Connect with us

News

The Media Is Lying About Why North Carolina Is Being Sued

Published

on

North Carolina wants special rights to receive funding under federal contracts they’ve signed but that they’ve now declared they have no intention of honoring. Why hasn’t the mainstream media reported this?

Almost without exception, all news stories covering the U.S. Attorney General’s suit against North Carolina omits the rather significant fact that when North Carolina took federal money tied to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and Title IX, they signed a contract with the federal government explicitly agreeing to not discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Unlike what you may have heard, this breach of contract is why North Carolina is being sued.

While the media has sensationalized this story by focusing on the North Carolina Governor’s talking points of “federal overreach” and “federal bullying” while blaming liberals in Houston, Texas for his actions against the trans citizens of North Carolina, the actual story doesn’t leave much room for the media to pander to the “transgender debate” trope. The actual story doesn’t allow the media to make the U.S. Attorney General’s suit ambiguous, about morality, or even what “gender identity” means. The reason for this is that the Republican Congress defined what gender identity meant in 2013. Moreover, the Republican Congress set the very gender identity nondiscrimination standards under which North Carolina is being sued.

It’s telling that the media seems unwilling or unable to tell the public what the Department of Justice (DOJ) told them during the press conference in which the DOJ suit against North Carolina was announced:

“We also bring a claim in the Violence Against Women Act, a more recent statute specifically designed to prevent discrimination against transgender people by entities that accept certain federal funds. As with Title IX, entities that accept federal funds under VAWA, including UNS and the NCDPS, pledged that they would not discriminate against sex or gender identity. Our complaint seeks to enforce that pledge and hold those entities accountable for the kind of discrimination required by HB2.”Â

– Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice

Here’s why the U.S. Attorney General said Vanita Gupta’s division was filing suit against North Carolina:

  • “With respect to federal funding, the statutes we brought this lawsuit under do provide the opportunity to curtail federal funding under Title IX in the Violence Against Women Act.”
  • “The Violence Against Women Act specifically targets gender identity. The law and the case law around Title VII, Title IX, and the Violence Against Women Act clearly indicates HB2 is in violation of federal law.”

North Carolina is being sued by the Dept. of Justice because North Carolina willingly signed a contract with the federal government agreeing to not discriminate on the basis of gender identity and then announced that they were going to discriminate on the basis of gender identity.

Even though VAWA and Title IX funding comes with explicit prohibitions regarding discrimination on the basis of gender identity, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory has claimed numerous times that Congress needs to figure out what gender identity means since they’ve not addressed it. Apparently Governor McCrory doesn’t know that in the very Congressional Act he took money from –the VAWA– the act spells all of this out.

Remember, a Republican Congress passed the following language and furthermore, a Republican Congress explicitly approved banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual orientation, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103–322 ; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law 106–386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109–162 ; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 , and any other program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds appropriated for grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance administered by the Office on Violence Against Women.

Even if a Republican Congress hadn’t passed the above language in 2013 (286 to 138), the VAWA explicitly states exactly who has the power to say who must be served with VAWA funding as an “underserved population”:

[U]nderserved populations means populations who face barriers in accessing and using victim services, and includes populations underserved because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, underserved racial and ethnic populations, populations underserved because of special needs (such as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or age), and any other population determined to be underserved by the Attorney General or by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as appropriate.

These are the rules Congressional Republicans set up and these are the rules North Carolina contractually agreed to play by when they took VAWA funding. When North Carolina declared that they’d refuse to honor their contractual obligations, the DOJ announced they would sue North Carolina.

With regard to Title IX, when the University of North Carolina took Title IX funding, they signed a contract stating that they wouldn’t discriminate based upon gender identity. In keeping with Title IX policy, the University of North Carolina has a Title IX coordinator. Her name is Elizabeth Hall. Here’s what the Department of Education’s 2015  Title IX Resource Guide for Title IX coordinators states:

Title IX protects students, employees, applicants for admission and employment, and other persons from all forms of sex discrimination, including discrimination based on gender identity or failure to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity. All students (as well as other persons) at recipient institutions are protected by Title IX—regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, part- or full-time status, disability, race, or national origin—in all aspects of a recipient’s educational programs and activities. - Page 1

And

The Title IX coordinator should also help ensure that transgender students are treated consistent with their gender identity in the context of single-sex classes. – Page 22

Again, North Carolina knew exactly what it was agreeing to when it entered into a contract with the Department of Education to receive Title IX funding. The only actual story here is that North Carolina wants the special right to receive funding under federal contracts they’ve declared they’ve no intention of honoring.

If defaulting on federal contracts North Carolina knowingly signed is the actual story behind the DOJ’s suit, why is the media only interested in talking about “dueling lawsuits,”  the “transgender debate,” or how there’s ambiguity to the DOJ’s suit? If gender identity was codified into law passed by a Republican Congress, why is the media perpetuating the myth that Congress hasn’t addressed the issue of “gender identity” discrimination yet?

Â

Cristan Williams is the Editor-in-chief of The TransAdvocate and a trans historian and pioneer in addressing the practical needs of the transgender community.

This article was originally published at The TransAdvocate and is reprinted here by permission. 

Image: Screenshot via YouTube

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

Federal Officials Tell Bernie Sanders Russia Is Working to Help His Presidential Campaign: WaPo

Published

on

The Washington Post reports U.S. government officials have briefed Senator Bernie Sanders that Russia is working to assist his presidential campaign.

“President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also been informed about the Russian assistance to the Vermont senator, according to people familiar with the matter,” the Post notes.

The type or extent of assistant Russia allegedly has undertaken is not known.

“I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders told The Washington Post in a statement. “My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.

Continue Reading

News

In Apparent Message, Trump Signs Surprise Pardon for Felon Convicted of Failing to Report Extortion and Bribery

Published

on

President Donald Trump Tuesday morning unexpectedly signed a full pardon for a man who was convicted of not reporting extortion, a $400,000 bribe he paid to the now-former governor of Louisiana.

Former San Francisco 49ers co-owner Edward DeBartolo, Jr. received the pardon from President trump, who appears once again to be using his power to pardon as a means of sending a message to those who might testify against him. Trump was impeached for extortion of Ukraine.

Voice of America News White House bureau chief Steve Herman breaks the news:

“After striking a deal to provide evidence against former Gov. Edwin W. Edwards of Louisiana,” The New York Times reported in 1998, “Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., the co-owner of the San Francisco 49ers, pleaded guilty today to concealing an alleged extortion plot by Mr. Edwards that involved the licensing of a riverboat casino.”

Trump signed the pardon today after meeting with former NFL greats, who spoke in favor of DeBartolo.

 

Continue Reading

News

CNN Anchor Destroys Trump Trade Advisor’s False Claims After Showing Viewers Obama’s Numbers Were Better Than Trump’s

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s Trade Advisor Peter Navarro had to take one for the team after delivering an especially partisan attack on the Obama economy because CNN anchor Poppy Harlow wasn’t having it.

Navarro repeatedly claimed the economy under President Barack Obama was “horrible,” even after Harlow posted numbers and charts that proved growth under the 44th president was far stronger than growth under Trump.

“It’s a great economy now. All I’m asking you is, wasn’t it a good economy then as well?” Harlow asked Navarro.

“No,” he insisted, launching in to a rant.

“Back in the Obama-Biden years it was horrible,” he claimed, all but ignoring the 2008 worldwide economic collapse that Obama inherited – while sneaking in the former vice president’s name in a particularly nasty partisan swipe, and possibly coming dangerously close to the crossing the line of the Hatch Act.

“It was a horrible economy during the Obama years,” he insisted, forcing Harlow to all but beg with him to listen to facts as she had the numbers put back up on the screen.

“Put your numbers up,” Navarro sneered.

“They’re not my numbers – these are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Harlow told Navarro under Trump the economy has not seen one quarter with growth above 4%, but under Obama it happened four times. She also showed him that job growth under President Obama was 227,000 jobs per month on average for his last 36 months, but under President Trump’s first 36 months it’s just 191,000.

Navarro slammed Obama for having increased the debt. It’s increased far more under Trump.

Harlow reminded Navarro that Trump promised to eliminate the national debt if he was given two terms in office, yet the mosrt recent White House budget says that’s not going to happen.

“We still have five more years,” Navarro retorted.

Watch:

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 AlterNet Media.