by biological sex as determined at birth rather than how individuals “identify.”

Supporters of the Protect Our Privacy initiative gathered close to 8,500 signatures — thousands more than the number required to certify a place on the 2018 ballot.

The ballot measure aims to blunt one of the many dangerous effects of a so-called nondiscrimination ordinance passed by the city of Anchorage almost two years ago that included “gender identity” as a protected class.  The ordinance allows boys and men who identify as transgender to use women’s restrooms and other facilities designated only for females.

“That’s obviously a huge privacy and safety issue for women and girls,” said Jim Minnery, executive director of Alaska Family Action, one of Family Policy Alliance’s state-based allies. “Everyone is made in the image of God and should be respected and loved but not everyone should have access to any intimate space they want because of how they feel. It’s common sense.”

The Human Rights Campaign says there are more than 100 cities in the U.S. that have similar “public accommodation” ordinances that allow men who identify as transgender to use women’s bathrooms. That means privacy measures to protect women and girls—like the one championed by Alaska Family Action—are needed now more than ever.

Minnery said despite facing marked opposition from transgender-activists who threatened and harassed their signature gatherers, the effort enjoyed a large and ethnically-diverse coalition of support from people and churches across Anchorage.

If passed, the privacy initiative would protect against, for example, a boy using the girls’ locker room at a sporting event. Don’t think that could happen? Check out this Ask Me First video about how Alaska girls already were forced to compete against a young man who says he identifies as female in the 2016 girls state track competition.

Voters will have a chance to approve the privacy measure in April 2018. Congratulations to Jim and the entire Alaska Family Action team!

 

 

by John Paulton

In this era of 24-hour headlines, the term “big news” is way overused. But President Trump’s announcement yesterday – that he was rolling back the Obama policy of opening the military to people who identify as transgender – was huge indeed.

Here are four reasons why the POTUS tweet was momentous, both for what it did and what it signaled.

First, it signals that, under a new Commander in Chief, the military is getting back to its purpose: winning wars.  Americans reside in an increasingly dangerous world, and we should appreciate a military that prioritizes readiness and effectiveness, not social experimentation.

Second, President Trump’s decision values the men and women who put their lives on the line for us.  Military facilities are, by nature, bereft of much privacy.  As the father of a cadet at one of our nation’s military academies, this issue hits home in a very real way.  But my child is just one of more than two million sons and daughters in the armed forces and reserves, each of whom deserves the basic right and common courtesy to not have to share showers and intimate facilities with persons of the opposite gender.

Third, as taxpayers, we should all appreciate the enormous savings of not having to pay for sex-reassignment surgeries and ongoing hormone therapy.  And all the more at a time when military budgets have been squeezed and vast numbers of ships, planes and other equipment are in need of replacement.

Finally, this decision also shows a beleaguered culture that the transgender agenda – which has run roughshod through America for the last couple of years – can be stopped where there is a will and where the truth is spoken clearly and respectfully.  In places like Texas, where a privacy bill hangs in the balance in a special legislative session, President Trump’s announcement is a breath of fresh air that gives renewed hope for passing common-sense privacy protections.

Please thank President Trump as well as Vice President Pence, who was reportedly very involved in this decision.  And please share with others so they can do the same and help to counter the enormous pressure that the Left is putting on the White House.  Click here to send a thank you email in just seconds from our Action Center.

John Paulton is Manager of Mobilization for Family Policy Alliance.