Seven States Say ‘Screw You’ to Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Edict

President Obama may have finally pushed the states too far. Last week, the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice announced to all fifty states that any school which received federal funds must comply with the Obama Administration’s interpretation of civil rights statutes.

Though legal experts do not maintain a firm consensus, Obama’s DOJ has interpreted federal civil rights statutes designed to integrate schools to include protecting the supposed right of men to use women’s bathrooms and vice-versa.

Obama’s edict warned that any school which receives federal funding of any kind and who does not allow the delusional and the perverse to utilize whichever bathroom they prefer may lose their federal funding.

Shortly after Obama’s DOJ issued the outrageous federal decree, Texas announced that Obama can “keep [his] thirty pieces of silver” and vowed to fight the federal overreach.

Since then, six other states have joined the coalition to fight Obama’s perverse agenda. Authorities in North Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky and Missouri have all pledged to resist Obama’s tyranny.

Discussing Oklahoma’s entry into this legal fight, The Weekly Standard summarized the legal defense being mounted by states regarding the bathroom edict:

Late Friday afternoon Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt wrote a letter to the Justice and Education officials advising that “if you attempt to enforce this . . . letter on schools in the State of Oklahoma, we will vigorously defend the State’s interests.” Pruitt’s letter sets forth the grounds of defense: That without warrant the administration has redefined “sex” to mean “gender identity”; that it has forced this definition on parents, students, and communities because it has “deemed unjustifiable any discomfort that [transgender students] may express,” thus elevating “the status of transgender students over those who would define their sex based on biology and who would seek to have their definition honored in the most private of places”; and that it compels schools to enforce the new definition of sex “by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance” with the letter—”an ultimatum: take it or lose it,” which is not a “real choice” for many schools.

In reality, however, the issue is much simple: boys and girls have different parts and keeping them separate so as to ensure privacy is not “discrimination,” it’s commonsense.

Further, perhaps the bigger issue has nothing to do with bathrooms at all. Though an unhealthy precedent has long been established, if we continue this precedent that states are obliged to follow the mandates handed-down from Washington, we will see the realization of everything our Founding Fathers worked to free us from.

If states and counties are not free to declare that women should use female facilities and men should use male facilities, what decisions, exactly, are left for the states?

Have we really fallen so far from the premise of states’ rights that we need the federal government’s involvement in declaring who may use what bathroom?

About the Author

Greg Campbell
Greg Campbell
An unapologetic patriot and conservative, Greg emerged within the blossoming Tea Party Movement as a political analyst dedicated to educating and advocating for the preservation of our constitutional principles and a free-market solution to problems birthed by economic liberalism. From authoring scathing commentaries to conducting interviews with some of the biggest names in politics today including party leaders, activists and conservative media personalities, Greg has worked to counter the left’s media narratives with truthful discussions of the biggest issues affecting Americans today. Greg’s primary area of focus is Second Amendment issues and the advancement of honest discussion concerning the constitutional right that protects all others. He lives in the Northwest with his wife, Heather, and enjoys writing, marksmanship and the outdoors.

Send this to a friend