mradermacher/gpt2-hertiage-foundation-GGUF
0.1B
•
Updated
•
121
Dataset Viewer
text
stringlengths 0
840
|
|---|
The weaponization of the U.S. Department of Justice against purported enemies of the Biden-Harris administration is nothing new. |
The Department’s persecution of pro-life advocates, praying grandmothers, and fathers of young children under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (while routinely ignoring arson and vandalism at crisis pregnancy centers chargeable under the same law) is hard to deny. |
But the Department’s meritless criminal prosecution of Dr. Eithan Haim, a whistleblowing physician who exposed covert gender medicine procedures inflicted on minors at Texas Children’s Hospital—performed in violation of state law—is an outrageous abuse of its law enforcement authority. |
The principal wrongdoer in Dr. Haim’s case—leading the charge in his criminal prosecution for alleged violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”)—is Assistant United States Attorney Tina Ansari, a Democratic donor who targeted Haim in part during a time when her law license had been suspended by the Texas Bar for failure to pay her bar dues. |
As legal scholar Ed Whelan has correctly pointed out, the only reason Haim was targeted was because “he ran afoul of the transgender ideology that dominates” the current presidential administration. |
But now, in pleadings filed by Dr. Haim’s lawyers and in separate complaints filed by a former DOJ lawyer with both the State Bar of Texas and the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, Ansari is accused of having “knowingly sponsored false information” to the federal grand jury that indicted Haim and of having “knowingly misled a tribunal and presented deliberately misleading information to a grand jury.” |
In other words, she wasn’t just practicing law on a suspended license. |
She is charged with lying to the grand jury to get Haim indicted—itself a violation of federal law. |
As journalist Christopher Rufo reported, Dr. Haim knew the hospital “secretly continued to perform transgender medical interventions, including the use of implantable puberty blockers, on minor children” after it assured the public it was no longer engaging in such medically dangerous and risky actions. |
Haim did not disclose the name of any patients, or any personally identifiable medical information protected by federal law under HIPAA (42 U.S.C. §§1320d-6). |
The Justice Department didn’t care. |
It charged Haim with criminally violating HIPAA anyway, arguing that he had disclosed “individually identifiable health information,” something explicitly prohibited by HIPAA. |
The punishment for such a conviction? |
Up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. |
The original grand jury indictment claimed he had obtained HIPAA-protected patient medical information through “false pretenses.” |
Haim had, allegedly, accessed the medical records after he completed his surgical rotation at Texas Children’s Hospital in January 2021 and had no more patients there. |
But, according to the ethics complaints and a motion for grand jury material filed by Haim’s lawyers, Haim did still have patients at the hospital, and Ansari and other government prosecutors knew it. |
That would have made his access of patient records entirely legal under HIPAA. |
The hospital provided records to the government showing that Haim continued to treat patients at the hospital after his residency was over, during the time when the grand jury indictment claims he wasn’t treating any patients and had no legal right to access patient records. |
All of this is also apparent in a “Superseding Indictment” Ansari filed on Oct. 10 that, as the defense points out, deletes all references to Haim accessing patient records when he was supposedly no longer treating patients at the hospital. |
Yet the new indictment still claims he obtained those records under “false pretenses.” |
As a result, Haim’s lawyers asked the court to provide them with access to all of the materials the grand jury considered when it issued the original indictment. |
Why? |
Because the documents would likely show that the hospital told Ansari that Haim was continuing to treat patients at the hospital when she was making presentations to the grand jury claiming the opposite. |
Grand jury materials are secret under applicable federal rules of criminal procedure. |
But the grand jury materials should be released in this case, says Haim’s lawyers, under the exceptions provided in the rules, to determine if the government “knowingly” sponsored “false information before the grand jury” and if that false information was “capable” of “influencing the grand jury’s decision.” |
The lawyers are right when they tell the court that if “the government has made material misleading statements to the grand jury, the defense should be permitted to review the relevant grand jury material.” |
Haim has also filed a “Show Cause” motion asking the court to issue an order against Ansari for “engaging in the practice of law with a suspended law license.” |
The motion says she was administratively suspended on Sept. 1 for not paying her bar dues. |
She responded that she remedied this problem as of Sept. 19. |
But as Haim’s attorneys point out, Ansari was signing and filing pleadings in the case during her suspension, which violates the Texas Code of Professional Conduct, the court’s own rules, and the internal rules of the Justice Department that direct DOJ lawyers to immediately cease their representation of the government during such a lapse. |
Not surprisingly, Ansari is a big donor to Democrat candidates, having contributed a total of $11,350, which is quite a bit of money for a career civil service employee. |
Mind you, there is nothing illegal about those donations, but as the complaint filed against her with the Office of Professional Responsibility at DOJ states, it raises serious questions on whether “her specific ideological or political view as it related to the highly controversial issues in this prosecution” biased her judgment and prompted her to mislead a federal grand jury. |
The pursuit of Dr. Haim is simply outrageous. |
As one of Haim’s principal lawyers, Marcella Burke, told us, “DOJ has charged Dr. Haim with a non-existent crime. |
At a charitable minimum, this is a reckless prosecution and at its extreme, it is malicious prosecution.” |
The fact that the indictment hasn’t been dropped indicates what’s really going on here. |
Because Haim didn’t release any personal medical information about any patient, something HIPAA prevents, the new indictment now charges him with allegedly acting to “cause malicious harm” to the hospital and its physicians. |
And what is the “malicious harm” Haim caused? |
Apparently, the Justice Department believes that he inflicted “malicious harm” by letting the public know that a children’s hospital was lying when it claimed it was no longer inflicting transgender medical abuse on its minor patients and that the hospital was violating Texas law. |
That is a prosecution based on politics and ideology, not the law and the interests of justice or, for that matter, of the public at large. |
While the prosecution continues against Dr. Haim, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an investigation into Texas Children’s Hospital for performing gender “affirming” medicine in violation of state law. |
The Lonestar State has outlawed hormone replacement therapy for minors and other forms of “gender-affirming care,” if that type of mistreatment can be called “care.” |
AG Paxton has warned that “doctors who continue to provide these harmful ‘gender transition’ drugs and treatments will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” |
If his claim is true, Dr. Haim should be praised for exposing wrongdoing at Texas Children’s Hospital. |
Instead, he faces a federal criminal indictment. |
Sadly, the U.S. Justice Department’s view of law enforcement now appears to be driven by politics, not justice. |
The Supreme Court has said that parents’ right to direct the upbringing of their children is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests” it has ever recognized. |
But that right is under attack in Wisconsin public school districts that have established policies catering to children’s feelings about being a boy, a girl or something else, but deliberately keep parents in the dark about what they are doing. |
The Madison Metropolitan School District’s gender policy defines “gender identity” as an internal “sense of being male, female, a blend of both or neither—how individuals perceive themselves.” |
Children, of course, get ideas from all sorts of places, including social media, and the number who question whether they are “born in the wrong body” is exploding. |
Schools are generally in charge of matters such as curriculum or school administration. |
Whether a child imagines himself as a girl (which may change tomorrow as well) is an altogether different matter. |
As a federal judge recently put it: “Teaching a child how to determine one’s gender identity” strikes “at the heart of parental decision making in a matter of greatest importance in their relationship with their children.” |
More Wisconsin public schools not only take a student’s latest indication of gender identity at face value but have also created school policies catering to it. |
The Milwaukee Public Schools policy puts a student, regardless of age, in charge of who knows anything about his current gender identity, including parents. |
In fact, unless official school records have been formally changed, the policy prohibits school personnel from even implying anything about “a student’s actual or perceived gender identity … when contacting parents/guardians.” |
Milwaukee’s policy also says that students are allowed to dress, access restrooms and locker rooms and participate in physical education classes, clubs, sports and activities “in a manner consistent with their gender identity.” |
The Eau Claire Area School District policy is similar, permitting students to “participate in any intramural sports/extracurricular activity in a manner consistent with their gender identity.” |
Access to restrooms and locker rooms, the policy states, “should be allowed based on the gender identity (i.e., man, woman, trans, non-binary, etc.) expressed by the student.” |
A group of parents has challenged that policy in court, and their case is pending on a petition for review at the U.S. Supreme Court. |
These gender policies create jarring inconsistencies with how school districts handle far less significant matters. |
Milwaukee’s public schools, for example, require that a “separate parental permission slip must be obtained for each field trip.” |
At the same time, its gender policies allow students to “participate in an overnight field trip and utilize facilities and accommodations that correspond with their gender identity.” |
Since students can keep their parents from knowing about their gender identity, there’s no way to ensure that Johnny’s parents understand that he might be bunking with the girls when asked for permission for an overnight excursion. |
Wisconsin public schools are not alone in establishing these policies. |
Nearly 1,100 school districts across the country, with 11.5 million students attending 19,600 schools, have joined the gender revolution. |
And it’s about to get worse. |
A sweeping new rule by the Biden administration’s Department of Education will push schools even harder to impose the government’s gender ideology on students and force parents to get on board or be ignored. |
This rule reworks Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funds. |
For more than 50 years, Title IX has created and expanded opportunities for women and girls. |
This new rule, however, redefines “sex” to include “gender identity,” something Congress certainly did not intend when enacting the law more than five decades ago. |
The rule also redefines “harassment” so that staff and teachers could face disciplinary action if they “misgender” a student. |
This massive federal mandate carries the implied threat that billions of dollars in federal funds could be revoked if schools don’t knuckle under and enforce the Biden administration’s gender ideology. |
Whether at the school district, state or federal level, the government is pushing parents aside and imposing its preferred gender ideology, invading the realm that has traditionally belonged to parents. |
In fact, policies that exclude parents violate their constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children. |
It’s time for parents to fight back against policies in their children’s schools, oppose state laws that allow those policies and speak out against federal rules that promote a divisive agenda at their expense. |
On Wednesday, December 3, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in one of the term’s marquee cases: United States v. Skrmetti. |
At issue is the constitutionality of a Tennessee law, SB1 (codified at Tenn. Code Ann. |
§ 68-33-103(a)(1)), which prohibits any medical procedure for the purpose of “Enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex,” and “Treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.” |
Tennessee is one of 26 states that have enacted such restrictions on surgeries and drugs designed to change ’a minor’s appearance so as to better resemble the opposite sex. |
Challenges to laws of this type are generally brought by parents who seek medical interventions for their minor children professing a gender identify that differs from their biological sex. |
The parents in the underlying litigation, L.W. v. Skrmetti, had argued that SB1 violated the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause by depriving them of their parental right to make medical decisions for their children. |
The plaintiffs also alleged that the law offended that amendment’s Equal Protection Clause which provides that no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” by discriminating based on sex. |
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found SB1 to be constitutional under both a due process and equal protection analysis and upheld the law. |
Last year, the 8th Circuit struck down a similar Arkansas law, but only on equal protection grounds. |
The United States thereafter intervened in the Skrmetti case to advance the Equal Protection Clause argument. |
Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice argued that rather than discriminating based on sex, the law merely restricted access to certain medical interventions based on age and the type of medical purpose for which such interventions would be used. |
Therefore, Rice argued that, as a routine exercise of the state’s power to regulate medicine generally, rational basis review—requiring only that a law be rationally related to achieving a legitimate government objective—was appropriate. |
During the two-and-a-half hour arguments, five of the Court’s conservative Justices seemed skeptical of the benefit of providing largely experimental gender affirming care for minors, and of the notion that the Court should have a role in making determinations about the complex medical issues underlying the dispute—rather than leaving these decisions to the legislatures. |
In one line of questioning, the Chief Justice John Roberts pressed ACLU attorney Strangio, saying that the case involved a “question of constitutional allocation of authority . . . |
[M]y understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question to the people’s representatives rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor.” |
Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed the Chief’s concerns, asking Prelogar, “[I]f the Constitution doesn’t take sides, if there’s strong, forceful scientific policy arguments on both sides in a situation like this, why isn’t it best to leave it to the democratic process?” |
She responded that if the Court were concerned with protecting the democratic process in this area, it could author a narrow opinion that simply declares that intermediate scrutiny review applies and then sends the case back to the lower court to reconsider the merits under that standard rather than the rational basis standard of review. |
Justice Samuel Alito was particularly concerned with what he saw as Prelogar’s cavalier dismissal of the increasing body of scientific evidence casting doubt on the benefits of gender affirming care for minors. |
Among recent developments in western Europe indicating a growing distrust for early gender intervention, Alito cited the landmark Cass Report released earlier this year, noting that the report indicated “There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide;” he chided Prelogar, saying she had “relegated the Cass report to a footnote.” |
The Court’s three liberal Justices seemed to accept Prelogar’s argument that by incorporating the “sex classification into the face of the law and ma[king] the first-order restriction here one that prohibits inconsistency with sex . . . |
the legislature was doing something different in trying to get minors to appreciate their sex and not become disdainful. |
That’s not a medical-based justification.” |
Justice Sonia Sotomayor in particular pushed Rice on his characterization of the law as simply a restriction based on age and medical purpose, arguing that a doctor would have to know whether the child seeking gender transition drugs is male or female to know whether SB1 would ban the use of those drugs. |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 177
Size of downloaded dataset files:
607 kB
Size of the auto-converted Parquet files:
378 kB
Number of rows:
4,462