#16+ policies and procedures

[cloudoc2022]

Residential Care Home Policies and Procedures

Want to help older adults stay in their homes, where they feel most comfortable? We can provide all the information you need to start your own home care service and Residential Care Home Policies and Procedures. For more information, visit our website now.

[constantlymisspelled]

The SUPERCOMMANDO CODEX - DRAFT

CONTENTS

Mandalorian Code Interpretation [link is found here]

Strength is Life

Honor is Life

Loyalty is Life

Death is Life

2. Honourable Conduct [link is found here]

Honour in self

Honour in the Community

Honour in the Galaxy

Honour Amongst Clan

Honour in Partnership

Honour in Leadership

Honour in Combat

3. Adoption Law [link is found here]

The Legal Definition of Foundling

Foundling Procedure

Disownment of Parent

Community Adoption

Adoption regarding criminal activities

Adoption regarding marital conditions

Adoption Consent

4. Marriage and Divorce [link is found here]

Spouse Definition

Spousal Privileges

Conditions for Legal Engagement

Consent and Age Restrictions

Conditions for Legal Marriage

Conditions for Legal Divorce

Children, Clan and House Considerations

5. Resolnare [link is found here]

The Six Tennent’s Broader accepted conditions

Way Followers Interpretation

Naasaade Interpretation and Redemption of Vows

Noncombatant Interpretations

The Mandalorian Healer’s Code

The Mandalorian Armourer's Code

Codes recognised in Conjunction

6. Clan and House [link is found here]

Definition of House

Responsibilities of House

Definition of Clan

Responsibilities of Clan

Requirements needed to be declared Alor of Clan

Requirements needed to be declared Alor of House

Requirements needed to be declared a Major House

7. Language Protectorate [link is found here]

Mando’a in Practice

Rights to change, add or remove words

Script usage and recognition in Mandalorian Space

8. The Position of Manda’lor [link is found here]

Requirements needed to be a candidate for Manda’lor

Responsibilities

Oversight

Commanding body

Restrictions, Compliance and Declarations of Misconduct

9. Education and Cultural development [link is found here]

The Education Responsibilities of Clans

The Education responsibilities of Schools and facilities

Freed Re-education programs and foundations

Religious and cultural rights within education systems

Parental rights throughout education

10. Electoral Process [link is found here]

The Court of Houses

The Sector Governors

The System Governors

The Astro Body Governors

District Electoral Members

Electoral Voters

Voting conditions

Overseers of the Ballot

Postal Elections

Voting Eligibility

Right and Responsibility

Conditions for Referendum, Re-election and Hung Parliamentary Votes

11. Court of Law

Family Court

Criminal Justice Court

Court of Appeal

Military Court

Financial and Business Court

Public Courts

12. Responsibility and due process

Parental Responsibility

Personal Responsibility

Political Responsibility

Financial Responsibility

Military Responsibility

Adoption Due Process

Engagement and Marriage Due Process

Divorce and Separation Due Process

Election Eligibility Due Process

Firearms Licensing Due Process

Verdgoten and Adult Graduation Due Process

Election Results Due Process

Parental Disownment Due Process

Clan and House Formation Due Process

13. Foreign interaction and policy

Foreign Ambassador acceptance

Externa; Ambassadors abroad

Foreign Currency and Exchange

Border Security

Digital Security and Programming Policy

Citizenship and Visa Acceptance

14. Employment within and outside of the sector

Legal age and parameters of employment

Contract and procedure for levels of employment

Foreign policy for Mando'ade working abroad

Foreign policy for outsiders working in Mandalore

15. Property and payment

Land ownership and tenancy

Forms of payment accepted in legal contract

Ownership and registration of vehicles

Ownership and registration of Firearms

Ownership and registration of Non-sentient Animals

Copyright, fair trade and artistic license

16. Beskar

Donations to Foundlings

Ownership

Sacred right to wear beskar as armour

Conditions for percentage declared

Rights to mine and export

Religious significance

17. Recognised Mandalorian Sects and Coverts

Traditionalists

Haat Mando’ade

Naasaade

Way Followers

Creed Bound

Silver Children

18. Armour and Weapon Classifications

Military Issue

Military Grade

Civilian Use

Hunter and Mercenary Equipment

Trade and Specialist Equipment

Journeyman, Protectorate

19. Criminal sentencing

Theft

Grievous bodily harm

Assault

Rape

Murder

Manslaughter

Negligence

Criminal Negligence

Medical Malpractice

War Crimes

Demagolkase - War Crimes against children

Sentient Trafficking and experimentation

Financial Misconduct and Tax Evasion

20. Military and Law Enforcement

Military

Mandalorian Protectors

Journeyman Protectors

Home Guard

Manda'yaim Reserve

21. Land Rights and Conservation

Land Ownership

Sale and Redistribution of land

Declaration of Sacred Places

Sector Council Lands, Protectorate Lands, Crown Lands and Stock Routes

Protected Areas

Water Ways

Tenancy, Lodging, and Temporary Accommodations

Public Areas

Squatters' Rights

Sanctioned and unsanctioned terraforming

22. Commerce, Business and Integrity

Currency and Zones

Business Licenses and Legal Procedure

External business practice

Monopoly businesses and Mega Businesses

Banking within the Sector

23. Discrimination [link is found here]

Species

Sex

Religious Interpretation

Language

Ability

24. Closing Statements

Manda'lor Jaster Mereel [link is found here]

The Translator

25. References

Regarding headcanons for Houses; [link is found here]

26. Contacts and Relevant Supervising Personnel of Note

[This post will be altered as I go, and as amendments are made]

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Later abortion is not euthanasia: a masterpost.

What – and when – are we talking about? In this post, when I refer to "later abortion", I am specifically referring to elective induced fetal demise (feticide) after 20 weeks since the mother's last missed period (22 weeks gestational age). In other words, intentionally and directly killing a baby, wholly or partly within the womb, near or after the point of development at which they could survive after birth. This is distinguished from early induction, in which the baby's death is not deliberately induced. This is often referred to as "late-term abortion", which is a colloquial misnomer as the late-term of pregnancy is exclusively 41-42 weeks.

Later abortion is not only performed for fetal anomaly or to save the mother.

Who is aborting and being aborted? In her studies (1, 2) of later abortion, pro-choice researcher Katrina Kimport found that the reasons people get later abortions are "remarkably similar" to those who get earlier abortions. Common reasons included financial issues and not knowing they were pregnant earlier. Abortionist Eleanor Drey (3) corroborates that “financial hardship” is a major compelling factor in people seeking later abortions. This means that healthy women abort healthy babies.

Further, because a later abortion can take three days, and due to the risk of uterine perforation, in an emergency medical situation it is typically safer for the mother to have an immediate labor induction. Day 1, the baby is killed and laminaria is inserted to dilate the cervix; day 2, more laminaria is inserted and labor is induced; day 3, the dead baby is delivered or extracted (9). Not to mention, in most of Europe abortion is limited before viability, and this has not prevented mothers in emergent life-threatening situations from receiving necessary medical intervention.

Later abortions do not only take place in hospitals.

Where are later abortions happening? According to AbortionFinder as of Nov. 2024, about 25 facilities in the US offer abortion after 20 weeks, and only eight facilities offer abortion after 28 weeks. Four of those eight are in Washington DC or Maryland. Only two of the eight are hospitals. Policies vary between providers and circumstances about whether or not the baby may be viewed after the procedure. Currently, the cost of an abortion at 28 weeks is $12K.

Later abortions are violent, not peaceful.

How are later abortions performed? In an induction abortion, abortionists typically induce fetal demise prior to the removal of the baby either via lethal injection (poison) or exsanguination (bleeding out) (4). For example, DuPont Clinic prefers injection (more expensive), but Washington Surgi-Clinic uses exsanguination (cheaper). In the US, typically the baby is not anesthetized. The feticide injections may be an overdose of digoxin or lidocaine (5), or potassium chloride. Digoxin may take hours to cause cardiac arrest (6). Horses are not euthanized with lidocaine without anesthesia. And potassium chloride is opposed by the Humane Society (7) and Amnesty International (8). Exsanguination is also opposed by the Humane Society (7). In a dilation and extraction abortion, babies may be directly disarticulated (dismembered) while alive.

Further, there is evidence that the fetus feels pain as early as 12 weeks (10). We even have video of a fetus reacting with expressions of pain to being stabbed with feticide (11). Here’s two fetuses after D&E abortions (12,13). And here’s two fetuses after induction abortions (14,15). And this is a video of a D&E (16).

Later abortion “donations” are baby part sales.

Why are they aborted this way? When later abortions are performed without a feticide injection, it’s sometimes to preserve their remains for research. Abortionists have even admitted to performing modified partial-birth abortions to preserve the major organs, in which the baby is pulled out alive from the cervix except for the head, then the neck is snipped and the brain is sucked out to collapse the skull (17,18). Here’s a fetus after a partial-birth abortion (19).

Women sign (often questionable) consent forms to donate the bodies of their babies to research (26). What they either don’t realize or aren’t told is that the abortion facilities will profit or gain assets from these “donations” (20). Many are also under the impression that their baby’s remains will be used to cure diseases; they would likely be dismayed to learn that their baby’s scalp was, for instance, grafted and grown onto lab rats (21).

Later abortion survivors exist.

A study by the Society for Family Planning found that up to 50% of labor induction abortions without feticide result in live birth (22). Another study by the American College of Gynecologists of abortions without feticide in the second trimester also found a 50% survival rate, but that without life-sustaining care, these babies are unlikely to live beyond a few hours (23). ACOG also published a study that found gestational weeks 20-24 survived at a rate of 21.7% (24). Years 2011-2021 saw 20.8% survive overall. Only 24.5% of survivors were admitted to the NICU and just 5.5% received palliative care. Several survivors have spoken out about their experiences (25).

I will be making a follow-up to this post with research on the alternative to later abortion in cases of fatal fetal anomaly: perinatal hospice and palliative care. Resources regarding this here.

Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks?

Is third‐trimester abortion exceptional? Two pathways to abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy in the United States - Kimport

Contextualizing Who has Abortions After the First Trimester - Innovating Education in Reproductive Health

Umbilical cord transection to induce fetal demise prior to second-trimester D&E abortion - PubMed

Transabdominal lidocaine to induce fetal demise: a cohort study - PubMed

Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation: Induction of fetal asystole before abortion Jointly developed with the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine - ScienceDirect

Humane Society International: General Statement Regarding Euthanasia Methods for Dogs and Cats

Is there a Humane Way to Execute? – Amnesty International

Induction Abortion

Reconsidering fetal pain - PubMed

The Seasoned Soup — Footage of a 12-week fetus reacting to the lethal...

Ángel – PAAU

Holly – PAAU

Christopher X – PAAU

Phoenix – PAAU

Excerpt from Eclipse of Reason

Texas Planned Parenthood Can “Pull Off A Leg, Or Two” To Hide Partial-Birth Abortions To Sell Fetal Body Parts

Special Report: Partial-Birth Abortion at Planned Parenthood

Harriet – PAAU

Select Investigative Panel  of the Energy & Commerce Committee 

Development of humanized mouse and rat models with full-thickness human skin and autologous immune cells

Labor induction abortion in the second trimester - Contraception

Fetal Survival in Second-Trimester Termination of Pregnancy Without Feticide

Second-trimester abortion and risk of live birth

Abortion Survivors Network

BREAKING: “Viable Nonanomalous” 6-Month-Old Fetuses Sold From Planned Parenthood Abortions to University of California, New Documents Show

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

The Alarming Rise of Gender-Based Violence in Brazil

Despite increased public awareness of the problem, the number of victims has reached a record high level.

Gender-based violence in Brazil, a longstanding problem in Latin America’s most populous country, has reached alarming levels. In the last 12 months, 37.5% of women aged 16 and over experienced some form of violence. This is the highest rate recorded since the local think tank Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública, known as FBSP, started monitoring the issue in 2017.

The data presents a concerning situation for the 21.4 million women involved in these incidents and for our society as a whole: Despite extensive public debate on gender roles and gender-based violence, there has not been a significant reduction in the number of victims, nor have more individuals sought help. It is our responsibility to understand these statistics and advocate for public policies that address this issue.

In 2015, women from all over Brazil took to the streets to defend the few sexual and reproductive rights constitutionally guaranteed to women. According to Brazilian law, abortion is only allowed in three specific circumstances, and access to legal abortion can be limited due to a lack of services and medical professionals’ refusal. When former congressman Eduardo Cunha presented a bill aimed at extinguishing these few paths to legal abortion and criminalizing the procedure entirely, protests took place throughout the country for weeks until the bill was dismissed.

By then, protests were not just about the bill. Women were marching to denounce the many other aspects of gender inequality in Brazil—today, the period is referred to as the “women’s spring.” It lit a fuse: gender inequality has never been talked about so much in our country. Women finally have the language and the words to discuss this problem, a crucial step toward solving it. 

Brazil is not the exception. In 2015, women’s protests surged across Latin America and the Caribbean as feminists mobilized against gender-based violence, restrictive abortion laws, and persistent inequality. The marches around the region brought unprecedented public attention to issues such as femicide, sexual harassment, and women’s bodily autonomy, challenging traditional norms and pushing for legal reforms.

Over the past decade, Brazil has created new regulatory frameworks and updated laws to hold perpetrators accountable, but these measures alone have not been enough. This complex problem demands a broader response, from policies to enable women’s economic autonomy and improve education, to funding for programs benefiting at-risk women.

Continue reading.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Christopher Wiggins at The Advocate:

Utah’s Republican leaders, who banned access to medically recommended care for trans minors, spent more than two years demanding proof that gender-affirming hormone therapy benefits transgender youth. Now they have it — and they’re still refusing to budge. A comprehensive, state-commissioned report released last week shows that gender-affirming care leads to better mental health and lower suicide risk among transgender minors. But instead of lifting the state’s ban, GOP lawmakers are doubling down on a policy that doctors, advocates, and families have long warned is putting lives at risk. The more than 1,000-page report, conducted by the University of Utah’s Drug Regimen Review Center and quietly posted online Monday by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, was required by S.B. 16 — the 2023 law that banned most gender-affirming medical care for minors. At the time, Republican Gov. Spencer Cox called the law a “nuanced” approach and insisted the state needed more data. Now that the data is in, his office has gone silent. The report eviscerates the claims Republicans used to pass the ban in the first place. “The conventional wisdom among non-experts has long been that there are limited data on the use of [gender-affirming hormone therapy] in pediatric patients,” the researchers wrote. “However, results from our exhaustive literature searches have led us to the opposite conclusion.” The study found over 230 primary studies involving 28,056 trans youth — “far exceeding” the evidence that typically supports FDA approval for high-risk pediatric treatments, including gene therapy. [...]

Utah Republicans reject their own commissioned review

The report’s release was met with no public response from Cox or legislative leaders, The Salt Lake Tribune reports. Republican state Reps. Katy Hall and Bridger Bolinder, who helped pass the law, dismissed the findings outright in a joint statement. “The science isn’t there,” they claimed. “The risks are real, and the public is with us.” State Senate President Stuart Adams echoed their skepticism. “Utah enacted a law to safeguard the long-term health and well-being of minors while providing time to carefully examine the evolving medical landscape surrounding novel and irreversible procedures for minors,” he said, according to the Tribune. State Rep. Mike Kennedy, the bill’s lead sponsor and a physician, declined to comment to the paper. [...]

LGBTQ+ rights advocates say the report dismantles GOP's justification for care bans

Chris Erchull, senior attorney at GLAD Law, told The Advocate that the report’s conclusion is straightforward.“This is the most comprehensive and the most recent review of all of the studies on care that’s been provided to transgender young people over many decades,” Erchull said. “It confirms what many providers and families already knew — that the standards of care for young transgender people provide benefits to their overall health and well-being. All of these attempts to block access to care for transgender young people have been causing harm. And any future attempts will also cause harm.” But the science is there. The review found that youth who received care before age 18 had better outcomes, especially around depression, anxiety, and suicidality. Hormonal treatments were associated with positive mental health and psychosocial functioning outcomes. "When left untreated, individuals with gender dysphoria may experience psychological and social harms,” the report notes.

[...] If lawmakers in Utah lift the moratorium, the report recommends that the health department outline strict guardrails: a certified treatment board, licensed experts, interdisciplinary care teams, and an enhanced informed consent process. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, those recommendations are in place, but the political will is not. Like all medical treatments, gender-affirming care is already overseen by expert physicians and follows best practices established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. They note that receiving this kind of care is not fast.

Utah Republicans demanded a research study on gender-affirming care back in 2023. Two years later, the study reveals that gender-affirming care is beneficial, but the GOP in the state doubled down on its insane ban on GAC.

[mariacallous]

In the context of a turbulent and unsatisfying three years in office, the incredibly awful September in progress might rank as the three-party German government’s grimmest month yet. After elections in the east that issued record results for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party—another vote, in Brandenburg, looms on Sept. 22—the government is also reeling from the fallout of two Islamist terrorist attacks that left three dead and eight wounded. One of those attacks involved a Syrian asylum-seeker whose petition for protection in Germany had been denied; he had links to the fundamentalist Islamic State, which claimed responsibility for the attack.

Now the government has announced its response: starting on Sept. 16, Germany will unilaterally impose border closures, for six months, on all nine of its borders with other European countries. Incoming foreign nationals will be screened according to arbitrary criteria, and rejected applicants will be forced onto Germany’s next-door neighbors.

Although some details remain unclear, Germany’s plan amounts to an unprecedented step. Eight of the neighboring countries are EU members, and all of them are part of the Schengen regime that guarantees freedom of movement across borders within the bloc and recognizes the right to political asylum. Meanwhile, Germany’s mainstream opposition party is demanding an even more severe policy—one that would essentially prevent the country from accepting any new asylum applicants onto its territory at all.

“Until we achieve strong protection of the EU’s external borders with the new common European asylum system, we must strengthen controls at our national borders,” said Germany’s interior minister, Nancy Faeser. Her proposal involves expedited procedures at the German frontiers to determine whether each person who arrives may enter and apply for political asylum.

According to Faeser, the planned border screenings will limit illegal migration and “protect against the acute dangers posed by Islamist terrorism and serious crime.” There will be more deportations during this period, she said, but they will conform to EU law. But some experts disagree. European law expert Alberto Alemanno, a professor of European law at HEC Paris, told the Guardian that the German controls “represent a manifestly disproportionate breach of the principle of free movement within the Schengen area.”

And Sergio Carrera, a research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), a Brussels-based think tank, told Foreign Policy that the border closures will most probably have a knock-on effect across the continent: “There’s the risk of these measures triggering a race to the bottom. Where’s the end point? We’re talking about rights that go to the very heart of what the EU is all about.”

The new measures at the German borders ratchet up pressure on European Union norms that are already strained. According to EU law, free movement within the bloc is guaranteed within the Schengen area, which encompasses most EU member countries (except Cyprus and Ireland) as well as Switzerland and Norway. Foreign nationals claiming political persecution have the right to apply for political protection in the country through which they enter the EU. But the bloc’s member countries may suspend Schengen’s guarantees in the case of “internal security concerns” as long as those concerns are proportional and legitimate and the suspensions temporary. Brussels must be briefed in advance.

Germany has had periodic border checks in place along the Austrian border since 2015—a response to the refugee crisis of 2015-16. Last year, in response to heightened migration flows, Germany established checks on its borders shared with Poland, the Czech Republic, and Switzerland. In fact, across the European Union, member states have temporarily restricted internal border crossings 404 times since 2015, according to German daily Die Tageszeitung.

Germany’s move would take another step toward turning the exception policy of internal EU border checks into the rule, argued Christian Jacob of Die Tageszeitung. A European Parliament study issued last year claimed that this was already happening and that a “systematic lack of compliance with EU law” could undermine rule of law guarantees.

One result would almost certainly be a chain reaction across the bloc. Walter Turnowsky, a migration expert at Denmark’s Der Nordschleswiger, a German-language newspaper, fears exactly this. “Officially, the announced German border controls are also temporary, but ultimately the announcement means the end of free travel across the EU,” he said. “From now on, governments will claim: ‘Well, Germany controls its borders too,’” so they will do the same.

The new German measures aim to stop non-EU citizens who have already applied for asylum elsewhere in the bloc from entering Germany by bus, train, or car from Schengen zone neighbors. (Currently, only third-country nationals who have invalid papers or don’t intend to file for political asylum are refused entry.) Under the new measures, the migrants would be returned to the country where they entered the Schengen area and originally applied for asylum, which are usually one of the EU’s southern external border countries, such as Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, or Spain.

German border guards would detain the foreign nationals at the border—perhaps even in a kind of jail, apparently for no longer than five weeks—until their status can be verified. Foreign nationals who had not previously applied for asylum but who claim political persecution could then enter Germany and apply for protection, which German courts would rule on at a later date.

One of the looming questions is what criteria German police would invoke to screen those parties interested in entering the country. Since not every person traveling into Germany can be stopped, “it will be people who look different, regardless of citizenship,” said Carrera, of CEPS. “A certain racial appearance will make some people suspect. This is racial profiling, and it is illegal.”

Against the background of its fierce battle in eastern Germany with the AfD, Germany’s conservative opposition, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has opted to steal the other party’s thunder by endorsing measures very much like those of the far right—and until recently entirely taboo. Claiming that the government’s measures do not go nearly far enough, the CDU argues that no people—none at all—should be permitted to enter Germany in the absence of a visa or European passport.

This would de facto end the country’s commitment to offering asylum. In order to make this flagrant violation of international law at least appear to conform to EU regulations, under the CDU plan, Germany would declare a state of emergency as a result of internal security threats. This, the CDU believes, would legalize the across-the-board rejection of unwanted third-country nationals.

The proposal also goes a gigantic step beyond the limitation of movement in the EU, effectively eviscerating the right to political asylum.

“This kind of measure, and those the government are taking, will be investigated and could come before the EU court of justice,” Carrera said. “The EU will determine whether the security concerns really justify such a breach of EU law.” Other experts have said that Germany will not be able to prove that the recent attacks or the numbers of asylum-seekers—which have fallen this year—actually threaten the state’s internal security and thus justify (or indeed, are really aided by) these measures.

One of the many problems with the new German modus operandi: Neighboring states will have to accept people refused by Germany back onto their territory—and Austria, for one, which has general elections on Sept. 29 (and where polls indicate the situation for migrants is getting even worse, with a very strong showing of the far-right Freedom Party likely) said forget it, it won’t take them.

Poland is also up arms at the prospect of traffic jams at the borders that would obstruct commercial and private transportation. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the German move a “de facto suspension of the Schengen Agreement on a large scale.”

The Belgian daily Le Soir seems to hit the nail on the head: “With governments like this, there’s no need for the far right to be in power. The pressure of elections and the fear of extremes are causing those in power to run around like headless chickens, with migrants as the only means for decompression.”

EU expert Thu Nguyen, the deputy director of the Berlin-based Jacques Delors Centre, told Foreign Policy that unilateral decisions taken by Germany—the EU’s most populous state—are entirely unproductive. She noted that the EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum, a set of new rules passed this year for managing migration and establishing a common asylum system at a bloc-wide level, addresses some of the concerns about immigration raised by Germany and other EU states, including by facilitating faster procedures for asylum applicants at the continent’s external borders.

After all, Germany—including the CDU’s parliamentary group in the EU, the European People’s Party (EPP)—was essential in drafting the pact, together with the 25 other EU member states. When the pact came in front of the European Parliament earlier this year, EPP parliamentarian Tomas Tobé said that “the absolute best way to help support a European migration policy is to be loyal to the whole migration pact.”

[coochiequeens]

The truly sad thing is that TRAs are not going to take a moment for self reflection and look at the perverts that have overun the TQ+ movement. Instead they are going to lash out at "TERFs".

Judges have ruled that the UK government acted lawfully in blocking Scotland's gender self-ID reforms.

Legislation making it easier for people to change their legally-recognised sex was passed by the Scottish Parliament last year.

The UK government blocked it from becoming law over fears it would impact on equality laws across Great Britain.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh has now rejected a Scottish government legal challenge to the veto.

The Scottish government has 21 days to decide whether it wants to appeal against the ruling, and the case could ultimately end up in the Supreme Court in London.

The legislation received cross-party support in Holyrood, passing by 86 votes to 39 after a highly-charged debate.

Campaigners against the reforms warned the legislation could risk the safety of women and girls in same-sex spaces such as hospital wards and refuges.

Supporters argued it would make the process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC) easier and less traumatic for trans people.

The legislation would remove the need for trans people to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a doctor before they are allowed to change their legally-recognised sex in Scotland, and would lower the age that someone can apply for a GRC from 18 to 16.

The period in which applicants would need to have lived in their acquired gender would be cut from two years to three months.

The UK government stepped in to block the bill from receiving royal assent after it was passed by MSPs, using powers contained in section 35 of the Scotland Act for the first time.

Scottish Secretary Alister Jack raised concerns that the reforms could adversely impact on the 2010 Equality Act, which applies in Scotland, England and Wales and sets out protections for groups including women and transgender people.

The Scottish government challenged the move at the Court of Session - Scotland's highest civil court - with its top law officer, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain, arguing that Mr Jack did not have "reasonable grounds" to block the bill.

Ms Bain also claimed that if the UK government was successful, Westminster "could veto practically any act of the Scottish Parliament having an impact on reserved matters because he disagreed with it on policy grounds".

But in her written ruling, judge Lady Haldane dismissed the Scottish government's appeal and said the block on the legislation was lawful.

She said Mr Jack followed correct legal procedures when he made his decision to invoke section 35 and that the Scottish government had failed to show that he had made legal errors.

The judge wrote: "I cannot conclude that he (Mr Jack) failed in his duty to take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to acquaint himself with material sufficient to permit him to reach the decision that he did."

Lady Haldane also said that "Section 35 does not, in and of itself, impact on the separation of powers or other fundamental constitutional principle. Rather it is itself part of the constitutional framework."

Welcoming the judgement, Mr Jack said it "upholds my decision to prevent the Scottish government's gender recognition legislation from becoming law".

He added: "I was clear that this legislation would have had adverse effects on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters, including on important Great Britain-wide equality protections.

"Following this latest court defeat for the Scottish government, their ministers need to stop wasting taxpayers' money pursuing needless legal action and focus on the real issues which matter to people in Scotland - such as growing the economy and cutting waiting lists."

Alister Jack blocked the legislation because of its potential impact on equalities law that applies across Scotland, England and Wales

Humza Yousaf decided to proceed with the legal challenge shortly after succeeding Nicola Sturgeon - a passionate supporter of trans rights - as first minister earlier this year.

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, he described the ruling as a "dark day for devolution".

Mr Yousaf said: "Today's judgment confirms beyond doubt that devolution is fundamentally flawed. The court has confirmed that legislation passed by a majority in Holyrood can be struck down by Westminster.

"The only way to guarantee we get true self-government is through independence. Sovereignty should lie with the people of Scotland, not a Westminster government we didn't vote for with the ability to overrule our laws."

He was the only one of the three candidates in the SNP leadership contest who backed taking legal action and the issue has been deeply divisive within the party.

Colin Macfarlane, director of nations at LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall, said the ruling would "mean more uncertainty for trans people in Scotland who will be waiting once again to see whether they will be able to have their gender legally recognised through a process that is in line with leading nations like Ireland, Canada and New Zealand."

Labour's shadow Scottish secretary Ian Murray said it was "disappointing this legalisation ended in the courts but this ruling should be respected".

Shortly after the reforms were passed, double rapist Isla Bryson - who changed gender after being arrested for attacking two women - was remanded to a women's jail.

Bryson was subsequently moved to a male prison after the case sparked widespread anger. The Scottish government said the new legislation had no impact on the decision about where Bryson was held.

As befitting an unprecedented case, this is in Lady Haldane's words a "novel and complex" ruling.

She actually concluded in part that this is a situation where many decisions could have been taken, and that "there is possibly no single right answer" - but that the courts should only intervene in the case of a clear error in law.

The judge concluded that Alister Jack was entitled to make a decision on this, and that he had taken the proper steps to come to a view, without going into the even knottier territory of whether it was the right one.

All of that complexity means there could be room for appeal.

The Scottish government will be combing through the ruling to see if there are grounds to go back to court.

Mr Jack has urged them not to, telling them not to waste public funds on further legal action.

But ministers will perhaps put more weight on the position of the Scottish Greens, their partners in government, who are absolutely furious about the "horrible, heartbreaking and unjust" outcome.

Challenging UK ministers on this has been a red line for the Greens in the past. It may be that Scottish ministers have little choice but to fight on if they are to keep their partnership government together.

[roguekhajiit]

I want to address some comments that were made on one of my other posts. I've blurred their username and have already blocked them, so please don't go looking for them to harrass them over these statements.

I'm sure you can see the issue with these comments. I'm also half sure that this is a troll whose sole intent is to spread misinformation in and about the pro-choice movement. But honestly, with all the insanity out there (MAGA cult, anti-vaxxers), it's hard to differentiate between a troll and sincere belief.

This person claims that doctors who can still perform abortions are also doing those abortions at 30 weeks and are doing them without caring why the person wants one.

So, according to this person, you can walk into a doctor's office at 30 weeks pregnant and ask for an abortion, just because, and the doctor will do it, no questions asked.

Not only is this outrageous claim absolutely false, but it is also harmful to the pro-choice movement. It feeds into the anti-abortionists many conspiracy theories by framing it as something that the pro-choice movement supports.

So, let's look at facts.

The majority of abortions in the United States take place in the first trimester of pregnancy.

Abortions at later gestational durations are comparatively uncommon: only 1.0% of abortions take place at or after 21  weeks.

Not only is late-term abortions rare, but it's extremely difficult and expensive to achieve. Due to state level abortion bans, one would have to seek out a clinic that is able to perform such a late-term abortion. Then, take time off work, travel, and pay for accommodations and food. The costs can easily range from a few thousand to $25,000.

"Third‐trimester abortions typically take place over 3 days and can include laboring, which contributes to their high cost. Federal and state‐level bans on public insurance coverage in 34 states and regulation of or high deductibles in private insurance mean that most people must pay out‐of‐pocket for abortion care. Given research that finds that the out‐of‐pocket costs of a first‐trimester abortion strain the finances of many abortion patients, the cost of a third‐trimester abortion likely exceeds the financial capacity of most pregnant people."

Source

"In states without abortion bans or gestational bans before 22 weeks LMP, access to abortions later in pregnancy is often limited for many reasons, including viability bans, bans on certain abortion procedures, and a limited number of abortion providers who are trained or willing to provide abortions later in pregnancy."

"16 states that still allow abortions currently have laws restricting abortion at “viability” or at 24 weeks LMP / 3rd trimester, when viability is presumed to occur."

"Most of the 11 states that restrict abortions at “viability” define it as the point where a physician or other healthcare provider determines whether a fetus can survive outside the womb. Four of these states include language in their abortion policies defining viability as the point where there is a likelihood that the fetus could survive without the “application of extraordinary measures” and another three states have language clarifying the fetus could survive with or without extraordinary measures."

Source

TL;DR: It is extremely unlikely that a doctor is going to perform an abortion at 30 weeks without any questions asked.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Cori Cohn

Published: Jun 15, 2025

It's not exactly news that youth gender transition activism has gained a foothold in a number of institutions across the US, but many may be surprised to learn that it has taken root in various Christian churches. The common image of American culture wars, especially as it relates to trans issues, is one of secular lefties on one side and the religious right on the other. In reality, the lines don’t always break down so neatly. Many churches are indeed bastions of transphobia, but a growing number of others have become not only outspoken in their trans activism, but also quite extreme. This is how I found myself protesting outside my friends’ church. I’d totally forgotten it was Palm Sunday and didn’t realize they were having outdoor services that day, which made things a bit awkward. I just wanted them to be aware that the Episcopal House of Bishops had recently passed Resolution 2018-C022, which directs churches like theirs to oppose political efforts to stop sex change procedures for minors.

This issue is personal for me. Dismayed by my same-sex attraction and the ways in which puberty was changing my body, I had a sex change as a teenager. But after spending decades of my life trying to live as a woman, I’ve realized that it’s impossible to change my sex, and that I’d been too immature to understand the gravity of my decision. The process destroyed my ability to enjoy sex, harmed my health, and did not lead to the happier life I had imagined. Now I’m a disenchanted transsexual trying to slow down young people from making the same reckless and permanent changes to their bodies I did. Ironically, to many American churchgoers, this makes me a heretic.

Heresy is a hot topic in Christian circles right now. One in four United Methodist congregations has disaffiliated from the church as a result of its LGBTQQIP2SAA-inclusive teachings. Conservative pastors have accused UMC leadership of heresy and bad theology. Debates over doctrine have become one of my favorite YouTube genres, as I follow the trail of havoc that gender identity activism wreaks upon many churches. My interest is not religious. I’m not a Christian. So why then do I care about this subject at all?

Since 2022, I have been working with legislators in the US to create policies that apply more guardrails and scrutiny to physicians who perform sex change procedures on minors. Such procedures include puberty blockers like Lupron, cross-sex hormone prescriptions, and surgeries such as double-mastectomies for girls as young as 12 and orchiectomies and vaginoplasties for boys as young as 16. I have testified in Indiana, Ohio, and Texas, and my written declaration about my own sex change experience was cited by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

While I expected opposition from trans rights activists and organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD, I was shocked to discover how often clergy members oppose medical regulation laws. I’ve met and had conversations with Episcopal bishops and priests as well as ministers from the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church. Occasionally, the clergy members I spoke to were also parents of children who identified as transgender.

I’ve always been in favor of non-denominational churches that are inclusive of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans congregation members. All religious people need a place to worship and have a community. But welcoming LGBT congregants is not the same as actively backing reckless sex change procedures for minors. I cannot in good conscience stand idly by as large Protestant denominations help steer vulnerable young people down a path that may not be right for them, and from which, if taken far enough, they cannot fully return.

My opponents make two arguments in favor of preserving the status quo. First, that cross-sex medicalization proves more effective if it begins before puberty. In terms of being able to pass as the opposite sex as adults, this may be true, especially for trans women. However, there is scant evidence that such interventions prove beneficial to young people overall, in terms of long-term health, mental health, and life outcomes, as the UK’s recent and comprehensive Cass Review has found. Second, proponents argue that children’s stated identities, and their desires to express those identities, including with medical interventions, must be accepted because they have exclusive access to the inner knowledge of their “true selves.” In this view, challenging or questioning kids’ beliefs, or even just urging a cautious approach, is seen as a form of abuse.

Interestingly, the conception of humanity as born with hidden knowledge trapped in bodies that are imperfect, fleshy prisons goes back to ancient times. This is Gnosticism, the belief that humans are fragments of the divine energy manifested into the material plane — a world full of distractions and illusions preventing us from achieving self-actualization. Early Christians wound elements of Gnosticism into the faith before the Catholic Church stamped it out as heretical. Now, gnostic-style beliefs are making a comeback in the church in the form of youth transition activism. In fact, in many churches, radical trans activism has been mixed into Christian theology and is now embedded within the seminaries that train the incoming clergy.

[ A pastor from the progressive Metropolitan Community Church speaking at a trans activist rally in 2023. Source: WRIC ABC Virginia. ]

Through long and painful experience, and much introspection, there are some things I have come to believe — or disbelieve. I do not believe that we are born with special, secret knowledge of ourselves. Knowledge is what we discover and develop by pursuing our interests. I don’t believe in such a thing as a “true self” lying in repose like a statue waiting for the celestial sculptor to begin chiseling — whether in the form of a soul or the notion of our “authentic selves.” Instead, I believe we are forged through trial; through trying and failing until we succeed — by hurting, healing, and learning through experience, not divine revelation. At the same time, our capacity for change is not infinite. More to the point, while medicine has come a long way, I don’t believe humans can change sex. I’ve tried, and I’m convinced to my own satisfaction that the best that can be achieved is a sort of disguise. I believe that adults must have the right to peacefully live however they please, but that guiding children toward transition is a grave mistake.

Like a prism working in reverse, my rainbow of heresy is merging into a single ray. That which I believe, and that which I deny, are now unified and represented by left-leaning Protestant denominations who are casting aside their own orthodoxies in order to champion causes that would be unrecognizable even a single generation earlier. I see institutions that have fallen out of alignment, doctors guided by spiritual beliefs instead of evidence-based medicine, and failing churches seeking to fill pews by pandering to identities instead of by providing moral guidance. In an earlier incarnation of Christianity, I was a heretic because I did not believe in God. Now, for the churches that have embraced youth transition activism, I am a heretic yet again.

==

Xians already believe in mind-body dualism - that the mind and body are separate, that there's a supernatural biology-independent innate eternal "essence," which they call a "soul," which transcends material existence. So, it makes sense they would easily embrace a supernatural biology-independent innate eternal "essence" which they call a "gender identity."

There's no biological or functional difference between a Xian "soul" and a "gender identity."

[cloudoc2022]

Sample Policies and Procedures for Home Care Agency

Home Care Agency Policies and Procedures is an essential guide for the home health aide who wants to establish a quality home care agency. Our Sample Policies and Procedures for Home Care Agency are intended to ensure that an organisation fulfils its responsibilities and provides quality care to clients. To learn more about our services, visit us now.

[emptymanuscript]

WHY the media is focused on Biden's Debate Performance

There we are, that's why the media is centering so much on the Biden 1st debate performance to the exclusion of so much else:

With calls to replace Biden growing within the Democratic Party, and leading members openly discussing the prospect, the fact that the Heritage Foundation, arguably the GOP’s ideological engine, has already been preparing to thwart any such plans is worrying. According to the memo, the key states of Wisconsin, Nevada, and Georgia are where legal action to keep Biden on the ballot could pay off.

Something smells very off about this timing.

The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project began researching the laws for replacing a president in several battleground states about four months ago, putting together a report in April and releasing it before Thursday’s debate disaster, according to NOTUS.

4 months before the debate. And the head of the Oversight Project is the same guy who started Project 2025. Issuing a memo on the report 6 days before the debate.

From the memo:

Three of the expected six most contested states have some potential for pre-election litigation aimed at exasperating, with legitimate concerns for election integrity, the withdrawal process for a presidential candidate.

[...]

Important caveats include the timeline and triggering events. For example, some states allow withdrawal before the 74th day before an election,[12]and failure to adhere to these timelines can result in the candidate’s name remaining on the ballot[13](which provides its own corollary of post-election litigation).

[...]

There is also the possibility that states will be complicit in an improper withdrawal or substitution.

[...]

Much will come down to when Biden withdraws, what procedures he does or does not follow, and the operating state law timelines and triggering events. However, at least 31 states defer to state or national party rules and committees for nominating in the event of withdrawal.[16] These states circumvent the substitution process highlighted above. There may be some avenues for challenges to these laws on improper delegation grounds, however, these may be marginally beneficial. There is also the issue of applicability. In some of these states there are no statutes that deal with presidential candidate withdrawal or vacancy in nominations, or the laws only operate at the primary election. Even more, there is little caselaw determining when these statutes apply. Some of the extant cases do address applying these withdrawal statutes to different fact patterns than those contemplated by the statutory text, such as withdrawal of independent presidential candidates[17]or congressional candidates.[18] Yet, this confusion may be its own source of litigation.

In other words: get Biden off the ballot, and there is legal precedent in some places to prevent his replacement, and locking Biden on it. Meaning the vote is effectively nullified, it legally won't count even if it is marked correctly. And in many more states the law is unclear meaning it can be pushed out of the election system, where Republican voters are outnumbered by non-Republican voters, and into the court system that has been staffed, bought, and paid for by MAGA supporters such as, for example: Federalist society member U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon (appointed by Trump in), Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (who has accepted at least 4 million in bribes that we know of), and (real estate magnate and Republican megadonor) Harlan Crow (Who has been bribing Justice Thomas for years).

According to Rolling stone:

A senior source involved with Donald Trump’s 2024 effort to win the presidency and another person working with the Heritage-based Project 2025 (the conservative policy agenda project) tell Rolling Stone that the point of these legal attack plans and potential blitz of challenges isn’t necessarily to win.  A key point, the sources say, would be to weigh down the Democratic nominee, the national party, and their legal and political allies in as many unique court battles and sideshows as possible — so that the Democratic Party would have to waste resources and time on those matters when liberals would want to be laser-focused on, say, the battleground states that will likely decide whether Trump returns to power. Team Biden — or Team whoever — is going to be getting hit on all sides between now and Election Day,” the first source says. “Every legal and political weapon is on the table.” Still, the sources add, they do generally feel more confident in their legal theories than in the past, since Trump stacked the judiciary with right-wing jurists. Rolling Stone spoke Wednesday night with Mike Howell, a former Trump Homeland Security Department official who is now executive director at the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, which is spearheading the effort to prevent Democrats from replacing Biden. “President Biden today said he is the nominee, and I think the media has missed the importance of such a statement … If he, in those statements, is legally arguing that he is the nominee, I think that should be read as him circumventing the formal convention process,” he argued. “And Biden’s doing so has tremendous legal implications and statutory impact for states that specifically point to the DNC for who shows up on the ballot as the party’s nominee.”

So, damned either way. Ideally, it sounds like, there will be a failed attempt to replace Biden so it can be tried in the court both ways. And in both the literal courts and the court of public opinion, which is why Trump is having a go at George Clooney.

I swear, at this point, I'm half waiting for the furry hackers that hit Howell to reveal he blackmailed someone on Biden's staff to spike his cold medicine. I know that isn't what happened. It's simply being ready. Still: damned convenient.

[lboogie1906]

Daunte Demetrious Wright (October 27, 2000 - April 11, 2021) tragically lost his life during a traffic stop in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. He was born in Minneapolis to parents Katie Wright and Aubrey Wright. He had two siblings and attended Patrick Henry High School in 2019 before dropping out.

Officer Kimberly Potter attempted to arrest him on an outstanding warrant. A struggle ensued, she discharged her service pistol at close range, striking him in the chest. She claimed to have intended to use her Taser, a statement underscored by her shouts of “Taser! Taser! Taser!” before the fatal shot.

He managed to drive away, only to collide with another vehicle and a concrete barrier. He was pronounced dead at the scene. The incident ignited widespread outrage, starting in Brooklyn Center and rapidly spreading across the state and the nation. Both Potter and Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon resigned.

Potter was convicted of first-degree and second-degree manslaughter, leading to a 16-month jail sentence. His family settled a wrongful death lawsuit with the City of Brooklyn Center for $3.25 million. A passenger in his car, injured in the collision, settled a civil suit with the city for $350,000.

His death catalyzed a movement for change. The Brooklyn Center Police Department revised its policy on arresting individuals for misdemeanor offenses and the city council introduced alternative public safety measures. His death led to changes in Taser procedures and other policing policies, not only in Minnesota but across the country.

The City of Brooklyn Center established a public memorial site. Located at the intersection of 63rd Avenue North and Kathrene Drive. This location is significant as it is where they were pulled over, and the fatal incident occurred. The memorial design includes a small granite plaza, a portrait of him, a plaque, and a planter adorned with symbols significant to him. It references a makeshift fist sculpture that had long stood at the site, symbolizing the enduring impact of his life and the movement his death sparked. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #blm

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Devin Dwyer, Sarah Herndon, and Robert Zepeda at ABC News:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- The transgender Tennessee teenager behind a historic hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court this week doesn't want to show her face on television but is eager to speak about a case she says has the potential to make thousands of American kids feel "seen" for who they are. "The court has definitely ruled in ways that would make me think that they don't exactly value bodily autonomy, but I have heard that they've been a little bit better about trans cases than people would think," said 16-year-old LW in an exclusive interview with ABC News alongside her parents Samantha and Brian Williams. The court on Wednesday will hear the Williams family's challenge to Tennessee's 2023 ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for minors, including puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapies that have dramatically improved LW's quality of life.

While the medications have been used safely to treat minors of all genders for years, they are now prohibited in Tennessee when used to treat trans kids struggling with gender dysphoria, the distress experienced when one's gender assigned at birth is different from one's sense of identity. "It's not very comfortable being trapped in [your body] because it just doesn't feel like you," said LW, who reports significant improvement since beginning the treatments in 2022. Since the state law took effect, LW now has to take time away from school to make a 10-hour round trip out of state to continue receiving care. The travel has also been a costly and time-consuming burden, her parents say.

"It would definitely be horrible for me to have to continue to go out of state to get care," said LW. "I feel normal now." Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Biden administration, and major American medical associations, the Williamses sued Tennessee last year alleging the ban on certain gender-affirming treatments for minors discriminates on the basis of sex and overrides the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children. "Our state legislature had made such a big deal out of parents' rights during COVID, about masks and vaccines that that's for parents to decide these medical decisions for their children," Samantha Williams said. "And then they made this medical decision for our child."

State lawmakers who support the law, SB1, say it is meant to protect kids from potentially irreversible effects from treatment and that contradictory scientific evidence and uncertainty about long-term adverse consequences warrant caution. "We made the policy decision on behalf of our constituents that in Tennessee we think this is a risky procedure," said state Sen. Jack Johnson, the Senate GOP leader who sponsored the bill. "It is our role as policymakers here in the state of Tennessee to set those guardrails."

[...] The outcome of the case U.S. v. Skrmetti could have a sweeping impact on health care for the more than 300,000 American teens who identify as transgender, as well as the broader LGBTQ community. "This is one of the most significant LGBTQ cases to ever reach the Supreme Court. I think this is an inflection point," said Chase Strangio, the ACLU attorney representing the Williams family. He will be the first openly transgender person to argue a case before the nation's highest court. "Is this going to be a Bowers v. Hardwick type moment that sets off years of government legitimized discrimination against LGBTQ people? Or, is this going to be a Bostock moment that clarifies what we all have been assuming all this time, which is that LGBTQ people are protected under the Constitution and civil rights laws," Strangio said. In its 1968 decision in Bowers, the court upheld state laws criminalizing private same-sex conduct; it was overturned in 2003. The Court's 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County found that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is illegal.

ABC News interviewed the trans teen girl and her parents that are at the heart of the United States v. Skrmetti case, which focuses on Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for trans youths (SB1), is set to be heard at oral arguments on Wednesday this week at SCOTUS.

[and-then-there-were-n0ne]

The medical transitioning of children has become one of the most controversial and polarising issues of our time. For some, it is a medical scandal. For others, life-saving treatment.

So, when hundreds of messages were leaked from an internal forum of doctors and mental health workers from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, it was bound to spark interest. WPATH describes itself as an “interdisciplinary professional and educational organisation devoted to transgender health”. Most significantly, it produces standards of care (SOC) which, it claims, articulate “professional consensus” about how best to help people with gender dysphoria.

Despite its grand title, WPATH is neither solely a professional body – a significant proportion of its membership are activists – nor does it represent the “world” view on how to care for this group of people. There is no global agreement on best practice. The leaked messages (and the odd recording) – dubbed the WPATH files – are disturbing. In one video, doctors acknowledge that patients are sometimes too young to fully understand the consequences of puberty blockers and hormones for their fertility. “It’s always a good theory that you talk about fertility preservation with a 14-year-old, but I know I’m talking to a blank wall,” one Canadian endocrinologist says.

WPATH’s president, Dr Marci Bowers, comments on the impact of early blocking of puberty on sexual function in adulthood. “To date,” she writes, “I’m unaware of an individual claiming ability to orgasm when they were blocked at Tanner 2.” Tanner stage 2 is the beginning of puberty. It can be as young as nine in girls.

Elsewhere, there are extraordinary discussions on how to manage “trans clients” with dissociative identity disorder (what used to be called multiple personality disorder) when “not all the alters have the same gender identity”. Surgeons talk about procedures that result in bodies that don’t exist in nature: those with both sets of genitals – the “phallus-preserving vaginoplasty”; double mastectomies that don’t have nipples; “nullification” surgery, where there are no genitals at all, just smooth skin. And doctors discuss the possibility that 16-year-old patients have liver cancer as the result of taking hormones. The problem is not necessarily the discussions themselves, but that the organisation is not so open when speaking publicly.

The views of WPATH matter to the UK. For years, the organisation and its SOC have been cited as a source of “best practice” for trans healthcare by numerous medical bodies, including the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council – and still is. The Royal College of Psychiatrists refers to WPATH in its own recommendations for care.

Most relevant is that WPATH is cited as “good practice” in the current service specifications underpinning youth and adult gender clinics in England and Scotland, albeit in both cases it is WPATH’s previous SOC that is mentioned. The most recent version does away with all age limits from the beginning of puberty for hormones and surgical interventions, other than female to male genital surgery, and contains a chapter on eunuchs.

Several staff at England’s NHS adult gender clinics are not just members of WPATH (one is the former president), but authors of that current SOC. So too was Susie Green, the former boss of the young people’s charity Mermaids; a lack of medical expertise does not exclude either membership of WPATH or the power to influence policy.

England’s only NHS children’s gender clinic – the Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) at London’s Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust – will close its doors at the end of March, having been earmarked for closure since July 2022. But the 2016 service specification still underpinning Gids states that “the service will be delivered in line with” WPATH 7. While Gids was generally more cautious than other WPATH practitioners, clinicians I spoke to for my book, Time to Think, also relayed how young people claiming to have multiple personalities, or who identified with another race, could be referred for puberty blockers.

Gids staff have also presented at WPATH conferences for the past decade, including the most recent, held in 2022. This doesn’t imply agreement with WPATH’s principles, but association with the group becomes harder to justify as its views become more extreme.

It is difficult to see how the Department of Health’s assertion that NHS England “moved away from WPATH guidelines more than five years ago” holds.

What is true is that there is no mention of WPATH in updated guidance that will underpin the new youth gender services opening on 1 April. What’s more, NHS England has made it clear that WPATH’s views are irrelevant to its core recommendation that puberty blockers will no longer be available as part of routine clinical practice.

There is a battle raging over how best to care for children and young people struggling with their gender identity, with ever increasing numbers of European countries choosing to take a more cautious, less medical, approach after finding the evidence base underpinning those treatments to be wanting. NHS England insists that new services will operate in accordance with recommendations of the independent Cass review, and that it is well placed to develop policies “in line with clinical evidence and expertise”. But it won’t be easy. There is already discussion among professionals working in gender services planning a pushback against Cass’s as yet unpublished final recommendations.

It was difficult for Gids to stand up to external pressures, allowing the care it offered to suffer. At the same time, NHS England failed in its duty to provide proper oversight. Both they and those in charge of the new services must do better if they are to avoid the mistakes of the past. Without proper, evidence-based guidance on what good practice looks like, organisations like WPATH will continue to have influence.

[mariacallous]

What the latest failed Sarmat test means for Russia’s missile development and nuclear brinkmanship

Available evidence indicates that a Russian intercontinental ballistic missile exploded and destroyed its launch silo during a test last week. Open-source-intelligence researchers and professional weapons experts say satellite images show the results of a powerful blast at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, likely caused by the failed test of an RS-28 Sarmat rocket. NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management System has also provided data that confirm a fire on the Sarmat launch pad. For a better grasp of the accident’s probable causes and consequences, Meduza spoke to Maxim Starchak, an expert on Russian nuclear policy and strategic weapons and a fellow at Queen’s University’s Center for International and Defense Policy.

What could have caused the missile explosion?

Sarmat missiles rely on heptyl-based liquid fuel that is “toxic, explosive, and fire-hazardous.” Starchak listed five possible explanations for last week’s launch failure:

The explosion could have occurred during fuel loading if some procedures were overlooked.  

The explosion could also have happened during fuel unloading after technicians detected a problem and aborted the launch.

Design flaws could have caused a leak during the rocket’s launch preparation, leading to contact between the fuel and flammable vapors.  

The first-stage engine could have exploded immediately after ignition or launch.  

Commands to start the engine might have failed, causing the rocket to fall back to Earth, exploding and destroying the silo.

Following Russia’s only successful Sarmat launch in April 2022, Roscosmos's testing capabilities should have made another four to five test launches possible since then. If any of these had worked out, the world would have heard from the Russian Defense Ministry or the international experts who monitor missile launches.

Starchak told Meduza that the missile’s apparent technical shortcomings are less serious than the destruction of the launch silo. Restoration work (or the construction of an entirely new silo) will take months or even years, “significantly delaying the Sarmat’s testing program,” which will leave Russia without a “technically ready” heavy missile for a long time. The Sarmat’s predecessor, the “Voyevoda” strategic missile system developed in coordination with Ukrainian designers, hasn’t flown for more than a decade. 

The Sarmat isn’t the game-changing weapon the Kremlin says it is

In theory, Sarmat missiles can carry up to 16 independently targetable nuclear warheads, as well as “Avangard” hypersonic glide warheads. They are silo-based missiles intended to be deployed in two Strategic Missile Forces divisions based in towns in the Orenburg and Krasnoyarsk regions. The Russian military ordered the start of serial production in 2022 and made the missiles formally operational a year later, but no Strategic Missile Forces regiment is yet armed with the new weapons.

Starchak said the Sarmat is fundamentally overkill — “like shooting sparrows with a cannon” — and would still fulfill its nuclear deterrence tasks even with weaker specifications. He attributed the Sarmat’s hurried development and adoption to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, which ended the cooperation with the Ukrainian design bureau that worked on Voyevoda missiles. “Obviously, no one wanted to take responsibility for the Voyevoda, and the development of the Sarmat also meant additional funding,” Starchak explained.

Concerning nuclear deterrence, Sarmat missiles change nothing, he added. According to Russia’s space agency, Moscow plans to produce 46 of these rockets (plus a few extras for testing) — exactly the number needed to replace its Voyevoda arsenal. 

The escalation to nuclear war

More than a year ago, Starchak told Meduza that Vladimir Putin’s escalatory rhetoric on nuclear weapons was more a bluff than an imminent threat. Asked about the Kremlin’s more recent bluster and Russia’s Sarmat tests, Starchak said his assessment is unchanged. “Nuclear weapons are not used in a vacuum; they are an escalatory measure in response to something,” he told Meduza. “Escalation is a two-sided process. The fact that the Kremlin and its supporters bring up nuclear weapons doesn’t actually change anything.”

According to Starchak, Russian nuclear escalation would trigger U.S. responses. Instead, when Moscow conducts exercises of its strategic and non-strategic nuclear forces, patrols the borders of Western countries with bombers and submarines, moves nuclear weapons to Belarus, and suspends its participation in the New START treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Washington says that Russia isn’t doing anything out of the ordinary — “nothing it hasn’t done before” — and doesn’t adjust its nuclear policy. “Since the U.S. isn’t responding to the escalation,” Starchak told Meduza, “the escalation isn’t happening, and nuclear weapons are not being introduced into the conflict, no matter how much Russia might want it.”

At the same time, said Starchak, Russia’s provocative actions are, in fact, cautiously crafted to avoid unpredictable escalation: “It does not load nuclear missiles onto strategic bombers for patrol missions, does not return tactical nuclear weapons to naval carriers, and has not resumed nuclear testing.” 

On the subject of escalation risks in possible changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, Starchak warned that controversial military actions that don’t rely on nukes are already being debated in the West (authorization for Ukraine’s long-range strikes inside Russia) and Moscow (targeting Ukraine’s supply locations on NATO territory).

[beardedmrbean]

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has been called on to make specific proposals on migration ahead of a meeting next week between the federal government and the premiers of Germany's 16 states.

"This is the last opportunity for the chancellor to show that he really will make proposals for effective control and order with respect to the migration issue," the premier of the industrial heartland state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Hendrik Wüst, told journalists on Thursday.

The conservative politician was speaking just days after anti-migration parties made strong gains in Sunday's European elections, including the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany. The three parties in Scholz's centre-left coalition performed poorly, managing together less than a third of the vote.

"We have to put a stop to irregular migration," Wüst said in the state capital Dusseldorf, calling for plans for asylum procedures outside the European Union to be speeded up.

Wüst said he expected expert reports resulting from an exchange between the federal and state governments to be presented at the June 20 ministers' conference. "We really need a line from the federal government on this issue," he said.

While the federal government sets asylum policy, the states and local authorities provide the accommodation and services.

A recent fatal knife attack by an Afghan migrant on a German police officer has caused public outrage and debate within Scholz's three-party coalition over whether Afghanistan should be declared safe for deporting rejected asylum seekers to.

Migration is set to be a key issue in parliamentary elections to be held by the autumn of next year, with Scholz's Social Democratic Party (SPD) lagging badly in the polls behind the opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

North Rhine-Westphalia is Germany's most populous state, and Wüst is seen as a potential CDU candidate for chancellor.