I'm a runner and I know the race to save women's sports has started off great
I'm a runner — and runners know the value of a good start. Lots of races are decided by those first steps out of the blocks — and whether they're fast enough and strong enough to propel you toward that line at the far end of the track. In January, federal officials took the first four steps in the race to reverse Biden administration efforts to insert male athletes into women's sports.
TITLE IX COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST RIT FOR ROSTERING TRANS ATHLETE SADIE SCHREINER Step One: On Jan. 9, a federal district court issued a decision vacating the 2024 Title IX Rule. That rule had directed all states to reinterpret the meaning of "sex" in Title IX — a federal law created to ensure equal opportunities for women in education and athletics — to include "gender identity."
Step Two: On Jan. 14, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would prevent schools accepting federal funding from allowing male athletes to compete in women's sports ... or ris losing that funding. Step Three: On Jan. 31, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights announced it now expects schools to stick with the earlier 2020 Title IX Rule, which honors the original intent of that law by defining sex according to biology, not gender identity. Step Four: On Feb. 5, the Trump administration took a strong and crucial step toward restoring women's sports to women with his latest executive order directing federal officials to prohibit male athletes from competing in women's sports or entering women's locker rooms. And, the next day, the NCAA — finally — changed its policy on this and now only allows women to compete in women's categories, another stride toward achieving fairness for female athletes.
Why do I describe these efforts as a race? Because every day we delay in making this right means another competition, somewhere, where a girl or woman athlete could be losing to a man. Losing an award ... losing recognition ... losing an opportunity ... losing the fair return for all her hard work, time, and sacrifice. I know. I'm one of those women. Across four years of high school, I raced against male athletes 27 times. I lost places and podium spots on 22 occasions. I lost two major regional awards. I lost four state championship titles at an age when college recruiters were watching and deciding who would get scholarships. My teammates and I watched two male athletes sweep our events, season after season, winning 15 state championship titles once held by nine different women. Eighty-five times they blocked female runners from opportunities to advance in competition. Not only was that not fair — it hurt. My teammates and I had dedicated countless long hours to our sport. We kept to strict diets and missed out on a lot of family and social activities to get to bed early, all for the sake of competing, and winning, and earning scholarships to the schools we hoped to go to someday.
It's tough, stepping up time after time to the starting line, knowing that, no matter how hard you try, you're going to lose to the guy in the lane next to you. And that, each time you lose, your dreams drift a little further out of reach. It's no wonder that we pushed back, speaking up and speaking out for what was right and fair. Yet every time we did, we were branded as bigots and haters. Coaches, administrators and many in the media turned a deaf ear to our concerns. That's why four of us, with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, decided to file suit against the Connecticut Association of Schools, for refusing to protect us from these intrusions by male athletes. That case was recently given the green light to be heard in federal court.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION But in a strong race, you have to keep making great strides. And those strides are being made.
Why do I describe these efforts as a race? Because every day we delay in making this right means another competition, somewhere, where a girl or woman athlete could be losing to a man.
With the help of courageous high-profile athletes like Riley Gaines, the media are gradually waking up and realizing the great injustices being done to women — the threats being posed not only to our freedom and opportunities, but our safety as well. And now two other cases in which ADF is defending Title IX's original meaning from lawsuits by activist groups are making their way, I hope, toward the U.S. Supreme Court. We're moving fast in the right direction, and with the aggressive support of the Trump administration, my fellow athletes and I are more confident than we've been in a long time that women's sports may soon, once again, be reserved for — and restored to — women.
If the U.S. Senate will follow the House's lead ... if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear and decide the true meaning of "sex" in Title IX ... if President Donald Trump can effectively use his bully pulpit to rally wide support to our cause ... and if the NCAA will expand its policy to more fully protect female athletes during and outside of competitions, and other sports organizations will do the same ...
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP ... this race may be headed for a victorious finish. And that's good. First steps are important, but in the long run — it's the finish that matters most of all.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge rules Trump's firings at federal product safety agency illegal
A federal judge on Friday ruled that President Trump's firings of three Biden-nominated Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) members were illegal, enabling them to return to their posts. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, an appointee of former President Biden who serves in Maryland, ordered the administration restore the commissioners' pay as well as their access to office spaces, computers and email accounts. The three commissioners — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — sued the administration after Trump fired them last month. Maddox is the latest district judge to block Trump's efforts to fire Democratic appointees at independent agencies across the federal bureaucracy despite federal law providing them with for-cause removal protections. The president did not purport to have cause in firing the CPSC members or at the other agencies. His administration seeks to invalidate the protections as unconstitutional by intruding on the president's authority to oversee the executive branch. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has signaled a willingness to agree with that view, but it has not yet formally overruled the court's 90-year-old precedent that has paved the way for Congress to provide the removal protections. In its latest signal, the nation's highest court last month lifted lower injunctions blocking Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), saying the agency leaders could be terminated until any appeals are resolved. Maddox acknowledged that decision on Friday but distinguished it from his case. He stressed the Supreme Court rooted its decision in how the NLRB and MSPB leaders faced a whiplash of removals and reinstatements throughout the lower court proceedings, insisting the decision did not eviscerate the constitutionality of removal protections. 'Disruption might have resulted in the instant case if Plaintiffs had been reinstated while this case was in its preliminary posture, only to have the Court later deny relief in its final judgment and subject Plaintiffs to removal again,' the judge wrote. 'The risk of such disruption is no longer a factor now that the Court is granting permanent injunctive relief as a final judgment.' The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. 'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' Nick Sansone, the commissioners' lead counsel who works for consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement. 'Congress structured the CPSC as an independent agency so that the safety of American consumers wouldn't be subject to political whims and industry pressure,' Sansone continued. 'The court's ruling upholds that sound legislative choice.' He added, 'We are thrilled that our clients can get back to work keeping us safe from hazardous products.'
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Federal judge blocks Trump's firing of Consumer Product Safety Commission members
BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge has blocked the terminations of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission after they were fired by President Donald Trump in his effort to assert more power over independent federal agencies. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump announced last month his decision to fire the three Democrats on the five-member commission. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. After suing the Trump administration last month, the fired commissioners received a ruling in their favor Friday; it will likely be appealed. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued the case was clearcut. Federal statute states that the president can fire commissioners 'for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause' — allegations that have not been made against the commissioners in question. But attorneys for the Trump administration assert that the statute is unconstitutional because the president's authority extends to dismissing federal employees who 'exercise significant executive power,' according to court filings. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox agreed with the plaintiffs, declaring their dismissals unlawful. He had previously denied their request for a temporary restraining order, which would have reinstated them on an interim basis. That decision came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority declined to reinstate board members of two other independent agencies, endorsing a robust view of presidential power. The court said that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' Its three liberal justices dissented. In his written opinion filed Friday, Maddox presented a more limited view of the president's authority, finding 'no constitutional defect' in the statute that prohibits such terminations. He ordered that the plaintiffs be allowed to resume their duties as product safety commissioners. The ruling adds to a larger ongoing legal battle over a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. During a hearing before Maddox last week, arguments focused largely on the nature of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its powers, specifically whether it exercises 'substantial executive authority.' Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted the difficulty of cleanly characterizing such functions. He also noted that Trump was breaking from precedent by firing the three commissioners, rather than following the usual process of making his own nominations when the opportunity arose. Abigail Stout, an attorney representing the Trump administration, argued that any restrictions on the president's removal power would violate his constitutional authority. After Trump announced the Democrats' firings, four Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the president urging him to reverse course. 'This move compromises the ability of the federal government to apply data-driven product safety rules to protect Americans nationwide, away from political influence,' they wrote. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence. Attorney Nick Sansone, who represents the three commissioners, praised the ruling Friday. 'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' he said in a statement.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's $1,000 baby bonus idea takes a leaf out of Warren Buffett's wealth-building playbook
President Donald Trump wants to give every American newborn a stock account and $1,000 to start them off. Warren Buffett says buying stocks early and holding for the long run is key to wealth creation. The program could help narrow the wealth gap, but children of richer families have other advantages. President Donald Trump wants the next generation of Americans to be stock investors from birth — an idea that could easily have come from Warren Buffett. The US leader's so-called Trump Accounts are part of his proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill," a huge package of tax and spending legislation that's been approved by the House of Representatives and is now under Senate scrutiny. If passed, the government would open a tax-deferred investment account for every newborn citizen born between January 1, 2025 and December 31, 2028, and seed it with $1,000. Each child's guardian would be in charge of their account, able to deposit up to $5,000 a year into it, and allowed to invest in broad US index funds that don't use leverage and minimize fees and expenses. Withdrawals wouldn't be allowed until the age of 18, and the account would automatically terminate when the holder is 31. "This will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning," the White House said on its website, highlighting endorsements from the CEOs of Dell, Goldman Sachs, Uber, and Altimeter Capital. The bosses of Arm, Salesforce, ServiceNow, and Robinhood have also signaled they're willing to contribute to the Trump Accounts of their employees' children. Buffett, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, has long recommended investing from a young age in a low-fee, broad-market index fund and holding for the long run as the most reliable way to build wealth over a lifetime. "Start young," Buffett told a shareholder who asked how to become a multibillionaire during Berkshire's 1999 meeting. He explained that "the nature of compound interest is it behaves like a snowball of sticky snow. And the trick is to have a very long hill, which means either starting very young or living to be very old." Buffett, whose net worth now exceeds $150 billion, said at the 2001 meeting that saving $10,000 by the time he turned 21 gave him a "huge, huge headstart" in life. It meant he could afford to get married and have kids while still having spare money to invest. "While he hasn't commented directly on government-funded stock accounts for newborns, the investing logic behind such a proposal aligns with his core principles," Lawrence Cunningham, the author of "The Essays of Warren Buffett" and the director of the University of Delaware's Weinberg Center, told Business Insider. "Buffett would likely agree that giving more Americans a long-term stake in the market — especially through low-cost vehicles like the S&P 500 — is both financially sound and socially beneficial," Cunningham said. The Berkshire chief, who bought his first stock at age 11, turns 95 in August, meaning he's been compounding his wealth for more than eight decades. Buffett has repeatedly said more than 99% of his wealth is in Berkshire stock, which he's owned since the 1960s. David Kass, a finance professor who's been following Buffett closely for nearly 40 years, told BI that Trump's program could help to reduce wealth inequality by "encouraging additional savings, providing more of a safety net, promoting financial literacy, and exposing everyone to a stake in corporate America while experiencing the 'eighth wonder of the world' — compounding." Berkshire declined to comment. It's worth noting that even if the program launches as planned and every American child owns a piece of the stock market from birth, lower-income parents might struggle to invest the maximum $5,000 a year into the account, allowing kids with more affluent parents to quickly pull ahead. Children from wealthier families might also have additional savings accounts and assets, other advantages such as access to better healthcare and education, and significant inheritances in their future, limiting the potential for a single government payout and account to narrow the wealth gap. Yet Buffett might still see the plan as a step in the right direction. He has long heralded compounding over decades as the secret to wealth creation, as it can turn even a small amount into a fortune. For example, a $1,000 investment that compounds at 8% annually for 65 years would be worth nearly $160,000. Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio
