Sen. Tammy Baldwin & 44 others fight GOP’s anti-LGBTQ+ provisions...

[Jessica_Rose]

Sen. Tammy Baldwin & 44 others fight GOP's anti-LGBTQ+ provisions in "must pass" funding bills

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sen-tammy-baldwin-44-others-fight-gop-s-anti-lgbtq-provisions-in-must-pass-funding-bills/ar-AA1vO6FK?ocid=windirect&cvid=b983fc3f51f24076bb1e074763e1440d&ei=54

Story by Daniel Villarreal (13 Dec 2024)

On Thursday, out lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin helped lead a group of 45 Senate Democrats in urging Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) and Vice Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) to reject 55 anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ provisions in 12 must-pass funding bills to avoid a government shutdown.

"House Republicans have used the [2025 fiscal year] appropriations process to push extremist and unpopular anti- LGBTQ+ measures, which threaten the lives and fundamental dignity of LGBTQ+ communities," Baldwin and the other senators wrote in an open letter.

The provisions would allow taxpayer-funded organizations to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people. Several of the bills' other provisions would prevent the administration from enforcing executive orders and laws to protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination.

"Half of the House's appropriations bills also contain dangerous riders that severely restrict access to gender-affirming care, which would deprive transgender people of critical, medically necessary, evidence-based, and often life-saving healthcare," the letter continues. "Among those who would be impacted by these riders are the more than 134,000 transgender veterans who rely on the Veterans' Affairs Administration for their healthcare."

One of the aforementioned provisions would issue a ban on Medicare and Medicaid funds for healthcare providers who provide gender-affirming medical care. Many hospitals and medical providers could stop offering the care rather than risk losing access to federal funds.

[Lori Dee]

It is a shame that Congress doesn't study Supreme Court cases, and those who oppose legislation like this do not invoke previous High Court rulings:

"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual's rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary."
~ Marbury v. Madison, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."
  ~ Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed".
  ~ Norton v. Shelby County, Tennessee (1886)