Connect with us

Fox News Host Laura Ingraham’s Transphobic Attack On Love And Marriage?

Published

on

Laura Ingraham, a Fox News host and conservative radio commentator, today made what certainly seems to be an apparent transphobic attack on love and marriage. Ingraham posted a link to a Huffington Post article on a marriage proposal by a transgender man that took place during Friday’s White House LGBT Pride reception, and wrote, “Oh no…” as her commentary.

The Huffington Post article details this heartwarming marriage proposal:

A transgender man made a bold move on Friday during an extravagant White House reception in honor of LGBT Pride Month: he dropped down on one knee and proposed to his partner.

Scout, whose full name is legally one word, popped the question to Liz Margolies just minutes after President Barack Obama addressed the guests, many of whom are leaders in the LGBT community. Scout said he had been planning to propose to Margolies at the White House for almost a year, but when the moment presented itself, he realized he hadn’t chosen a place to do it. So he just got down on his knee in the middle of Cross Hall, the main hallway on the first floor of the White House, where dozens of guests were sipping champagne and listening to the U.S. Marine Band.

“I memorized some things but I kind of forgot half of them,” Scout told The Huffington Post right after. He listed some of them: “Because the last three and a half years, you have been an amazing adventure. Because you try harder than anyone in the world. Because while I’m a little scared to spend the rest of my life with you, because you’re so damn fierce, I’m also amazingly excited about the possibility.”

“All I remember hearing is, ‘You’ll be a better person,'” Margolies said.

Apparently Ingraham heard — and saw — something far different.

In a 2010 article on Ingraham, The New Civil Rights Movement quoted this portion of Wikipedia’s bio of Ingraham:

Ingraham earned a bachelor’s degree at Dartmouth College, in 1985, and a law degree at the University of Virginia School of Law, in 1991. As a Dartmouth undergraduate, she was a staff member of the independent conservative newspaper, The Dartmouth Review. In her senior year, she was the newspaper’s editor-in-chief, its first female editor. She wrote a few controversial articles during her tenure, such as a piece characterizing a campus gay rights group as “cheerleaders for latent campus Sodomites”. She also secretly tape recorded the organization’s meetings, and sent copies to the participants’ parents. Jeffrey Hart, the faculty adviser for the Dartmouth Review, described Ingraham as having “the most extreme antihomosexual views imaginable,” and noted that “she went so far as to avoid a local eatery where she feared the waiters were homosexual and might touch her silverware or spit on her food, exposing her to AIDS.” In 1997, Ingraham wrote an essay in the Washington Post in which she stated that she changed her views after witnessing “the dignity, fidelity and courage” with which her brother and his late companion coped with AIDS. She said she now understands why gays need protection and regrets her “callous rhetoric.” However, in 2009, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation named Ingraham as one of the “worst anti-gay and anti-transgender voices of 2008,” citing her statements regarding transgendered people and “allusions that being gay is a ‘bad choice’.”

Curiously, the Wikipedia entry on Ingraham has since been altered to remove the “she went so far as to avoid a local eatery where she feared the waiters were homosexual and might touch her silverware or spit on her food, exposing her to AIDS” and “worst anti-gay and anti-transgender voices of 2008,” references, but they are, in fact, fact.

Ingraham did not immediately respond to a request via Twitter for clarification.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Bartiromo Blasts Biden Administration for Encouraging Americans to Register to Vote

Published

on

Fox News Business anchor Maria Bartiromo is attacking the Biden administration’s efforts to encourage American citizens to register to vote. In interviews with several Republicans on Friday she claimed the federal government outreach only helps elect Democrats.

“Okay, so what are you all doing about it on the Republican side?” Bartiromo asked House Republican Majority Leader Steve Scalise Friday morning. “As the government, Biden’s government, Biden’s administration seems to be using a whole on government approach to get people to vote Democrat?”

Sticking to GOP talking points, Scalise suggested it is “the weaponization of government.”

Bartiromo had cited an article on the right-wing website The Federalist, “9 Ways The Feds Are Using ‘Bidenbucks’ To Rig The 2024 Election,” that details ways the administration is helping or encouraging Americans to register to vote. There is no such thing as “Bidenbucks.”

READ MORE: Republicans Kill Bill to Protect IVF After Claiming They Fully Support It

The article points to several instances where the administration is encouraging voter registration, like at colleges, or by outreach to Native Americans, and to new Americans.

“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency within DHS, announced an update to its Policy Manual in August, which included provisions directing agency employees to ‘increase awareness and expand access to voter registration during naturalization ceremonies,’ in which eligible immigrants officially become U.S. citizens.”

It also claims, “Studies have indicated a voting preference among legal immigrants for Democrat candidates over Republican ones.”

The Federalist reports other federal agencies are encouraging voter registration. The include: The Treasury Dept., the Department of the Interior, Veterans Affairs, Labor, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Education.

Bartiromo also pummeled U.S. Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL): “What are the Republicans doing?”

Waltz replied the House has passed legislation to “defund” efforts to encourage American citizens to vote.

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Injustice’: Experts Condemn Supreme Court’s ‘Fundamentally Corrupt’ Trump Decision

Continue Reading

News

Republicans Kill Bill to Protect IVF After Claiming They Fully Support It

Published

on

After the Alabama Supreme Court ruled two weeks ago that frozen embryos are “children,” causing several medical facilities to pause their in-vitro fertilization services, Republicans rushed to get ahead of the growing national outrage.

Many Republicans insisted that although they oppose abortion and support the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, they did not think it would have effects this far-reaching. And they insisted, repeatedly, on-camera, they absolutely support in-vitro fertilization (IVF).

“Once you pass a law or accept the view that life begins at conception, IVF & some forms of birth control are at risk, along with abortion. It was never ‘just’ about abortion & women pay the price for all of it,” wrote professor of law and MSNBC legal contributor Joyce Vance on February 23. Three days later she added, “It’s pretty simple. If life begins at conception, IVF is off the table. If you make an exception for IVF then we’re just having a conversation about who you’re willing to make exceptions for.”

Republicans insisted they were willing to make an exception for IVF.

RELATED: Nikki Haley: Frozen Embryos Are ‘Babies’

For years, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), who has given birth to two children with the help of IVF, has tried to pass legislation to protect IVF.

Republicans each time have killed the bills.

Her latest attempt was Wednesday.

U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) on Wednesday spoke against the bill.

Sen. Duckworth stamped out Hyde-Smith’s claims, saying, “She said at one point the bill would allow for chimeras — human-animal hybrids — it does nothing of the sort. All the bill says if you want to seek reproductive technology you can …”

Sen. Hyde-Smith then killed the bill by formally objecting to Duckworth’s bill on Wednesday, which the Illinois Democrat tried to pass via unanimous consent.

It was the second time in two years Sen. Hyde-Smith has killed that bill.

They’re hanging this on Hyde-Smith. But the entire senate gop has now united to block a federal law to keep ivf legal,” observed Talking Points Memo publisher Josh Marshall. “They’re all coming out saying that frozen embryos are equal to living children.”

READ MORE: Democrats Discredit GOP Claims on IVF as Republicans Try to Regain Ground After Fallout

Also on Wednesday, the lone House Republican supporting legislation to protect IVF withdrew her sponsorship of that bill.

The Biden campaign on Thursday blasted Republicans for claiming to support IVF then killing the bill that would have protected it.

Watch the videos above or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Injustice’: Experts Condemn Supreme Court’s ‘Fundamentally Corrupt’ Trump Decision

Published

on

Legal and political experts were stunned by the Supreme Court announcing Wednesday it will take up Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, despite there being no contradiction in the lower courts. Compounding experts’ surprise and concern over granting certiorari was the length of time it took to announce the decision, and that they will not hear arguments until April 22.

“The Supreme Court heard and decided Bush v. Gore in THREE DAYS. THAT was expediting a case of national importance,” noted Tristan Snell, the former New York State prosecutor who led the successful investigation and $25 million prosecution of Donald Trump’s Trump University. “The Supreme Court apparently now thinks expediting means THREE MONTHS. Clearest evidence yet that SCOTUS is corrupt and broken.”

Professor of law and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann, the former FBI General Counsel who served at DOJ for decades, asked: “Why on god’s green earth did the S Ct [Supreme Court] not take the case earlier when the Special Counsel sought review directly from the District Court? They have really played into Trump’s hands.”

He adds: “The Supreme Court is going straight for the capillaries: an issue the DC criminal case does not raise, namely the outer bounds of a presidential immunity doctrine.”

READ MORE: Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story

Weissman Thursday morning noted that the Supreme Court’s actions essentially make Trump “de facto immune.”

Foreign policy, national security, and political affairs analyst and author David Rothkopf replied, “I think you have answered your own question. The only reason to handle this the way they did is to, at best, play Trump’s delay game and, at worst, set the stage for one of the most indefensible, corrupt decisions (or outcomes) in US history.”

“Those who did not understand the urgency of stopping the threat posed by Trump, MAGA and the dark money right, those who did not actively hold them accountable with every available institutional tool, may have been the undoing of American democracy…no matter their intentions,” he noted.

“Let’s not beat around the bush, decision by the Supreme Court to hear the Trump immunity case is outrageous and, at its heart, fundamentally corrupt,” Rothkopf also wrote. “The Appeals Court decision was bullet proof and there is no case Trump has any sort of immunity. The decision not to hear it until late April makes further significant trial delays likely. They are deliberately delaying the trial without any reasonable legal reason to do so. This is a political decision and, in my estimation, an ugly one.”

“If a special counsel had been appointed early in 2021,” Rothkopf also wrote, “if Trump obstruction of justice had be prosecuted, if Trump had not been granted special treatment on his theft of classified documents, if the classified documents case had been brought in DC as it should have been, Trump might very well be in jail now.”

READ MORE: Comer Announces Public Hearing After Hunter Biden Closed Door Testimony

He also pointed to this monologue from MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, calling it “correct.”

University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University Laurence Tribe blasted “the SCOTUS decision to slow-walk Trump’s outrageous immunity claim — the claim everyone knows would be rejected 9-0 by any self-respecting court.”

Noting the Supreme Court could have taken up the case back in December, Tribe told CNN, “There’s nothing new under the sun” in this case. “It doesn’t make any sense to stretch this out this way.”

“We can be sure that they want to use this case to settle a whole broad range of issues, contrary to their supposed practice of deciding no more than you must decide. In fact, the Chief Justice once famously said, if we don’t have to decide something, that means we have to avoid deciding it. He’s obviously violated that mandate here and the struggle within the court results in injustice for the nation.”

Tribe also slammed the Court for choosing to announce it will decide “the broadest possible question.” He suggests they could stretch it out even more, by taking the case, hearing it, then sending it back to the lower courts again.

Daily Beast columnist and “recovering attorney” Wajahat Ali observed: “A thoroughly corrupt Supreme Court with right-wing justices bought out by conservative billionaires and beholden to Christian nationalism should not be expected to side with justice, the rule of law, or democracy. Elections matter.”

CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic on Wednesday said, The fact that they delayed this order … suggests that they certainly did not embrace the urgency that Special Counsel Jack Smith tried to impose upon them, way back in December.”

“Former President Trump’s effort to run the clock has a partner in the Supreme Court at this point,” she notes.

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘How Extremism Is Normalized’: Schlapp Furious as Critics Slam CPAC Over Report of Nazis

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.