Connect with us

‘A Domestic Threat’: GOP Congresswoman Compares Transgender Service Members to ISIS (Audio)

Published

on

Falsely Claims Trans Soldiers Will Cost Military $1.35 Billion

Just days before the 4th of July, U.S. Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) compared American armed forces service members who are transgender to ISIS, North Korea, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The four-term GOP representative on Thursday also called them a “domestic threat,” and grossly overstated the possible medical costs trans soldiers require.

“At a time when we should be focusing on the threats from North Korea, and Putin, and ISIS,” Hartzler told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, “we’re having to deal with a threat here at home — a domestic threat — of allowing transgenders [sic] in our service, which is a real problem because it impacts their readiness, and it’s a huge cost for our military,” Hartzler continued, as ThinkProgress’ Zack Ford reported.

Perkins told Hartzler on his radio show “Washington Watch” that allowing lesbian, gay, and bisexual soldiers to serve openly is “social experimentation” that had “created a deficit” in the military’s budget, which is false.

Rep. Hartzler, who once gave a speech comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy, incest, marrying children, and even to a three-year old driving a car, also decried the training service members might receive in working with transgender service members. When “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was rescinded all military members underwent similar training. Reports show only two soldiers quit as a result.

Service members undergoing the training will be sitting around learning how “their rights are going to be threatened,” she cried. 

Hartzler, who has drafted a bill to ban all trans service members from serving in the military, also falsely claims the medical costs for transgender service members would be $1.35 billion over 10 years. “That figure is 16 times more than the highest estimates provided by the RAND Corporation,” Ford notes.

Estimates vary, but there are up to about 10,000 transgender people honorably serving in the U.S. military. A policy accommodating new trans service members was scheduled to go into effect July 1, but at the last minute, Secretary of Defense James Mattis postponed the change for another six months.

“We will use this additional time to evaluate more carefully the impact of such accessions on readiness and lethality,” Mattis wrote announcing the delay, and adding, “this action in no way presupposes the outcome of the review.”

A 2016 L.A. Times report exposes Hartlzer’s cost claims as false.

“Out of an estimated 1.3 million active service members, there are as many as 6,630 transgender men and women who will be affected by the decision, according to a study by RAND Corp., the Santa Monica-based think tank,” the Times reported.

“Only a small portion of service members would likely seek gender transition-related medical treatments that would affect their deployability or healthcare costs,” said Agnes Gereben Schaefer, lead author of the study and a senior political scientist at RAND.

The study, commissioned by the Pentagon, estimates that between 30 and 140 new hormone treatments a year could be initiated by transgender service members. In addition, there may be 25 to 130 gender transition-related surgeries utilized a year among active service members.

As a result, U.S. military healthcare costs are expected to increase between $2.4 million and $8.4 million — or a 0.13% increase.

$2.4 million to $8.4 million.

Hartler likes to toss around numbers, but the facts prove they’re false.

Here’s Hartzler talking with hate group head Tony Perkins:

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.

Image by KOMUnews via Flickr and a CC license

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.

OPINION

‘This Is for the People to Decide’: Jaw-Dropping CNN Supercut Lays Bare the GOP’s Stunning Hypocrisy on SCOTUS

Published

on

As the battle over replacing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who died Friday from complications of pancreatic cancer — takes shape in Washington, D.C., Republican senators who previously refused to hold a vote on former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick are now having their words thrown in their faces.

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper on Saturday played a devastating supercut that features Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) explaining why they would not vote on Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.

“I want you to use my words against me,” Graham said in 2016 — laying out what Cooper described as an “eerily similar” situation as the one currently playing out in Congress. “If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, ‘Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,’ and you could use my words against me and you would be absolutely right.”

“We’re setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year, at least of a lame duck eight-year term, I would say it’s going to be a four-year term, that you’re not going to fill a vacancy of the Supreme Court based on what we’re doing here today,” he added. “That’s going to be the new rule.”

In his own floor speech on the matter in 2016, McConnell likewise urged Congress to give the American people a say in the Supreme Court pick.

“The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country. So, of course, of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction,” McConnell said.

Cruz — who was shortlisted by Trump as a potential SCOTUS pick earlier this month — also insisted in 2016 that Congress should not move to replace Scalia until after the election.

“I don’t think we should be moving forward on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term, Cruz said. “I would say that if it was a republican president.”

“President Obama is eager to appoint Justice Scalia’s replacement this year,” he continued. “But do you know in the last 80 years we have not once has the Senate confirmed a nomination made in an election year and now is no year to start. This is for the people to decide. I intend to make 2016 a referendum on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Of course, all three men have now signaled they’re much more likely in 2020 to jam a conservative Supreme Court justice down voters’ throats on the eve of an election. After President Donald Trump on Saturday tweeted that the Senate has an “obligation” select a replacement for Ginsburg, Graham said he “fully” understands where the president is coming from.

In case that statement seems vague, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman added: ”I will support President [Trump] in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg.”

And McConnell has also insisted “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

And in perhaps the least surprising flip-flop of all, Cruz on Saturday wrote an opinion piece for Fox News that outlined 3 reasons why the Senate must confirm Ginsburg’s replacement before election day. In it, he touted Trump’s “list of extremely qualified, principled constitutionalists who could serve on the Supreme Court” — which, of course, included himself — and argued that going into an election with an 8 person bench could trigger a constitutional crisis in the event of a contested election.

Amazing how now of the senators were concerned with such a problem when Obama appointed his nominee.

Watch the video below to see the blatant hypocrisy for yourself:

 

Continue Reading

RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS

‘You Don’t See Any Hypocrisy?’ Chris Wallace Filets Tom Cotton by Replaying His Merrick Garland Speech

Published

on

Fox News host Chris Wallace accused Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) of hypocrisy on Sunday after he vowed to push forward with a vote to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an election year.

“Why the rush to judgement?” Wallace asked Cotton after the senator promised a swift vote on President Donald Trump’s eventual nominee.

“We’re not going to rush,” Cotton insisted. “We not going to skip steps. We’re going to move forward without delay.”

Wallace reminded Cotton that President Barack Obama named Judge Merrick Garland as his nominee after Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016.

“Senate Republicans blocked the choice of Garland,” Wallace noted before playing a clip of Cotton defending the move at the time.

In the clip, Cotton notes that the country will have a new president “in a few short months.”

“Why would we cut off the national debate about this next justice?” Cotton says in the clip. “Why would we squelch the voice of the people, why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the make up of the Supreme Court?”

Wallace continued following the clip: “Garland was nominated nine months before the election and you were saying then, nine months before the election, it was wrong to deny voters a chance to weigh in. So if it was wrong then nine months before the election, why is it OK now six weeks before the election?”

For his part, Cotton argued that Republicans won the Senate in 2014 to stop President Barack Obama’s judicial nominations, and then he claimed that the current Republican Senate is in power to uphold nominations by President Donald Trump.

“You really don’t think there is any hypocrisy at all,” Wallace pressed, “in saying, we need to give voters — because you can parse the 2014 election, the 2018 election any way you want — but you stated a pretty firm principle in 2016 about Merrick Garland: It’s wrong to deny voters a chance to weigh in.”

“You don’t see any hypocrisy between that position then and this position now?” the Fox News host wondered.

“Chris, the Senate majority is performing our constitutional duty and fulfilling the mandate that the voters gave us,” Cotton opined.

Watch the video below from Fox News.

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Says He Will Make SCOTUS Nomination Next Week – Appears He Will Use Seat to Strengthen Where He Is Weak in Polls

Published

on

President Donald Trump says he will announce his nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “next week.”

He made clear his primary deciding factors will be to help him in the polls.

Trump told reporters Saturday afternoon “most likely” he will choose a woman.

CNN reports he is leaning towards choosing a woman mostly because he is doing poorly in the polls with women.

Trump spoke about two women judges. He talked about Barbara Lagoa, noting she is Hispanic and from Florida. He is struggling in the polls with Hispanics and in Florida.

Reporters also asked about Amy Coney Barrett, a far right wing anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ extremist. Trump spoke positively about her as well. Reports say she is the current frontrunner.

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change. This story will be updated, and NCRM will likely publish follow-up stories on this news. Stay tuned and refresh for updates.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.