Federal Judge In Texas Stops Obama’s Transgender Mandate Cold… Americans Cheer!

02 Jan, 2017 by Sierra Marlee

Print this article Font size -16+

Obama has dedicated the last eight years of his life to turning America upside down and inside out in every possible way, at every possible turn. That’s why Americans are so excited about the federal judge in Texas finally putting his foot down on the President’s liberal agenda.

Despite numerous and extremely vocal objections to his progressive agenda, Obama has insisted on forcing states to comply with his “transgender rights” push.

The Blaze reported on U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor’s current and past injunctions regarding Obama’s transgender actions, including forcing women to allow men into their public bathrooms.

The latest injunction signed by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor comes four months after he blocked a higher-profile new set of transgender protections — a federal directive that required public schools to let transgender students use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Several of the Republican-controlled states that brought that lawsuit, including Texas, also sued over the health regulations that were finalized in May.

Civil rights groups had hailed the new health rules as groundbreaking anti-discrimination protections. The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund said the new U.S. Health and Human Services regulations advised that certain forms of transgender discrimination by doctors, hospitals and insurers violated the Affordable Care Act.

But a coalition of religious medical organizations said the rules could force doctors to help with gender transition contrary to their religious beliefs or medical judgment. O’Connor agreed in his 46-page ruling, saying the rules place “substantial pressure on Plaintiffs to perform and cover transition and abortion procedures.”

The rules were set to take effect Sunday.

“Plaintiffs will be forced to either violate their religious beliefs or maintain their current policies which seem to be in direct conflict with the Rule and risk the severe consequences of enforcement,” O’Connor wrote.

Is this a good idea, or is it just paving the way for more trouble from the “tolerance” crowd? I’m getting pretty tired of being told what I should be “open-minded” about from people who will label you racist the instant you have a thought of which they don’t approve.