PG on Nostr: As much as I appreciate the Executive Orders in regard to Pediatric Gender Medicine & ...
As much as I appreciate the Executive Orders in regard to Pediatric Gender Medicine & Saving Women & Girls' Sports, I don't see them as a big hit against Genderism. A substantial dent, perhaps.
In the three weeks since Trump took office, he’s lost court battles over an earth-shaking “funding freeze” that his administration ordered. It appears his EOs are not vetted by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, as regulation requires. All of this leaves gender-critical observers worrying that the Mutilation EO might be an overreach that courts will eventually vacate.
In this post I’ll look at the arguments that have been flying lately about federal funding, including those made in two lawsuits challenging the Mutilation EO. It turns out that the “funding freeze” doctrines are different from those that arise in the Mutilation EO context (assuming the latter relates only to new grants and not open grants that have already been promised to recipients). But the commotion of today’s funding battles could blow back on the Mutilation EO.
The barrage of fast-paced litigation brought by defunding victims and others aggrieved by Trump's actions may strain the Justice Department which, like most of the federal government, is operating under a hiring freeze. If bedraggled attorneys decamp to the private sector, the government won’t have all the administrative and constitutional law wonks it needs to defend bold presidential moves.Trump’s Funding Freeze Is Enjoined. What Does That Mean for Gender Doctors? by Glenna Goldis
How the legal arguments over his “mutilation” order are shaping upRead on Substack
In the three weeks since Trump took office, he’s lost court battles over an earth-shaking “funding freeze” that his administration ordered. It appears his EOs are not vetted by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, as regulation requires. All of this leaves gender-critical observers worrying that the Mutilation EO might be an overreach that courts will eventually vacate.
In this post I’ll look at the arguments that have been flying lately about federal funding, including those made in two lawsuits challenging the Mutilation EO. It turns out that the “funding freeze” doctrines are different from those that arise in the Mutilation EO context (assuming the latter relates only to new grants and not open grants that have already been promised to recipients). But the commotion of today’s funding battles could blow back on the Mutilation EO.
The barrage of fast-paced litigation brought by defunding victims and others aggrieved by Trump's actions may strain the Justice Department which, like most of the federal government, is operating under a hiring freeze. If bedraggled attorneys decamp to the private sector, the government won’t have all the administrative and constitutional law wonks it needs to defend bold presidential moves.Trump’s Funding Freeze Is Enjoined. What Does That Mean for Gender Doctors? by Glenna Goldis
How the legal arguments over his “mutilation” order are shaping upRead on Substack