Maine Drops Transgender Lawsuit After Federal Funds Released

The state of Maine and President Donald Trump struck a deal over ‘transgender’ athletes in girls’ sports.

Maine dropped its April 7 lawsuit after the USDA agreed to restore the federal funds it had frozen.

The funding freeze came because Maine refused to bar trans athletes from girls’ teams.

Now the money’s flowing again, and the lawsuit’s out.

Another win against woke!

The state of Maine and President Donald Trump reached an agreement in their dispute over transgender athletes in girls sports.

In exchange for the U.S. Department of Agriculture agreeing to restore federal funds to Maine that it had frozen, the state dropped its lawsuit against the Trump administration.

The lawsuit was filed April 7 after a federal funding freeze in response to the state’s refusal to keep trans athletes out of girls sports.

Federal Judge John Woodcock ordered the Trump administration to restore those funds April 12. Woodcock, a senior judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maine, was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2003.

Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey’s office released a statement addressing the settlement Friday afternoon.

“It’s unfortunate that my office had to resort to federal court just to get USDA to comply with the law and its own regulations,” Frey said. “But we are pleased that the lawsuit has now been resolved and that Maine will continue to receive funds as directed by Congress to feed children and vulnerable adults.”

However, the state is still facing other legal battles related to the issue.

Keep reading

Colorado Democrats Push Trans Bill That Was Too Radical For California

Colorado’s “Kelly Loving Act” (HB 1312) is truly one of the most radical, extreme, and anti-family bills ever proposed in our nation’s 249-year history. And that might be an understatement.

HB 1312 purports to provide “legal protections for transgender individuals.” In reality, it facilitates the state ripping children away from their parents if they refuse to go along with their child’s desire to “socially” or “medically transition.”

Indeed, HB 1312’s Section 2 prohibits parents from “misgendering” or “deadnaming” their child from the moment they choose to adopt a new identity. The bill likens such horrible practices — such as parents calling their child by the name they lovingly chose for them — to “abuse” equivalent to “threatening, humiliating, or [other] intimidating actions, including assaults or other abuse.”

If parents refuse, Colorado’s courts could step in and remove the child from their parent’s custody.

The legislation’s Sections 8 and 9 also adds “deadnaming” and “misgendering” to the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act, the same law that was used by the radical Colorado Civil Rights Commission to go after Christian cake artist Jack Phillips. Such a provision would censor the speech of businesses and employees across the state, forcing them to utter falsehoods they know to be untrue — or else.

In addition, the proposed bill’s Section 4, 5, and 6 would force schools to bend the knee to gender ideology, mandating school employees use student’s “preferred pronouns” and prohibiting any sex-based dress codes.

Keep reading

One Country Just Banned Transgender Athletes From Competing in Women’s Soccer

Men who think they are “transgender women” will no longer be permitted to play on women’s soccer teams in England going forward, the sports governing body said on Thursday. 

Reportedly, The Football Association amended its rules that allowed athletes to compete corresponding to their so-called “gender identity” (via FA):

As the governing body of the national sport, our role is to make football accessible to as many people as possible, operating within the law and international football policy defined by UEFA and FIFA.

Our current policy, which allows transgender women to participate in the women’s game, was based on this principle and supported by expert legal advice.

This is a complex subject, and our position has always been that if there was a material change in law, science, or the operation of the policy in grassroots football then we would review it and change it if necessary.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the 16 April means that we will be changing our policy. Transgender women will no longer be able to play in women’s football in England, and this policy will be implemented from 1 June 2025.

We understand that this will be difficult for people who simply want to play the game they love in the gender by which they identify, and we are contacting the registered transgender women currently playing to explain the changes and how they can continue to stay involved in the game.

Keep reading

OUTRAGEOUS! Radical Judge RELEASES Alleged Tesla Firebomber From Prison, Citing Suspect’s Multiple Supposed ‘Medical Needs’ Including Access to “Gender-Affirming Care”

An outrageous travesty of justice occurred in Missouri recently that could cause millions of Americans to lose faith in the criminal justice system.

As KSHB reported on Wednesday, a radical judge ordered a deranged leftist credibly accused in federal court of firebombing two Tesla Cybertrucks and charging stations in Kansas City to be released from prison back on April 24.

United States Magistrate Judge Jessica Hedges ruled that it was wrong to hold 19-year-old Owen McIntire behind bars before trial for his alleged crimes after agreeing with the defense’s desperate pleas for mercy.

FOX4 obtained court documents that revealed the defense’s reasons for releasing Owen McIntire from jail. Among the reasons listed are treatment for depression and ‘gender-affirming care.’

Yes, McIntire’s lawyers wanted him freed partly because the suspect wanted to continue his transition toward becoming a ‘female!’ And the judge ruled in their favor!

Keep reading

Education Department Finds University of Pennsylvania Violated Title IX Over Transgender Swimmer

The University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) remains in violation of Title IX regulations lingering from a transgender athlete who won an NCAA women’s swimming title for the school in 2022, and will have 10 days to resolve the issue before the matter is referred to the Department of Justice, federal officials said on April 28.

The announcement was made after the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent the notice of noncompliance to UPenn President Larry Jameson.

Jameson was informed that complying with current NCAA regulations and President Donald Trump’s February executive order prohibiting males from competing in women’s sports is not enough to satisfy compliance requirements. As a punitive measure, the federal government is requiring UPenn to relinquish that athlete’s 2022 championship title and issue an apology to the female athletes he defeated.

The Ivy League school is also expected to issue a statement noting that all its athletic programs comply with Title IX.

Title IX is a federal regulation implemented in 1972 that prohibits educational institutions receiving federal funding from engaging in sex discrimination and assures fairness for NCAA women’s sports programs. President Joe Biden, whose administration preceded Trump’s current term, amended it to allow transgender participation in sports, and Trump reversed that under his executive order.

UPenn must also restore to female athletes their rightful records, titles, and honors, “or similar recognition for Division I swimming competitions misappropriated by male athletes competing in female categories.”

Keep reading

California Bill Highlights Epidemic Of Male Rapists Transferring To Women’s Prisons

On April 29, 2025, California lawmakers will decide whether to advance a bill introduced by Sen. Shannon Grove that would prohibit any trans-identifying male prisoners with histories of sex offenses from being housed in women’s prisons. This bill would take a significant bite out of Sen. Scott Wiener’s 2021 law SB132 (also known as the Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act), which currently allows the entrance of trans-identifying male prisoners into women’s prisons. The bill comes amid ongoing concerns about inmate safety.

Amie, then a prisoner at Central California Women’s Facility, still remembers the day Richard Masbruch was transferred to CCWF. Masbruch, who changed his name to Sherri Lashure, was a sadistic sexual predator who held an elderly mother and daughter at gunpoint and tortured the daughter with electric shocks before brutally raping and sodomizing her.

Amie’s hands trembled as word spread throughout the prison. “Sherri” also had infamously self-castrated himself while in a Texas prison. Despite the loss of his male genitals, he is alleged to have raped female prisoners with objects. His presence made the female population extremely fearful and anxious, as many of the prisoners were survivors of sexual violence.

Under the current California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation policy, there are no bright-line rules; the policy simply requires that every inmate request for a transfer must be considered. Any male inmate who self-identifies as female can request a transfer to women’s prison, regardless of his criminal history, his anatomy, or whether he has undergone any so-called “transition” procedures. According to the CDCR, as of April 2025, there are 45 trans-identifying males housed in the women’s prisons, 208 pending transfers, and 898 requesting to be transferred.

Clearly, CDCR anticipated that wanted or unwanted sexual encounters among the “transgender” males and the females would occur when it distributed condoms to women’s prisons. As early as 2023, the California Office of the Inspector General recognized that female prisoners were fearful of the male prisoners. The other forms of abuse perpetrated by the male transferees included “physical violence and demeaning behavior” toward female prisoners.

Nearly two-thirds of women interviewed reported fearing for their safety around some or all of the male transferees, with over one-quarter reporting negative experiences, including sexual assault. The OIG confirmed that some male transferees allegedly forcibly touched female prisoners or forced the females to touch them, which is undeniably sexual assault. Allegations of rape have also materialized. 

In a high-profile case, Tremaine Carroll, a 6-foot-tall male who purports to be a transgender woman, was transferred in 2021 to CCWF, where he impregnated one female prisoner. In 2024 Carroll was accused of raping a female inmate and charged with trying to dissuade a witness to testify. In the rape trial — in an unmitigated affront to the victim — Judge Katherine Rigby has ordered the prosecutor and the alleged victim to refer to Carroll using female pronouns. Carroll’s trial is ongoing.

Carroll has been returned to the male prison and is serving 25 years to life under California’s Three Strikes Law. Ironically prior to the rape charges, the American Civil Liberties Union held Carroll up as the model “safe” transgender prisoner and used him to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB132.

That lawsuit, which was filed by Women’s Liberation Front along with Harmeet Dhillon (who is now the assistant attorney general for civil rights), contends that housing male inmates with female inmates constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and discrimination. The six female prisoner-plaintiffs have experienced childhood violence and sexual abuse and now have violent males housed with them. Plaintiff Krystal Gonzalez was allegedly sexually assaulted by a male prisoner who was transferred to the women’s prison based upon his professed belief in his own femininity. When she reported the assault, it was she who was punished. One plaintiff was a victim of sex trafficking at age 13.

Keep reading

Meta’s Oversight Board Condemns Free Speech Reforms, Pushes for Continued Censorship Over “Human Rights” Concerns

Welcomed by opponents of the multi-year Big Tech-government censorship collusion in the US, Meta’s decision to abandon its controversial “fact-checking” program is receiving criticism from others.

Among them is Meta’s Oversight Board, which is also unhappy that the company is allowing more freedom to users of its platforms when it comes to discussing issues like gender identity and immigration.

Announcing the changes earlier this year, CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the “moderation” system in place until that point had produced “too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

The content was flagged, downranked, or removed, as were users if either censorship algorithms or third-party “fact-checkers” decided it contained “misinformation” or “hate speech” – and the criteria for this was heavily biased in favor of the former administration’s agendas.

But looking back at the policy shift announced on January 7, the Board expressed its concern that Meta went about this “hastily, in a departure from the regular procedure, with no public information shared as to what, if any, prior human rights due diligence the company performed.”

The Board decided to put the emphasis on “human rights” rather than free speech, in particular the handling of topics related to LGB and transgender issues.

Meta’s policy now allows users to make allegations about mental illness or abnormality “when based on gender or sexual orientation.” This is essentially explained as a way to allow the discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality that is already happening in society, in political and religious contexts.

But the Board thinks this may result in human rights violations and wants Meta to investigate whether that is happening, and to “update it” on the findings twice a year.

Just how restrictive the rules around these issues have been is illustrated in the two cases the Board was considering – attempts to ban videos expressing views about the participation of transgender persons in sports and their “access” to bathrooms.

Keep reading

HHS funds used to teach children about sex toys!

The Center for Innovative Public Health Research is based in San Clemente, California and describes itself as a group that “promotes positive human development.” It received funding from the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control.

Its Girl2Girl program, launched in 2017, used federal funds to create a “sex ed program just for teen girls who are into girls,” City Journal reported. Participants from ages 14 to 16 could sign up for “daily text messages” about “lube and sex toys” and “the different types of sex and ways to increase pleasure.”

The program’s website tells kids to decide on their own whether they should sign up for the text messages, and not tell their parents unless they want to, according to City Journal.

The nonprofit also received a $1.3 million grant for a study called “#TranscendentHealth – Adapting an LGB+ inclusive teen pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys.” The Department of Government Efficiency canceled over $620,000 of the grant in March, the New York Post reported.

Another $412,013 award from the NIH paid for “Capitalizing on the power of the Internet to survey Ugandan LGBT nationally.” The study focused on HIV prevention but also used focus groups to develop “salient language to query sexual and gender identity.”

Keep reading

Trans baby killer filed $3.5M lawsuit against Trump for ‘transphobic’ views that led to alleged sexual assaults behind bars

A transgender woman convicted of killing her infant filed a handwritten lawsuit against President Trump, claiming his “transphobic hate speech” fueled repeated instances of sexual assault she endured at an all-male prison in Indiana.

Autumn Cordellionè, also known as Jonathan C. Richardson, alleged that the president’s “extremist rhetoric” emboldened her assailants to violently assault and rape her in January shortly after she was transferred from protective custody to Westville Correctional Facility to serve out her 55-year sentence.

She said Trump is “negligent due his alleged knowledge that others may act on his words,” the baby killer scribbled in the 13-page suit filed in the Southern District of Indiana on April 1.

Cordellionè is seeking $3.5 million in damages from the commander in chief.

“President Trump has vowed to defend biological women from gender ideology extremism and restore biological truth to the Federal government,” a White House spokesperson told The Post when asked to comment on the lawsuit.

Keep reading

Supreme Court likely to rule for parental opt-out on LGBTQ books in schools

The Supreme Court on Tuesday was sympathetic to a group of Maryland parents who want to be able to opt their elementary-school-aged children out of instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes. The parents argued that the local school board’s refusal to give them that choice violates their religious beliefs and therefore their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. During nearly two-and-a-half hours of oral argument, a majority of the justices seemed to agree with them, with several justices questioning whether there would even be any harm to simply allowing the parents to excuse their children from the instruction. 

The parents in the case have children in the public schools in Montgomery County, which is in the Washington, D.C., suburbs and is one of the most religiously diverse counties in the United States. The parents include Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, who are Muslim, Melissa and Chris Persak, who are Roman Catholic, and Svitlana and Jeff Roman, who are Ukrainian Orthodox and Roman Catholic. 

In 2022, the county’s school board approved books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for use in its language-arts curriculum. One book describes the story of a girl attending her uncle’s same-sex wedding, for example, while another book, Pride Puppy, tells the story of a puppy that gets lost during a Pride parade. 

The following year, the board announced that it would no longer allow parents to excuse their children from instruction using the LGBTQ-themed storybooks. That prompted the parents in this case to go to federal court, where they argued that the board’s refusal to allow them to opt their children out violated their rights under the First Amendment to freely exercise their religion because it stripped them of their ability to instruct their children on issues of gender and sexuality according to their respective faiths and to control how and when their children are exposed to these issues. 

The lower courts refused to temporarily require the school board to notify the parents when the storybooks would be used and give them a chance to opt their children out of instruction. A federal appeals court reasoned that on the “threadbare” facts before it, the parents had not demonstrated that exposing their children to the storybooks compelled the parents to violate their religion. 

Several justices had questions about what it means for children to be “exposed” to the storybooks. Justice Clarence Thomas asked Eric Baxter – who argued on behalf of the parents – whether the LGBTQ-themed storybooks were merely present in the classroom, or instead actively used as part of the curriculum. 

Keep reading