In the last months in office, the Obama administration bypassed the legislative process, and issued an executive order on bathroom access. It stated, “Federal agencies occupying space under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of GSA must allow individuals to use restroom facilities and related areas consistent with their gender identity.”

In May, the President had issued executive orders requiring school systems to allow access to the bathroom the person felt or believed was their gender without regard to their physical gender at birth. Approximately 0.5 percent of American school children consider themselves transgender. Obama failed to consider the rest of the population (99.5 percent) who accept their birth gender.

There is a much larger group who understand the issue of safety especially for women and young girls from men posing as women for illicit purposes. The order refuses to consider the rights of those “who may have suffered from sexual abuse in the past and don’t want to be exposed to male anatomy.”

Shortly after Obama issued this order, several states, led in part by Texas, filed suit enjoining against enforcing this order adding, “This president is attempting to rewrite the laws that were enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and is using the threat of losing federal funding to get schools to fall into line. That cannot be allowed to continue.”

President Trump rescinded the former ruling moving the issue back to the states where constitutionally it always belonged. Press Secretary Sean Spicer recently remarked, … all you have to do is look at what the president’s view has been for a long time, that this is not something the federal government should be involved in, this is a states’ rights issue.”

While both sides square off we believe this mother made it clear: “I don’t believe that tolerance means that we have to give up our rights or our freedoms for another group. To be compassionate, let’s accommodate.” Many have suggested a variety of approaches including adding private restrooms and the use of existing private facilities.

It seems to us that the Obama executive order was based on the premise that government once again can mandate moral beliefs in a manner that smacks against the religious beliefs of most Americans: our birth decides our gender for important and divine reason. To mandate condescending rules by mandating moral beliefs is both a poor choice and unconstitutional.

But something else equally bothers us. When North Carolina was considering a “bathroom bill” companies threatened to boycott them and not have conventions and sporting events in that state. As a similar bill moves through the Texas legislature the same threats are being raised against Texas. The question is: “Since when do we place the privacy and safety of women and young girls behind the importance of getting another Super Bowl or other sporting event in our state?” The choice is clear, the privacy and safety for the ladies and girls in our state comes before the almighty dollar! We pray that you concur!

Bill Sargent, Mark Mansius and John Gay are writing a series of columns on timely issues for today. All three ran in the 14th Congressional District primary.

(38) comments

Karen Griswold

Thank you. I totally agree. Well written.

PD Hyatt

I will give you a very loud AMEN!

George Croix

These three guys are NEVER going to 'get it' unless they adopt an attitude of smug superiority while going along with the PC notion of 'what one identifies as', and try to force their beliefs on the other 99% plus of us all.

I hope they never do 'get' that....
Excellent article.....

Diane Turski

This ludicrous bathroom bill has nothing to do with protecting the privacy of women and girls! I wish these people would deal with real problems in this state instead of causing more problems with their nonsensical claims! I do not support the bathroom bill and I do not want someone else's misguided personal moral opinion to harm the economy of Texas!!

Carlos Ponce

The economy of Texas will NOT be harmed. That is just Liberal Propaganda, a red herring. Even Leftist Politifact rates the claim that it will harm the Texas economy "Mostly False.
"Business group says bathroom law could lose Texas $8.5 billion in GDP, up to 185,000 jobs" "We rate this claim Mostly False."
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2017/feb/03/texas-association-business
And you post "This ludicrous bathroom bill has nothing to do with protecting the privacy of women and girls!" That is the real reason the bill is proposed. Read: "University of Houston police remained on heightened alert Thursday after a man attacked a student in a women's bathroom on campus Wednesday night."
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/UH-student-attacked-in-women-s-bathroom-4240121.php
Diane if you knew any woman who was stalked, attacked, raped or leered at by a member of the opposite sex in a public restroom you would want this bill passed. I pray such never happens to you.

Jim Forsythe

The part that was  wrong was the part about the amount, but latter the amout was probably right. Below is from the link that Carlo used.

"Less than two months after HB2 passed, former Democratic Rep. Chris Sgro said North Carolina’s economy had "already lost $500 million" due to the law. We ruled that False because at the time, the state’s economy likely hadn’t even lost half that much.
Sgro was prematurely anticipating several big-ticket losses. Some didn’t end up happening – but others did, and the state’s losses now probably do total around $500 million, in addition to thousands of jobs that went to other states instead of North Carolina.
That led to a Mostly False claim from former Republican Gov. Pat McCrory’s commerce secretary, John Skvarla, last October when he claimed that HB2 "hasn’t moved the needle one iota" on North Carolina’s economy".
http://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2017/mar/08/checking-north-carolina-leader-about-bathroom-meas/

Jim Forsythe

The man was not stopped by a sign that said Woman's. SB6 will stop this from happening, how

Jim Forsythe

How is this bill going to stop what happen at UH. He was not dressed as woman. The man was not stopped by a sign that said Woman's. SB6 will stop this from happening, how?
"The suspect is described as being dark-skinned and between 18 years old and 25 years old, police said. He was about 5 feet 8 inches tall and weighed about 140 pounds. He had black hair and brown eyes. He wore a blue hoodie and blue jeans and carried a black messenger-style bag.".

Carlos Ponce

" He was not dressed as woman." Finally, Jim I think you've got it.[beam]
The bill is not after transsexuals, cross dressers, etc. It is after those who would do what this man did, ie trying to do harm to a woman. Would the law prevent this from occurring? Does every stop sign, red light prevent someone from crossing illegally? No, but when caught they can inflict more punishment than the current law. Think Al Capone who was not arrested for murder and gangland activities. He was arrested for tax evasion. The man at UH covered her mouth when she screamed. He could claim he walked in "accidentally" and panicked when the screaming started and he did not "attack her". A good lawyer and he's out on the street again. With numerous charges this would be difficult.

Doyle Beard

selling your soul for a few dollars, how insane can that be.

Steve Fouga

Here's an admission of sorts:

On Galveston's seawall, there are several Porta-Potties for use by beachgoers, seawall-walker's etc. Some are marked with the familiar picture designating "Men," others with the symbol for "Women," and yet others are unmarked.

On occasion, when a men's potty has been in use, I've been known to use the women's.

Maybe this is already illegal, and I just didn't know it. Are the Porta-Potties, having been rented by the City, considered public property? I assume they are. So in the future I guess I'll need to look out for State Troopers before ducking into those potties. Or not. Who knows...[whistling]

Carlos Ponce

Steve, did the ladies' porta-a-potty have a urinal? If not, I hope you put the seat down after use.[innocent]

Steve Fouga

I appreciate the advice, Carlos. However, I'm very well trained. My mom saw to that.[innocent]

Carlos Ponce

Maybe you can answer this question. You and I know that men's rooms have urinals and commodes and some even have troughs. Ladies' rooms have no urinals or troughs. If SB6 does not go through will the Liberals insist on more commodes in men's rooms and urinals or troughs in ladies' room? Or will they ban the urinal altogether? Just asking.[innocent][innocent]

Steve Fouga

I have no idea. [huh]

Doyle Beard

A port-potti is not like a public restroom where more than one user is often in the restroom. There is quite a bit of difference.

George Croix

Jim, again with that 'will this law prevent anything'...?

NO law prevents anything. Not a single one....They're just words.
The only 'prevention' of sorts is the unwillingness by most people to run afoul of the penalties for breaking laws. Don't get caught and there's NO consequence.
Once one IS broken, and the breaker caught, THEN the consequences take effect, or should, and at that time there's a real live example made, not just the talk of it.

By the 'will it PREVENT anything' baseline, might as well toss pretty much every law there is.

Jim Forsythe

George,
"The only 'prevention' of sorts is the unwillingness by most people to run afoul of the penalties for breaking laws. Don't get caught and there's NO consequence." below is the penalties for breaking  SB6. This is going to stop a bad person? Sounds like the ones that are facing stiff penalties will be schools and government services.
"Violators would not be charged or fined for using the bathroom, but schools and government services would face $1,000 to $10,5000 in penalties for not complying, depending on the volume of violations. SB6 also empowers individuals to report a violation, and file a complaint with the Attorney General if it isn’t addressed within three days."

Why is Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick in favor of  SB6? Does he think this will spring board him to higher office?
"Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has declared SB6 a top priority and denies it would impact the state negatively. “But let’s say there is some economic impact,” he asked in the Texas Tribune. “Are we for sale? Are our values for sale? I don’t think so.”
Business groups in Texas have also blasted the bill, saying it will negatively affect business in Texas, and hurt the state's reputation. A group of nearly 70 businesses, including Google, Facebook, and Amazon, opposed the legislation in a letter to Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott

Carlos Ponce

Jim, you are GUILTY of omission.
The penalties described go only against entities that PERMIT, ALLOW this to occur. Are you leaving off the rest just to make a point? That's wrong!
"Violators would not be charged or fined for using the bathroom" NOT TRUE!!!! You probably got that load of ______ from some uber Leftist website. Why didn't you check the ACTUAL bill before posting?

"Sec. 769.153. DUTIES OF ATTORNEY GENERAL: INVESTIGATION
AND NOTICE. (a) Before bringing a suit against a school district,
open-enrollment charter school, state agency, or political
subdivision for a violation of this chapter, the attorney general
shall investigate a complaint filed under Section 769.152 to
determine whether legal action is warranted.
(b) If the attorney general determines that legal action is
warranted, the attorney general shall provide the appropriate
officer of the school district, open-enrollment charter school,
state agency, or political subdivision charged with the violation a
written notice that:
(1) describes the violation and location of the
bathroom or changing facility found to be in violation;
(2) states the amount of the proposed penalty for the
violation; and
(3) requires the school district, open-enrollment
charter school, state agency, or political subdivision to cure the
violation on or before the 15th day after the date the notice is
received to avoid the penalty, unless the school district,
open-enrollment charter school, state agency, or political
subdivision was found liable by a court for previously violating
this chapter."
As to the person violating SB6, penalties are INCREASED:
"Sec. 12.501. PENALTY IF OFFENSE COMMITTED ON PREMISES OF
BATHROOM OR CHANGING FACILITY. (a) If it is shown on the trial of
an offense described by Subsection (b) that the offense was
committed on the premises of a bathroom or changing facility:
(1) the punishment for an offense, other than a first
degree felony, is increased to the punishment prescribed for the
next higher category of offense; or
(2) if the offense is a first degree felony, the
minimum term of confinement for the offense is increased to 15
years.
(b) The increase in punishment authorized by this section
applies only to an offense under:
(1) Section 19.02 (murder);
(2) Section 19.04 (manslaughter);
(3) Section 19.05 (criminally negligent homicide);
(4) Section 20.02 (unlawful restraint);
(5) Section 20.03 (kidnapping);
(6) Section 20.04 (aggravated kidnapping);
(7) Section 21.07 (public lewdness);
(8) Section 21.08 (indecent exposure);
(9) Section 21.11 (indecency with a child);
(10) Section 21.12 (improper relationship between
educator and student);
(11) Section 21.15(b)(1) (invasive visual recording);
(12) Section 21.16, as added by Chapter 676 (H.B.
207), Acts of the 84th Legislature, Regular Session, 2015
(voyeurism);
(13) Section 22.01 (assault);
(14) Section 22.011 (sexual assault);
(15) Section 22.02 (aggravated assault);
(16) Section 22.021 (aggravated sexual assault);
(17) Section 22.04 (injury to a child, elderly
individual, or disabled individual);
(18) Section 22.041 (abandoning or endangering
child);
(19) Section 22.05 (deadly conduct);
(20) Section 22.07 (terroristic threat);
(21) Section 30.05 (criminal trespass);
(22) Section 42.07 (harassment);
(23) Section 43.02 (prostitution);
(24) Section 43.03 (promotion of prostitution);
(25) Section 43.04 (aggravated promotion of
prostitution);
(26) Section 43.05 (compelling prostitution);
(27) Section 43.22 (obscene display or distribution);
(28) Section 43.23 (obscenity);
(29) Section 43.24 (sale, distribution, or display of
harmful material to minor);
(30) Section 43.25 (sexual performance by a child);
(31) Section 43.26 (possession or promotion of child
pornography); or
(32) Section 43.261 (electronic transmission of
certain visual material depicting minor)"
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/SB00006I.htm
As to businesses saying they will be adversely affected check my previous posts. If the uber Liberal Politifact says this claim is FALSE what does that say to you?

Jim Forsythe

False, because of the amount at the time, not because it was not going to cost big money. Sgro was prematurely anticipating several big-ticket losses

Less than two months after HB2 passed, former Democratic Rep. Chris Sgro said North Carolina’s economy had "already lost $500 million" due to the law. We ruled that False because at the time, the state’s economy likely hadn’t even lost half that much.
Sgro was prematurely anticipating several big-ticket losses. Some didn’t end up happening – but others did, and the state’s losses now probably do total around $500 million, in addition to thousands of jobs that went to other states instead of North Carolina.
That led to a Mostly False claim from former Republican Gov. Pat McCrory’s commerce secretary, John Skvarla, last October when he claimed that HB2 "hasn’t moved the needle one iota" on North Carolina’s economy.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2017/mar/08/checking-north-carolina-leader-about-bathroom-meas/

Carlos Ponce

Politifact goes over their findings which you repeat BUT the final conclusion is MOSTLY FALSE.

Carlos Ponce

On North Carolina: Politifact rates the statement "Top North Carolina economic official says HB2 has not harmed the state economy" Mostly False,
BUT they also state "On a macro scale, however, Skvarla has a point. Even hundreds of millions of dollars in losses won’t dent the state’s GDP very much. And the now-canceled jobs would not have had much of an impact on the overall unemployment rate."
So in reality, HB2 had little impact on NC economy.

Steve Fouga

I think what Carlos says it at the crux of the matter: a few billion dollars lost from a major economy like NC or TX is a drop in the bucket. Sure, a few businesses will be harmed, but at the state level the effect is barely noticeable.

So, if legislators want to make a point about their stance on transgendered individuals as a way of proving that their state is staunchly conservative, they'll do it.

Carlos Ponce

Steve, SB6 is NOT about the transgendered. That is a false narrative.

Steve Fouga

I beg to differ, Carlos.

Unless you know what's in the hearts and minds of folks like Dan Patrick and others favoring this bill, you can't know where the true narrative lies. You can choose to believe what they SAY, but you can't truly know.

Since there's no practical justification for this bill, i.e., there has been no spate of men dressed like women foraging restrooms looking for victims, I conclude it's aimed at limiting the freedom of transgendered individuals. My logic is simply that if the need exists now, it existed in the past -- yet, no bill was passed. Why not? Because men weren't dressing up like women to molest victims in restrooms. The only difference is that now there are more transgendered people, and they've recently gained the sympathies of a growing number of folks in the U.S.

Guys like Patrick can't stand that. He wants to ensure that Texas is known as a conservative bastion. That's why we have the bill. That's my version of the narrative, and I certainly respect your right to yours.

Carlos Ponce

"Unless you know what's in the hearts and minds of folks like Dan Patrick and others favoring this bill, you can't know where the true narrative lies."
There you go again, sounding like a Liberal. It doesn't matter what is in their hearts and minds. What matters is what is in the BILL in black on white or whatever color they use. The narrative that will be enforced is what is in print.

Steve Fouga

Carlos, you are absolutely right that if the bill becomes law, it doesn't matter what they were thinking when they created the bill. I will endeavor to follow the law.

But I won't be one of those wondering, "What were they thinking?..."

I know exactly what Dan Patrick was thinking. Or, at least, I have my opinion of what he was thinking.

Carlos Ponce

"I know exactly what Dan Patrick was thinking. Or, at least, I have my opinion of what he was thinking."
As for me, I only know what the Lt. Governor has said and written on the topic - it is designed to protect women and children from unnecessary viewing and from harm. The idea that it is an "anti-transsexual " bill is an idea promoted by the alt - left pundits and media. And that is a false narrative.

George Croix

There was no bill in the past because there was no NEED for on e.
People went and P'd without making a case of it......
I'm no Patrick fan, but he didn't start the issue, another subset of the Perpetually Aggrieved did.....again....

Steve Fouga

George, you're right. There was no need for one.

Men (and women, and gays, and straights, and trans, and black, and white, etc.) don't dress up like something they're not, and never have, to molest people in restrooms. It's not a good tactic.

If it were a good way to molest someone, it would happen all the time, because people certainly do get molested -- A LOT. In schools, at universities, in cars, in parking lots, in their own homes, etc. But rarely by people dressed up as something they're not, in public restrooms. It's like we're fighting to protect against the only thing that never happens!

The bill is a red herring, it's grandstanding, and it's a waste of time. And as always, good on ya for having an opinion, even if it differs from mine.

Personally, I don't like unnecessary laws.

Carlos Ponce

"Men (and women, and gays, and straights, and trans, and black, and white, etc.) don't dress up like something they're not, and never have, to molest people in restrooms. It's not a good tactic." Never have??????
Reality check, Steve IT HAPPENS!
"A man dressed as a woman was arrested at a Palmdale mall for going into the ladies’ bathroom and secretly recording women, according to officers."
http://ktla.com/2013/05/14/da-cross-dressing-man-secretly-videotaped-women-in-macys-bathroom-2/
"A man dressed up as a Barbie doll tried to sexually assault a woman in a San Diego store's restroom, police said."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-dressed-barbie-assaults-woman-cops-article-1.1708778
"And last last year, in William County, Virginia, police reported a “peeper dressed like a woman” was arrested at Potomac Mills.'Man dressed as woman suspected of filming multiple women, including a woman and her 5-year-old daughter, in mall restrooms. The suspect in multiple incidents, a 30-year-old man used a bag to conceal a camera to film women as they used the restroom facilities.' ”
http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/the-big-list-of-bathroom-attacks/

George Croix

Think what you want, Mr. Fouga. We didn't fundamentally change that...yet....
Personally, I figure we already have laws preventing molesting and attacks on people.
Like other laws, they discourage, but don't prevent.
To me, this is not about 'protecting' people in bathrooms.
It's about the common sense, simple decency, and plain old good manners and decorum, of going into the bathroom/locker room that your body genitals show you should be in, just as you have since birth.
Since I don't do PC, and try very hard not to be a hypocrite, with some success, I refuse to support for everyone else what I would never allow in my own home bathrooms, no matter how much noise a tiny fraction of people make, or what they think, or what they say.
I am thankful I was raised that way, raised my child that way, and my grandkids are being raised that way.
But, that's just me......

Jim Forsythe

FYI
Loss of money was a factor?

"WINSTON-SALEM, N.C., March 30 (Reuters) - North Carolina's Senate and House on Thursday approved a bill to retool a law banning transgender people from using restrooms in accordance with their gender identities, hoping to bring back companies and sports leagues that had boycotted the state.".
"Late on Wednesday, leaders of the Republican-dominated Senate and House of Representatives said they had reached a compromise with Democratic Governor Roy Cooper to scrap the year-old law requiring transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding with the sex on their birth certificate - the only one of its kind in the United States.
In separate votes on Thursday, the Senate, then the House approved the measure to repeal that law.However, the measure bans cities from passing any nondiscrimination laws until 2020."

George Croix

Faced with common decency or a buck, take the dollar.....another fundamental change in the country....

Carlos Ponce

So they put the almighty dollar ahead of the safety of women and children. But the LGBT are upset with the "revised " version.
"But it also bars cities and school districts from enacting their own anti-discrimination rules for nearly four years, a compromise that drew harsh criticism from civil rights groups and advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, people."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/north-carolina-senate-passes-repeal-of-transgender-bathroom-law/ar-BBz3Cc6
"Advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people said the new version would allow discrimination to continue."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-senate-passes-repeal-controversial-bathroom-law-article-1.3013919
Will anything please them?

Jim Forsythe

May not be assigned to a committee, because of political pressure. If it was needed, it would already have passed. The lack of urgency speaks to were  it ranks with the legislative session
"Like the North Carolina law, SB 6 would require transgender individuals to use the restroom or changing facility of the gender on their birth certificates. The bill is a top priority for Patrick, but House Speaker Joe Straus sees it as a potential snare for his Republican colleagues.If they vote in favor of it, they alienate the Texas business community,” Jones says. “On the other hand, if they vote against the bill, then they hand a potential Republican primary opponent a major issue that they can use against them in the March 2018 Republican primaries.”
"Less than two months remain in the current legislative session, and SB 6, which arrived in the House two weeks ago, has yet to be assigned to a committee"

George Croix

I am only one little vote and also one little shopper/consumer.
A promise from me, a small timer for sure by comparison to 'big business', to 'the Texas business community' is if you have no better sense and common decency than to not care who's in your bathrooms, then you certainly won't mind the loss of one consumer of your services or products.

Carlos Ponce

When NC HB2 was in effect was any LGBT member kept from using the facilities of choice? No. The law did not apply to them. Same thing in Texas. If the law is enacted, members of the LGBT will notice NO DIFFERENCE. However if you read the text of the bill, anyone who violates the law to do something nefarious will be met with a stiffer penalty. Penalties will increase to the next level.
" the punishment for an offense, other than a first degree felony, is increased to the punishment prescribed for the next higher category of offense; or if the offense is a first degree felony, the minimum term of confinement for the offense is increased to 15
years."

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.