Latest news with #DoNoHarm
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Colorado parent groups sue state over controversial new transgender law enforcing 'compelled speech'
Colorado potentially faces a major lawsuit regarding a new law on transgender protections and how it could violate free speech and parental rights. On Friday, Gov. Jared Polis signed into law the Kelly Loving Act, a bill that expands state anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals by allowing a person's "chosen name" to qualify as a form of "gender expression" that is protected under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). Now that the bill has passed, the group Defending Education (DE) has sued the state on behalf of the Do No Harm, The Colorado Parent Advocacy Network and Protect Kids Colorado groups out of concerns that the law could violate their free speech rights. "The Act's new definition of 'gender expression' is unconstitutionally overbroad," the lawsuit provided to Fox News Digital reads. "Because it covers any treatment based on the use of a 'chosen name' or other forms of preferred 'address,' it punishes many forms of constitutionally protected speech." Colorado's 'Totalitarian' Transgenderism Bill Sparks Concerns From Parents It continued, "When speakers refer to transgender-identifying individuals using biologically accurate terms, they advance a viewpoint about a hot-button political issue: gender ideology. That kind of speech lies at the core of the First Amendment. But the Act's definition of 'gender expression' makes all such speech discriminatory and unlawful." Read On The Fox News App The lawsuit added that since CADA prohibits the "publishing of discriminative matter," the new act could prohibit and potentially penalize individuals, including parents, for publicly disapproving of changing one's name and gender. In a statement to Fox News Digital, Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President of Defending Education, said the law "muzzles" parents and doctors to protect the state's "preferred gender orthodoxy." "Colorado can't seem to stop losing at the Supreme Court on constitutional challenges to its anti-discrimination laws. And yet, Governor Polis has nevertheless signed another patently unconstitutional iteration of its Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act—something that can only be described as an exercise of remarkable hubris," Perry said. DE is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction on enforcing this new definition as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments for using "unconstitutionally overbroad" language and enforcing "compelled speech." "Do No Harm is proud to challenge Colorado's absurd so-called anti-discrimination act. Abridging American's constitutional right to freedom of expression in the name of radical gender ideology is wrong. We expect the court to reaffirm that the Constitution trumps progressive dogma," said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. Fox News Digital reached out to the governor's office for comment. The Kelly Loving Act has come under fire by conservatives and Colorado parents since it was introduced in March. Among the protections in the original bill included a ruling that "deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services" could be considered forms of "coercive control" that could affect a parent's custody over children. After facing backlash, Colorado lawmakers eventually removed language regarding "deadnaming" and child custody, although opponents still criticized elements of the bill for broad language. Colorado Parents Unload On Liberal Lawmakers, Prompting Changes To Controversial Gender Bill Colorado has been at the center of several high-profile cases based on its anti-discrimination laws over the past few years. Most infamously, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips has been sued multiple times over his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding or a gender transition. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the state, finding that Colorado's anti-discrimination laws could not force a graphic designer to create wedding websites for same-sex weddings in violation of her article source: Colorado parent groups sue state over controversial new transgender law enforcing 'compelled speech'
Fox News
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Colorado parent groups sue state over controversial new transgender law enforcing 'compelled speech'
Colorado potentially faces a major lawsuit regarding a new law on transgender protections and how it could violate free speech and parental rights. On Friday, Gov. Jared Polis signed into law the Kelly Loving Act, a bill that expands state anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals by allowing a person's "chosen name" to qualify as a form of "gender expression" that is protected under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). Now that the bill has passed, the group Defending Education (DE) has sued the state on behalf of the Do No Harm, The Colorado Parent Advocacy Network and Protect Kids Colorado groups out of concerns that the law could violate their free speech rights. "The Act's new definition of 'gender expression' is unconstitutionally overbroad," the lawsuit provided to Fox News Digital reads. "Because it covers any treatment based on the use of a 'chosen name' or other forms of preferred 'address,' it punishes many forms of constitutionally protected speech." It continued, "When speakers refer to transgender-identifying individuals using biologically accurate terms, they advance a viewpoint about a hot-button political issue: gender ideology. That kind of speech lies at the core of the First Amendment. But the Act's definition of 'gender expression' makes all such speech discriminatory and unlawful." The lawsuit added that since CADA prohibits the "publishing of discriminative matter," the new act could prohibit and potentially penalize individuals, including parents, for publicly disapproving of changing one's name and gender. In a statement to Fox News Digital, Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President of Defending Education, said the law "muzzles" parents and doctors to protect the state's "preferred gender orthodoxy." "Colorado can't seem to stop losing at the Supreme Court on constitutional challenges to its anti-discrimination laws. And yet, Governor Polis has nevertheless signed another patently unconstitutional iteration of its Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act—something that can only be described as an exercise of remarkable hubris," Perry said. DE is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction on enforcing this new definition as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments for using "unconstitutionally overbroad" language and enforcing "compelled speech." "Do No Harm is proud to challenging Colorado's absurd so-called anti-discrimination act. Abridging American's constitutional right to freedom of expression in the name of radical gender ideology is wrong. We expect the court to reaffirm that the Constitution trumps progressive dogma," said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. Fox News Digital reached out to the governor's office for comment. The Kelly Loving Act has come under fire by conservatives and Colorado parents since it was introduced in March. Among the protections in the original bill included a ruling that "deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services" could be considered forms of "coercive control" that could affect a parent's custody over children. After facing backlash, Colorado lawmakers eventually removed language regarding "deadnaming" and child custody, although opponents still criticized elements of the bill for broad language. Colorado has been at the center of several high-profile cases based on its anti-discrimination laws over the past few years. Most infamously, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips has been sued multiple times over his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding or a gender transition. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the state, finding that Colorado's anti-discrimination laws could not force a graphic designer to create wedding websites for same-sex weddings in violation of her beliefs.
Wall Street Journal
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
UCLA Medical School and Racial Bias
Racial preferences in university admissions ended in 2023, or did they? A lawsuit in federal court against the University of California Geffen Medical School is worth watching as an example of how schools are complying with the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Late last week the groups Students for Fair Admissions and Do No Harm sued UCLA Geffen for bias in admissions. The class-action lawsuit, which is brought on behalf of students denied admission since 2020, says UCLA used different academic standards for applicants of different races to achieve racially balanced student classes.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal lawsuit alleges UCLA medical school uses a race-based admissions process
A federal class-action lawsuit accuses UCLA's medical school and various university officials of using race as a factor in admissions, despite a state law and Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in California's Central District federal court, was brought by the activist group Do No Harm, founded in 2022 to fight affirmative action in medicine; Students for Fair Admissions, the nonprofit that won its suit at the Supreme Court against Harvard's affirmative action program; and Kelly Mahoney, a college graduate who was rejected from UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine. According to the lawsuit, the legal action was being taken to stop the medical school and UCLA officials from allegedly "engaging in intentional discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity in the admissions process." UCLA's medical school did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Read more: California banned affirmative action in 1996. Inside the UC struggle for diversity Citing unnamed "whistleblowers," the lawsuit alleges that Jennifer Lucero, the associate dean for admissions, "requires applicants to submit responses that are intended to allow the Committee to glean the applicant's race, which the medical school later confirms via interviews." It also alleges that Lucero and admissions committee members "routinely and openly" discussed race and used it as a factor to make admission decisions. Lucero did not immediately respond to an emailed request to comment. 'Do No Harm is fighting for all the students who have been racially discriminated against by UCLA under the guise of political progress,' Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, said in a news release. "All medical schools must abide by the law of the land and prioritize merit, not immutable characteristics, in admissions." Read more: Justice Department probes major California universities over 'illegal DEI' in admissions The lawsuit comes as UCLA and other UC campuses are facing scrutiny by the Trump administration for potential 'illegal DEI' in admissions practices. The Department of Justice in late March said it would investigate UCLA, UC Irvine, Stanford and UC Berkeley, suggesting the schools flouted state law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent banning the use of race as a factor when evaluating college applicants. A UC spokesperson said in a statement about the March investigation that UC stopped using race in admissions when Proposition 209 — which bans consideration of race in public education, hiring and contracting — went into effect in 1997. Since then, 'UC has implemented admissions practices to comply with the law.' Separately at the time, the Department of Health and Human Services said it was investigating an unnamed 'major medical school in California to determine whether it discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national origin in its admissions. An HHS official previously told The Times that the investigation centered on the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine. In response to that March announcement, UCLA said "we will be fully cooperating with their investigation." The lawsuit Thursday alleges that Lucero and the admissions committee routinely admit Black applicants with below-average GPA and MCAT, or Medical College Admission Test scores, "while requiring whites and Asians to have near-perfect scores to even be seriously considered." According to the lawsuit, Do No Harm has at least one member who applied to Geffen, was rejected and "is able and ready to reapply if a court orders Defendants to stop discriminating and to undo the effects of its past discrimination." Students for Fair Admissions has at least one member who will apply to the medical school. "In this race-based system," the lawsuit alleges, "all applicants are deprived of their right to equal treatment and the opportunity to pursue their lifelong dream of becoming a doctor because of utterly arbitrary criteria." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
09-05-2025
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
Federal lawsuit alleges UCLA medical school uses a race-based admissions process
A federal class-action lawsuit accuses UCLA's medical school and various university officials of using race as a factor in admissions, despite a state law and Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in California's Central District federal court, was brought by the activist group Do No Harm, founded in 2022 to fight affirmative action in medicine; Students for Fair Admissions, the nonprofit that won its suit at the Supreme Court against Harvard's affirmative action program; and Kelly Mahoney, a college graduate who was rejected from UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine. According to the lawsuit, the legal action was being taken to stop the medical school and UCLA officials from allegedly 'engaging in intentional discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity in the admissions process.' UCLA's medical school did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Citing unnamed 'whistleblowers,' the lawsuit alleges that Jennifer Lucero, the associate dean for admissions, 'requires applicants to submit responses that are intended to allow the Committee to glean the applicant's race, which the medical school later confirms via interviews.' It also alleges that Lucero and admissions committee members 'routinely and openly' discussed race and used it as a factor to make admission decisions. Lucero did not immediately respond to an emailed request to comment. 'Do No Harm is fighting for all the students who have been racially discriminated against by UCLA under the guise of political progress,' Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, said in a news release. 'All medical schools must abide by the law of the land and prioritize merit, not immutable characteristics, in admissions.' The lawsuit comes as UCLA and other UC campuses are facing scrutiny by the Trump administration for potential 'illegal DEI' in admissions practices. The Department of Justice in late March said it would investigate UCLA, UC Irvine, Stanford and UC Berkeley, suggesting the schools flouted state law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent banning the use of race as a factor when evaluating college applicants. A UC spokesperson said in a statement about the March investigation that UC stopped using race in admissions when Proposition 209 — which bans consideration of race in public education, hiring and contracting — went into effect in 1997. Since then, 'UC has implemented admissions practices to comply with the law.' Separately at the time, the Department of Health and Human Services said it was investigating an unnamed 'major medical school in California to determine whether it discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national origin in its admissions. An HHS official previously told The Times that the investigation centered on the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine. In response to that March announcement, UCLA said 'we will be fully cooperating with their investigation.' The lawsuit Thursday alleges that Lucero and the admissions committee routinely admit Black applicants with below-average GPA and MCAT, or Medical College Admission Test scores, 'while requiring whites and Asians to have near-perfect scores to even be seriously considered.' According to the lawsuit, Do No Harm has at least one member who applied to Geffen, was rejected and 'is able and ready to reapply if a court orders Defendants to stop discriminating and to undo the effects of its past discrimination.' Students for Fair Admissions has at least one member who will apply to the medical school. 'In this race-based system,' the lawsuit alleges, 'all applicants are deprived of their right to equal treatment and the opportunity to pursue their lifelong dream of becoming a doctor because of utterly arbitrary criteria.'
