‘Transgenders’ Sue Tennessee in Effort to Have Birth Certificate Changed to Reflect ‘Gender Identity’

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Four “transgendered” people have filed suit against the State of Tennessee in an effort to obtain a court order that would allow them to have their birth certificate changed to reflect their “gender identity.”

“For transgender people, the sex designation on their original birth certificate is inaccurate because they were assigned the incorrect sex at birth. Correcting the sex designation on their birth certificate is thus critically important for transgender people,” the lawsuit, filed by Lambda Legal on Thursday, reads.

“Possessing accurate identification documents that are consistent with a person’s gender identity — a person’s core internal sense of their own gender — is essential to their basic social and economic well-being.”

The complaint states that the four plaintiffs — three being men who identify as women and one being a woman who identifies as a man — have not been able to apply for amended birth certificates due to a prohibition in the Vital Records Act, which states, “[t]he sex of an individual shall not be changed on the original certificate of birth as a result of sex change surgery.”

They argue that since the State allows a person’s birth certificate to be changed following a legal adoption to reflect their new name, or when there is an error regarding a person’s sex, the allowance should also be made in regard to gender identity.

The suit additionally notes that Tennessee allows residents who identify as transgender to change their driver’s license and state identification card, but not their birth certificate.

“The State of Tennessee’s refusal to respect a transgender person’s identity on the quintessential identity document — birth certificates — serves as a scarlet letter, a reminder that the State of Tennessee considers transgender persons to be second-class citizens, unworthy of recognition, equal dignity and respect,” the complaint states.

It alleges discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and an infringement of the “fundamental right to autonomy,” as well as the usurpation of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

“The birth certificate policy violates the First Amendment rights of transgender people, including Plaintiffs, to refrain from speaking by forcing them to identify with a sex that was incorrectly assigned to them at birth and conflicts with who they are,” the suit contends.

“The birth certificate policy further violates the First Amendment rights of transgender people … to refrain from speaking, compelling them instead to endorse the government’s position as to their own gender, as well as on the meaning of sex generally, through the birth certificate they must show to others,” it states.

“The gender marker listed on Plaintiffs’ birth certificates conveys the state’s message that sex is determined solely by the appearance of external genitals at the time of birth and never deviates from that — a message that is inconsistent with the medical and scientific understanding of sex and to which each Plaintiff strongly objects.”

The four are seeking a permanent injunction and an order that the State allow the plaintiffs to apply for an amended birth certificate. Out of the four born in Tennessee, only one is currently a resident of the state.

Read the lawsuit, Gore v. Lee, in full here.

As previously reported, while some view transgenderism as a medical condition, Christians view the matter as a spiritual issue — one that stems from the same predicament all men face without Christ.

The Bible teaches that all are born with the Adamic sin nature, having various inherent inclinations that are contrary to the law of God, and being utterly incapable of changing themselves.

Jesus outlined in John 3:5-7 that men must be regenerated by the second birth, and be transformed from being in Adam to being a new creation in Christ, or they cannot see the kingdom of Heaven.

“Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus saith unto him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, ‘Ye must be born again.’”

The apostle Paul wrote in Romans 7 in describing the struggle with sin, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing, for to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would, I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do. … For I delight in the law of God after the inward man, but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin that is in my members.”

“O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” he asked. “I thank God [it is] through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

<!-- --> Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. With much compromise and many falsehoods in modern-day Christianity, we strive to bring you the news by keeping Christ and His word in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth of God's word widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Christiannews.net

by Editor

New York Mother Pleads Guilty to Leaving Newborn Son, Rescued by Police, in Motel Toilet

GOSHEN, N.Y. — A New York mother has plead guilty to leaving her newborn son in a motel toilet this past November. The infant was rescued by police after hotel staff called 911 and has now recovered completely.

Teresa Smith, 23, appeared in court on Thursday, where she admitted as part of a plea deal that she purposefully abandoned her child in the toilet with no intention of returning for him.

“Yes, your honor,” she replied when asked by Judge Craig Brown whether she left her baby in the toilet water after giving birth on Nov. 1, according to the Times Herald-Record.

“It’s fair to say the child was at risk of dying?” Brown inquired.

“Yes,” Smith said.

“And did you do anything to minimize the risk of that child dying?” Brown pressed.

“No,” the mother replied.

The Poughkeepsie Journal and the Herald-Record report that Smith gave birth at a Budget Inn Motel, cleaned herself up, and then went out to look for drugs.

Motel workers who soon entered the room found blood and soiled clothing, and called the police.

“Officers from the Town of Newburgh Police Department discovered the baby in the toilet bowl, and immediately rendered first aid. The baby was rushed to the hospital and survived,” Orange County District Attorney David Hoovler outlined in a press release.

Hoovler’s office had argued in court that Smith abandoned her son with no intention of returning or caring for the newborn. She was indicted by a grand jury on charges of attempted second-degree murder, first-degree assault and child abandonment.

On Thursday, Smith plead guilty to the assault charge under a plea deal. In return, Hoovler’s office will recommend that she be sentenced to 15 years in prison with five years post-release supervision. Her sentencing is scheduled for June 18.

“Infants are the most innocent of victims,” Hoovler said in a statement. “We can only hope that there are no long-lasting physical effects which will be suffered by the victim in this case. It is hard to comprehend what could drive any mother to intend to harm her own baby by abandoning him under these circumstances.”

“I am grateful to the Town of Newburgh Police Department for their actions is saving the child’s life,” he added. “My office will continue to work with all our law enforcement partners in protecting children and will continue to seek severe punishment for all who commit violent crimes against defenseless infants and children.”

New York has a safe haven law that allows for mothers to surrender their newborns — up to 30 days old — at a local hospital, police station or fire station without criminal penalty. The child will then be placed into foster care and made available for adoption.

“In New York State, there are many prospective adoptive families searching for a child to become a part of their family,” the state Office of Children and Family Services writes on a page about the Abandoned Infant Protection Act. “If you are considering the option not to parent your child, adoption will provide your child with a safe and loving home.”

Under New York’s previous self-abortion statute, 125.55, it used to be illegal for mothers to perform or commit a self-abortion on a child 24 weeks gestation (six months) and up. However, the recently-signed Reproductive Health Act repealed the statute and crossed out language under criminal homicide law stating that “[h]omicide means … abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first degree.”

It also left a definition intact that says that a “[p]erson, when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.”

See Christian News Network’s report “NY’s New Abortion Law Allows Man Who Killed Pregnant Girlfriend to Get Away With Death of Unborn Child.”

[embedded content]

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

<!-- --> Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. With much compromise and many falsehoods in modern-day Christianity, we strive to bring you the news by keeping Christ and His word in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth of God's word widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Source

by Glenn Morgan

Kansas Supreme Court Rules Rights to ‘Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness’ Include ‘Right’ to Abortion

TOPEKA, Kan. — The Supreme Court of Kansas has ruled that the rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the state Constitution’s Bill of Rights encompass a woman’s “right” to an abortion.

“We conclude that, through the language in section 1, the state’s founders acknowledged that the people had rights that pre-existed the formation of the Kansas government. There they listed several of these natural, inalienable rights …,” the court wrote in its opinion, released on Friday. “Included in that limited category is the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination.”

“This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy. Although not absolute, this right is fundamental,” it asserted. “Accordingly, the State is prohibited from restricting this right unless it is doing so to further a compelling government interest and in a way that is narrowly tailored to that interest.”

As previously reported, in 2015, then-Gov. Sam Brownback signed Senate Bill 95 into law, banning what is termed as “dismemberment abortions.” The bill passed the Senate 31-9 and moved to the House where it likewise was approved 98-26.

The law prohibits “knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.”

The prohibition was challenged by abortionist Herbert Hodes and his daughter, Traci Nauser, who argued that it placed a burden on their “right” to perform second trimester abortions.

In court, the state defended the ban, in part, by presenting other options for ending the lives of the unborn.

“The state has offered three alternatives to the standard D & E procedure: labor-induced abortion, inducing fetal demise with digoxin injections, and inducing fetal demise by cutting the umbilical cord (also known as transection),” an appeals court ruling outlines.

In June 2015, Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks placed an injunction on the enforcement of the law while the constitutionality of the legislation is decided in full in court.

“The alternatives do not appear to be medically necessary or reasonable,” he said. “[P]atients’ fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy will be unduly burdened if SB 95 goes into effect.”

The state then filed an appeal, and in January 2016, the Kansas Court of Appeals announced that it was was evenly split over the matter.

The half that favored the injunction pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex “marriage,” stating that the courts seem to find “rights” in the law that aren’t expressly written in the Constitution. It used the example and others to conclude that Kansas must include the “right” to abortion.

But the other seven justices that favored the law said that they weren’t convinced that abortion has ever been considered a right, nor should it be.

“Simply put, there is nothing within the text or history of §§ 1 and 2 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights to lead this court to conclude that these provisions were intended to guarantee a right to abortion,” they wrote. “Our state’s founders held sacred the basic concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they expressed those sentiments in that order in § 1 of our Bill of Rights.”

“Even if Kansas courts were to find substantive due process rights under § 1, as opposed to a mere expression of traditional beliefs, we would not find a substantive due process right to abortion,” they continued. “The subject of abortion places the pregnant woman’s liberty interest directly at odds with the unborn child’s right to life.”

In April 2016, the Kansas Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of the case. It took three years to issue a ruling, and now has concluded that inherent in the constitutional rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the “natural right to make decisions about parenting and procreation.”

It pointed to other cases nationwide that have upheld the right to control one’s own body, and also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has found that “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” are “long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

The court then concluded that Section 1 of the Kansas Bill of Rights “protects an inalienable natural right of personal autonomy, which today we hold to be fundamental. Presuming that any state action alleged to infringe that right is constitutional dilutes the protections established by our Constitution.”

“[A] woman has a federal constitutional right to access an abortion, including whenever it is necessary to protect her health,” it also said. “A regulation that prevents her from accessing the safest method of abortion for her places an undue burden on that right. These holdings have particular significance in this case, where the trial court found that S.B. 95 has removed access to the method for performing a second-trimester abortion that is the safest in most cases.”

One justice, Caleb Stegall, issued a sharp and lengthy dissent, calling the conclusion of his peers “far reaching.”

“Perhaps it is apropos — though macabre — that while reviewing a prohibition against human dismemberment we have fashioned a 20th century jurisprudence of fundamental rights and tiered scrutiny into a procrustean bed upon which we now force the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights to lie,” he wrote.

“[T]he majority abandons the original public meaning of section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights and paints the interest in unborn life championed by millions of Kansans as rooted in an ugly prejudice,” Stegall said.

He stated that by the way his fellow justices framed their decision, it would seem that “all the luminaries of the western legal tradition — from Sir Edward Coke and William Blackstone to Edmund Burke and Thomas Jefferson — would celebrate and enshrine a right to nearly unfettered abortion access. In this imagined world, the Liberty Bell rings every time a baby in utero loses her arm.”

Stegall also found it ironic that while the court found a “fundamental right” to abortion, Kansas simultaneously “criminalizes homicides of the unborn; refuses to execute pregnant convicts; permits wrongful death actions for the unborn; gives no effect to a living will when the patient is pregnant; and provides for the representation of the unborn in trust and probate proceedings.”

“Abortion has become the judicially preferred policy tail wagging the structure of government dog,” he lamented. “For the majority, the settled and carefully calibrated republican structure of our government must give way, at every turn, to the favored policy. But in my considered judgment, constitutional structure is the very thing securing and guaranteeing the full range of human liberty.”

“History and reason suggest that those who, in the name of liberty, tear down that edifice will wind up out in the political elements, unsheltered and exposed to the cold wind of every arbitrary power.”

Read the ruling and dissent in full here.

2 Chronicles 19:6 reads, “And [he] said to the judges, ‘Take heed what ye do, for ye judge not for man but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment.'”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

<!-- --> Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. With much compromise and many falsehoods in modern-day Christianity, we strive to bring you the news by keeping Christ and His word in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth of God's word widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Source

by Glenn Morgan