TransBathroom 300x199 Feds Say “Give Up Privacy, Or Give Up Funding!”In the locker room at my gym I frequent, there is a woman, who is a transgendered male, who uses the men’s locker room. I don’t think that “he” faces much danger in our locker room, and in our man-chats in the locker room, no one has ever mentioned “his” presence to me. But then, neither have I mentioned anything about it either. But dangerous situations may be the case far more often with men who are transgendered females who seek to use women’s facilities. In fact, women are increasingly bringing weapons to bathrooms in public facilities for their protection. The Department of Education (“DOE”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are now reinterpreting old laws to push new transgender laws. These new federal government regulations mean that a boy who identifies as female must be offered a college dorm room with female roommates. A biologically male athlete must be allowed to compete on a women’s sports team if he identifies as female. A first-grade boy who “thinks” or says that he is a girl can use the girls’ bathroom. A high school boy who say that he is a transgendered girl may use the girls’ locker rooms and showers. It has been fascinating to watch the breathtaking speed at which transgenderism in public facilities has become such a prominent issue in the waning months of the Obama Administration. I suppose that now that homosexual “marriage” was approved by the Supreme Court, it was time to move onto more foolishness.

In recent weeks, attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom (“ADF”), representing students and parents in both Illinois and North Carolina public schools and universities, filed suit against the United States DOE and DOJ for making federal student aid and educational funding dependent on students sharing restrooms and locker rooms with the opposite sex. In the case in North Carolina, the DOJ disregarded student privacy and safety when it issued letters threatening the suspension of federal funding for North Carolina’s schools and university system, as well as federal financial aid for North Carolina’s university students, unless the state government repudiated the law known as House Bill 2. That law ensures that government facilities and public schools protect personal privacy by maintaining sex-specific restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Giving North Carolina only three days to repeal the law, the DOJ and DOE then filed suit against the state to force them to acquiesce. How much is at stake in North Carolina alone? The federal government’s actions jeopardize approximately $1.4 billion dollars in federal funding for North Carolina’s universities, approximately $800 million dollars in federal financial aid to North Carolina’s students, and all federal funding provided to all elementary, middle, and high schools throughout the state. And what is the authority for the federal government to stop educational funding? Actually, there is none, because this is simply a new interpretation of “sex” in Title IX, a 1972 federal law that specifically states that a school receiving federal funds can “provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex” without putting that funding at risk. The lawsuit by ADF attorneys contends that the DOJ and the DOE are unlawfully redefining the terms of Title IX, which is something that only Congress can alter, and only if signed by the President. (In fact, the North Carolina congressional delegation has rejected the federal government’s reinterpretation of Title IX.) Moreover, the ADF lawsuit maintains that the DOJ and DOE illegitimately force their political will on all public bodies across the nation. No federal law requires schools to allow boys into girls’ restrooms or girls into boys’ restrooms, and five courts have previously rejected the government’s re-interpretation of Title IX. The ADF lawsuit in North Carolina is North Carolinians for Privacy v. United States Department of Justice, and asks the U.S. District Court to declare that the DOJ and DOE exceeded their authority by redefining “sex” in Title IX, and for a finding that federal law does not forbid sex-specific restrooms and locker rooms. Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation attorney Deborah Dewart, one of more than 3,000 private attorneys allied with ADF, is serving as local counsel in the North Carolina case. In the Illinois lawsuit, the local counsel representing 51 families is Jocelyn Floyd, an attorney with the non-profit religious liberty law firm, the Thomas More Society. In the Illinois lawsuit, Ms. Floyd has sued on behalf of 51 families in the northwest Chicago suburb of Palatine. In Illinois, the school district secretly opened its schools’ restrooms to the opposite sex, and then opened the girls’ locker room to a boy. You may read the Illinois lawsuit here.

Please pray for the efforts of these courageous, outstanding attorneys, and for the parents and students involved in these lawsuits. The lawsuits do not seek to restrict any “civil” right of transgendered persons, but merely defend the right of girls and boys to have restrooms and locker rooms just for them, and not be forced to have biologically-opposite males and females in those private areas with them. Please pray that God will bless their work and efforts, and that the right of people to practice Biblical modesty be upheld.