UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (6/19/25): Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Transgender Treatment for Minors, Senate Proposes Sale of Federal Land, LGBTQ+ Option on 988 Crisis Hotline Being Discontinued, and More.

Episode Date: June 19, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: 1. ICE Reportedly Revokes Prior Policy to Stay Away from Hotels and Farms (0:39) 2. Judge Issues New Ruling Over Trump Administration’s Passport Marker Policy (4:03) 3. Senate Committee Proposes Sale of Federal Land to Raise Money (6:37) 4. Supreme Court Rules in Case About Gender Transition Treatments for Minors (13:57) 5. Quick Hitters: Journalists Sue LAPD, NAACP Won’t Invite President to Annual Event, Trump Extends TikTok Ban, NYC Comptroller Arrested by Federal Agents at Immigration Hearing, Rep. Hortman’s Home Broken Into After Murder, Musk and NY Times Feud Over Alleged Drug Use, State Dept. Resumes Visa Processing with New Rules, CBP Released No Migrants into the U.S. in May (22:46) 6. Rumor Has It: Do New VA Bylaws Allow Discrimination Against Democrats and Unmarried Individuals? Was a Brain Dead Woman Forced to Give Birth Because of Georgia Abortion Laws? Is the Trump Administration Removing the 988 Crisis Hotline for LGBTQ+ Individuals? (27:47) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

No frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC optimum points on your first five orders. Shop now at nofrills.ca. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, June 19th. Let's talk about some news. As you guys know, I typically like to give myself federal holidays off, but there's just a lot to get caught up on and I will be taking a full week off

next month, so I figured I would just push through, stick to the normal schedule this week. With that said, I did record today's episode very early this morning, so anything that happened during the day on Thursday today will not be included in today's episode. So just note that starting today off with some immigration news and a bit of an update to Monday's episode. ICE officials have reportedly directed agency leaders to resume immigration raids at agricultural businesses, hotels, and restaurants. Though I do want to stress that this is what's being reported. It

is unclear where those reports are coming from and I'll explain why in a minute. But as we talked about on Monday, a prior ICE memo that was issued last week instructed agents to stop raids and arrests in the agricultural and hospitality industries and to avoid arresting non-criminal collaterals, referring to people who are undocumented but have not committed any crimes. We also know that it was President Trump himself who said that ICE was to stay away from hotels and farms because he had been hearing from many people in those industries that these raids were taking away good long-time workers. Trump also posted around that

same time quote, our nation's ICE officers have shown incredible strength, determination, and courage as they facilitate a very important mission, the largest mass deportation operation of illegal aliens in history. ICE officers are herewith ordered by notice of this truth to do all their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest mass deportation program in history. In order to achieve this we must expand efforts to detain and deport illegal aliens in America's largest cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York where millions upon millions of

illegal aliens reside. So as of Monday, it appeared that President Trump wanted ICE to hold off on raids at farms and hotels and instead focus more so on large cities. But then on Tuesday, President Trump was asked by a reporter, quote, homeland security is saying that ICE is going to start enforcing in hotels and on farms again. Is that a change of course from last week? End quote. And Trump responded, quote, we're going to look everywhere, but I think the biggest problem is the inner cities.

We're looking everywhere. There are far more in the inner cities. Democrat run cities. Sadly, there are far more there than you have on a farm or someplace. End quote. The reporter then followed that up with, so no one's getting exemptions anymore. And Trump said, everyone is being looked at,

but the bigger problem is the cities right now. So it's not entirely clear from those comments if ICE is rolling back its earlier memo. One day before that, when DHS spokesperson, Trisha McLaughlin was asked on Fox News about ICE enforcement on farms and in hotels. She said, quote, there will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine ICE's efforts. The host Martha McCallum kept asking McLaughlin about

that previous ICE memo saying things like, wait, but, you know, are you saying that the administration is going to now enforce raids and, you know, on farms and at hotels? And McLaughlin wouldn't really directly answer the question. She just kept saying there will be no safe spaces. So again, no clear, direct answer from either McLaughlin or the president. I personally have yet to see an updated ICE memo or internal email that would prove a reversal of policy outside of these comments from the president and from the DHS spokesperson. And you know, again, outside the reports that are circulating. So do with that information what you will.

Moving on, on Tuesday, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a passport policy which limited passport sex designations to male or female. This new ruling expands upon the court's previous ruling and now includes all transgender or non-binary passport applicants. For context, in January, President Trump sent an executive order which stated that the government is to recognize two sexes, male and female, and that the government is to use the word sex rather than gender for government purposes. Among the various directives that were laid out

in that order, one specifically targeted the State Department and it instructed that passports include either a male or female sex designation and that that sex designation be consistent with the person's biological sex. The State Department could no longer use the X designation, which was previously allowed under Biden's administration. Following that executive order, the Trump administration was sued. And that lawsuit, which was filed in February by seven individuals, argued that the passport policy is unlawful and unconstitutional.

It claimed that the policy discriminates against individuals based on their sex and for some their transgender status and therefore violates the equal protection clause as well as the first and fifth amendments of the constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. Back in April, the district court judge temporarily blocked the administration from enforcing this new passport policy by granting a preliminary injunction, which basically preserves the status quo until a final judgment is made in the case. Notably, that original injunction only applied to the specific individuals who filed the lawsuit. So afterwards, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which argued the same claims, but

included five more plaintiffs and requested that the lawsuit be granted class action status. Class action status would allow the court's ruling to apply to the entire affected class rather than just those that are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. So in the latest ruling, which came earlier this week on Tuesday, the judge certified class action status and expanded her original injunction to include all transgender or non-binary individuals who either do not currently have a valid passport, have a passport expiring within a year, need to replace a lost or stolen passport, or need to change their name or sex designation. This broader injunction means the Trump

administration cannot enforce its new passport policy against that larger group of individuals while this litigation plays out. Next story, this one was a highly requested one. A plan that could involve selling federal land has been introduced in the Senate. About two weeks ago, draft legislation was issued by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that proposes the sale of public land. Keep in mind, this draft legislation is part of Trump's big beautiful bill. So as we talked about, the Senate is currently revising the big beautiful bill to be closer to what they want it to be. The House already passed a version. It

went to the Senate. The Senate is kind of changing it to be, yeah, like I just said, more of what they want it to be. And then once they issue those changes, it'll go back to the House, because ultimately the House and Senate have to pass the same version of the bill before it can go to the President. So during the process of issuing these revisions

in the Senate, various Senate committees will propose changes to the bill, changes that are relevant to each committee's responsibilities. And this is one of those proposed changes. In releasing this proposal, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said that the land sales are meant to solve

the current housing crisis. So let's talk about this and talk about exactly what it lays out. Essentially, the proposal would require the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to identify and sell up to 3.3 million acres of land over the next five years. In total, there would be 258 million acres legally available for sale, but only 3.3 million of those acres at most would be sold. So to break that down a little bit further the Bureau of Land Management currently

manages about 245 million acres of land. The US Forest Service currently manages about 193 million acres of land. What the bill says exactly is that the Secretary of the Interior is to select for disposal not less than 0.5% and not more than 0.75% of Bureau of Land Management land and shall dispose of all right, title, and interests of the United States in and to those tracks selected for disposal. Similarly, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the chief of the Forest Service, shall select for disposal not less than 0.5% and not more than 0.75% of national forest system land and shall dispose of all

right title and interests of the United States and into those tracks selected for disposal. So if we do the math, the Bureau of Land Management is required to select and sell more than 1.2 million acres of land, but not more than 1.84 million acres of land. Similarly, the US Forest Service is required to select and sell more than just under a million acres, but not more than 1.4 million acres. That means in total if this bill passes and becomes law the federal government will be required to sell between 1.3 million and 3.3 million acres of land between the two agencies over the next five years. Now I know a lot of people have been

hearing this 250 million number thinking the federal government is selling 250 million acres of public land. That's not what's happening. Basically, the bill would make about 250 million acres of land available for sale, but only 3.3 million acres of that land can be sold. So think of a menu, right? On that menu in total, there are 250 million acres. You have 63 million available acres in Alaska, 63 million available acres in Alaska, six million available acres in Arizona, five million in California, 12 million in Utah, so on and so forth.

But when ordering off that menu, you're limited to 3.3 million acres. So you can choose one million of the 63 million acres in Alaska, one million of the six million acres in Arizona, one million of the 6 million acres in Arizona, and maybe 1.3 million of the acres in Utah or some other variation, but no more than 3.3 million acres can be sold. Hopefully that makes sense. For context, by the way, the federal government currently owns about 640 million acres of federal land and no national parks, national monuments, national recreational

areas, wilderness areas or protected designations would be available for sale. But the actual land that would be sold wouldn't be decided until after the law's passage. So the law is not setting forth specific tracks of land to be sold. It's just sort of making available this 258 million acres and then saying, okay, now choose at most 3.3 million of those acres to sell. Now, the Senate committee's proposal says that the land sold will be used for the development of housing or to address associated community needs. The draft also says it hopes to raise between five and 10 billion dollars through the sale of the land and that the majority of the money raised would go to the treasury

to reduce the deficit and make up for tax cuts but that at least 10% would go to supporting housing development and maintaining federal lands and at least 5% would go towards addressing the backlog of deferred maintenance on federal lands in the states where the land is sold. The Wilderness Society though, which is against this proposal, says that very little of the land managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service is actually suitable for housing. It warned that much of the public land eligible for sale in the bill include

local recreational areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, critical wildlife habitat, and big game migration corridors. Patrick Parentau, a law professor at Vermont Law said that studies show that less than 2% of US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land is actually close enough to population centers to make sense for housing development. Providing a contrary argument, attorney Wendy Kellynton said the proposal, quote, should have a positive budgetary impact on federal land maintenance and holding costs because 5% of the proceeds from land sales must go to addressing the federal government's not insignificant backlog of deferred maintenance on federal lands in states

where the land is sold." She noted that it's expensive to own land and that the federal government has quote done a relatively poor job of maintaining its lands. And then just a few final notes here, the land that is available to be sold sits across 11 western states which are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Keep in mind this proposal still needs to pass the full Senate and the House before it can go to the President's desk. This draft bill has not yet passed the Senate so it's still in its early stages. And it's worth noting that a previous proposal to sell around 500,000 acres of federal land was recently rejected by House Republicans, and a number of House Republicans launched the bipartisan Public Lands Caucus, which is meant to

expand public access to federal land. So it's unclear what will even happen with this proposal once it reaches the House house if it reaches the house We're going to take our first break here, and I will be right back Whether it's a family member friend or furry companion joining your summer road trip Enjoy the peace of mind that comes with Volvo's legendary safety During Volvo Discover Days enjoy limited time savings as you make plans to cruise through Muskoka or down Toronto's bustling streets. From now until June 30th, lease a 2025 Volvo XC60 from 1.74% and save up to $4,000. Conditions apply.

Visit your GTA Volvo retailer or go to volvocars.ca for full details. Welcome back. Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court released five new decisions, but only one is making headlines. And that's just because the other four are pretty boring procedural cases that no one really cares too much about. So let's spend some time talking about United States versus Skirmetty, which is the case where the Supreme Court just said that states can ban gender transition treatments for minors without violating the Constitution. So this was a case out of Tennessee. In 2023, Tennessee passed a law that prohibited doctors from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone treatments to minors for the purpose of changing their gender. The law specifically excluded instances where these same treatments were needed for other

medical issues like congenital defects, precocious puberty, disease, physical injuries, etc. So three transgender minors, their parents and a doctor, sued the state, arguing that this law violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it discriminated based on sex or transgender status. In other words, the law treated transgender individuals differently than other individuals because the law said that these individuals could not be prescribed these treatments, but other people could. But Tennessee said, no, no, no, no, no, this law doesn't discriminate

based on sex or transgender status. Instead, it places age-based restrictions on specific medical treatments for specific diagnoses. Those diagnoses being gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence. Tennessee argued that this law doesn't classify based on transgender status, it classifies based on medical diagnosis. Now the reason that these arguments are important is because the law would be analyzed differently in each scenario. So whenever a law is constitutionally challenged, courts will apply one of three levels of scrutiny – strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis review. The level of scrutiny applied determines how the court analyzes the law, and each level

is applied to different issues. So strict scrutiny is the highest level of scrutiny and it's applied when a law threatens a fundamental right or discriminates based on race, national origin, religion, or alienage. Put simply, it's very hard for a law to pass strict scrutiny and only very specific laws successfully do. Intermediate scrutiny, and let me just finish that point by saying the reason for that is

that when a law infringes on a fundamental right or one of those classifications that I just talked about, the purpose of strict scrutiny is that it should be hard for laws to infringe on those things or discriminate on those bases. So the courts make it very difficult for laws to pass under strict scrutiny. Now, intermediate scrutiny is less demanding than strict scrutiny and typically applies to laws which discriminate based on gender or sex. Keep in mind the courts have not determined whether transgender status receives strict or intermediate scrutiny. That is still up in the air. But then finally rational basis review is the lowest level of

scrutiny and it's easiest for laws to pass under rational basis because the person challenging the law has to prove that the government has no legitimate interest in enacting the law or that there's no reasonable rational link between the government's interest and the challenge law. Usually the government will have some legitimate interest in enacting law which is why laws will almost always survive rational basis review. So if we think about that, laws are most likely to be struck down as unconstitutional under strict scrutiny, and most likely to be upheld under rational basis review.

Naturally, the plaintiffs in this case wanted strict scrutiny applied, or at the very least intermediate scrutiny, because they wanted this law struck down, whereas the state wanted rational basis review. They wanted it upheld. But in order for the court to apply strict or intermediate scrutiny like the plaintiffs wanted, the plaintiffs had to prove that this law discriminates on the basis of sex and or transgender status. If the court were to agree with Tennessee and find that the

law did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status and instead simply regulated medical treatments, it would apply rational basis review, the lowest level of scrutiny. So the fundamental question for the courts in this case was, does this law classify based on sex or transgender status or does it instead classify based on medical diagnosis or treatment? On appeal, the appellate court agreed with Tennessee and said that rational basis review was appropriate and under rational basis review, the court said that the law can stand because the government did have a legitimate interest in enacting it.

From there, the plaintiffs took the case to the Supreme Court and they asked the Supreme Court, did the appellate court get it right? And yesterday the justices said yes. The Supreme Court's ruling explains that the law has two classifications, age because it allows the treatment for adults but not for minors, and medical use because it allows the treatments to be used for some conditions and not others. The ruling holds that the law does not classify based on sex because the law is not prohibiting certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex. The ruling also held that the law does not exclude any individual for medical treatments on the basis of transgender status. Rather, the law is, quote, removing the set diagnoses,

gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence, from the range of treatable conditions, end quote. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the court, and at the end, he seemingly reminded the public that, the court's role is only to ensure that a law doesn't violate the constitution. And having concluded that it doesn't, quote, we leave questions regarding its policy to

the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process, end quote. Now I want to give you the contrasting argument. Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, quote, Tennessee's law explicitly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status, so the Constitution and settled precedent require the court to subject it to intermediate scrutiny. The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise. This case presents an easy question. Whether the laws ban on certain medications applicable only if used in a manner inconsistent with sex contains a sex classification. Because sex determines

access to the covered medications, it clearly does. Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down the law or categorical health bans like it.

The court authorizes without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent." That decision, by the way, I don't think I mentioned this before, it was 6-3 with the court's liberal justices, justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting from the majority. So what does this ruling mean? It means that states that want to ban gender transition treatments for minors can do so. And I want to be very clear that this decision

does not create a nationwide ban on gender transition treatments for minors. It means that states that want to ban these types of treatments for minors can do so without violating the constitution. So states that want to allow gender transition treatments for minors still can and states that want to ban gender transition treatments for minors also can. Before we move on, I wanted to address some questions I got regarding children receiving hormone therapy or puberty blockers for medical conditions unrelated to gender transitioning. As I said in the beginning of the story, Tennessee's law is clear that this law only applies

to people seeking hormones for purposes of changing genders. Tennessee's law explicitly excludes minors who are seeking puberty blockers or hormones to treat other conditions. So yesterday's ruling has no impact on minors that are prescribed these treatments for medical conditions other than quote gender dysphoria gender identity disorder and gender incongruence End quote and as a final note the Supreme Court does have one more opinion day this week

Which is on Friday, and then they'll probably schedule a couple of opinion days for next week But it's looking like they will wrap up this term by the end of the month. There are currently 16 decisions remaining and I will of course keep you updated as those get released. Let's do some quick hitters. A group of journalists and an investigative reporting website filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles and the LAPD earlier this week for their alleged behavior during the recent protests and riots. The lawsuit accuses the LAPD of unlawfully using force and threat of force against journalists to intimidate them and interfere with their constitutional right to document public events as the press. They say the LAPD's behavior violated

the first and fourth amendments which protect journalists' right to film, record, and be at protests. The NAACP or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People announced that it will not invite President Trump to its national convention in July, breaking its 116-year tradition of inviting the sitting president. The NAACP's CEO cited President Trump's alleged attacks on democracy and unconstitutional executive orders. President Trump has agreed to extend the TikTok ban by another 90 days. The new order will give ByteDance another three months to comply with the law which requires it to sell

to a non-Chinese buyer. However, should ByteDance not sell within the next 90 days, Trump can also issue another extension at that point. Earlier this week, New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander was arrested by federal immigration agents at a Manhattan immigration court. Leading up to this incident, Lander, along with his wife, had been attending court proceedings as an advocate for undocumented immigrants. During a hearing earlier this week, while ICE was attempting to detain one of the immigrants, Lander linked arms with the man, asked to see a judicial warrant, and attempted to escort the man out of the building.

Federal agents intervened, a scuffle ensued, which was partially captured on video, and Lander was arrested for assaulting federal officers and obstructing their duties. He was held for several hours before being released the same day, reportedly after intervention from New York's governor, Kathy Hochul, who later joined him at the courthouse and called his arrest quote-unquote bullshit. Lander's charges were dropped prior to his release, though the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York said it would continue to investigate Lander's actions, and Lander has promised to continue showing up in court weekly as an immigrant advocate.

The House of Minnesota Representative Melissa Hortman was broken into this week after being processed by crime scene investigators and boarded up. As we talked about Hortman is the representative that was tragically killed by that shooter in Minnesota this past weekend. According to police Hortman's family members took their valuables from the home on Tuesday. Wednesday morning around 8 AM police were alerted to a break in. They discovered that the plywood covering the back window was pried off and the

window had been broken. The home was once again processed by crime scene investigators for evidence of the burglary, though the family has indicated that they don't believe anything is missing. Elon Musk and the New York Times are in a bit of a feud over his alleged drug abuse. So, last month month the New York Times reported that Musk's drug use was quote-unquote more intense than publicly known and cited Private messages and interviews with more than a dozen people who have allegedly known or worked with Musk Last month's report from the New York Times said in part quote. Mr. Musk's drug consumption went well beyond occasional use He told people he was taking so

much ketamine that it was affecting his bladder, a known effect of chronic use. He took ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms and he traveled with a daily medication box that held about 20 pills." End quote. Musk repeatedly criticized that article and most recently on Tuesday posted his drug test results to X, which showed a negative result for about 20 different drugs, including ecstasy, ketamine, cocaine, and more. The New York Times responded to Musk's drug test results, writing, quote, Elon Musk is continuing to lash out because he doesn't like our reporting.

Nothing that he said or presented since our article about his drug use during the presidential campaign was published contradicts what we uncovered. We stand by our journalism." End quote. In other news, the State Department announced yesterday that it is resuming student visa processing after a temporary suspension,

but with new rules that require applicants to make their social media accounts public. Consular officers will now review all social media accounts for content that appears hostile towards the US, including criticism of values or institutions. An internal directive reportedly requires officials to notify agency officials if they see, quote, advocacy for, aid or support for foreign terrorists and other threats to the U.S. national security, and support for unlawful anti-Semitic harassment or violence, end quote. And according to a new

report from the Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol did not release any undocumented migrants in May 2025. For comparison, in May of last year, Border Patrol released 62,000. Last month, Border Patrol agents encountered 8,725 migrants attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, which is a 93% decrease from May, 2024. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we will address some recent rumors. Breaking news, a brand new game is now live at Bet365.

Introducing Prize Matcher, a daily game that's never ordinary. All you have to do is match as many tiles as you can. And the more you match, the better. We also have top table games like our incredible Super Spin Roulette, blackjack, and a huge selection of slots. So there you have it. How can you match that? Check out PrizeMatcher and see why it's never ordinary at bet 365. Must be 19 or older, Ontario only. Please play responsibly if you or someone you know has concerns about gambling, visit connexontario.ca, T's and Z's apply.

Welcome back. It is time for Rumor Has It, my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. Starting with the first one, Rumor Has It that a new Veterans Affairs rule allows discrimination against Democrats and unmarried people. This is maybe true, but we need to add a decent amount of context here. So the Department of Veterans Affairs recently updated the VA's bylaws, which is this 80 to 90 page document that establishes the framework for how VA facilities and their employees operate. Previously, the bylaws listed specific characteristics that could not be used as a basis for discrimination against staff or patients. Those characteristics included race, gender, age,

sexual orientation, marital status, political affiliation, disability, and union membership. The updated bylaws still list some characteristics that are protected from discrimination, but the list is now much shorter. So now the list is limited to legally protected statuses like race, color, religion, and sex, as well as prior protected activity.

Prior protected activity, by the way, refers to a person's past actions that are legally protected from retaliation. So if someone previously filed a complaint, reported discrimination, or otherwise stood up for rights in a legally protected way, the VA could not discriminate against them now because of those actions they took in the past. So yes, it's true that the new bylaws no longer explicitly protect against discrimination based on political affiliation, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, and union membership. However, what I want you to know is that many of these categories are still

protected under federal law. They're protected by other VA policies, the Constitution, and professional codes of ethics. For example, state licensing boards and the American Medical Association's Code of Ethics state that physicians must never let politics interfere with treatment. Similarly, under the Civil Service Reform Act and the U.S. Code, federal employees, including VA staff, are explicitly protected

from discrimination based on political affiliations or marital status. And the Supreme Court has similarly reinforced the government cannot condition employment on partisan loyalty. Federal law also protects people with disabilities from discrimination. It protects people from discrimination based on union membership, and it also protects against discrimination based on sex. In the past, sex discrimination has been interpreted to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Now, could the Trump administration try to change that interpretation? Sure, but it would ultimately be up to the courts to decide what happens in the healthcare setting. We know that the Supreme Court has previously held that sex discrimination in the workplace includes sexual orientation and gender identity, so it's very possible

the same holding would be extended to health care if that were a question that the court was presented with. Now, the reason people are talking about political affiliation and marital status specifically is because those are less protected when it comes to patients. As I mentioned, federal law protects federal employees from discrimination based on political affiliation and marital status, but not patients. However, keep in mind that per the Constitution, the government can only treat people unequally under the law if it has a rational basis for the distinction, kind of like what we talked about in Skirmety. So under the new bylaws,

could a doctor refuse to treat a patient simply because they're a Democrat or unmarried? Maybe in the same way that a doctor might be able to refuse treatment for a Republican or a married patient But keep in mind state licensing boards say doctors cannot discriminate based on politics Keep in mind the constitution might offer protections for discrimination based on Marital status and existing VA policy may also offer additional protections. Rumor has it that a brain dead woman was forced to give birth in Georgia due to Georgia's abortion laws.

This is true. A woman named Adriana Smith was declared brain dead when she was eight weeks pregnant, but she was kept alive on life support in hopes that the fetus would reach viability. So here's what we know. Smith was eight weeks pregnant when she started experiencing intense headaches. Her mom says she went to the hospital in Atlanta, but she was released and given medication. The next day, her boyfriend found her gasping for air and making gurgling noises in her sleep, so we called 911. She ended up at Emory University Hospital in Georgia, where they did a CT scan, found brain clots in her brain,

and later declared her brain dead. Smith was put on life support for nearly four months until her baby was delivered prematurely this past Friday via an emergency c-section. It's unclear why doctors decided to deliver the baby early, but the baby was born weighing 1 pound 13 ounces and is currently in the NICU. Smith's family previously said they plan to take her off life support this week and according to the Washington Post, Smith has since been taken off life support. The family has also said it was not their decision to keep Smith on life support

for the four months she was on it. Instead, her mom said doctors told the family that they were legally not allowed to consider any other options because of state laws protecting the fetus. Smith's mom said, quote, it should have been left up to the family. I'm not saying we would have chosen to terminate her pregnancy, but what I'm saying is we should have had a choice, end quote. So Smith's family has said doctors told them that they were not allowed to stop or remove the devices that were keeping Smith breathing because of a state law that bans abortion after fetal heartbeat is detected.

Now, we know that Georgia's abortion law called the LIFE Act, which was passed in 2019, but went into effect shortly after Roe's overturn in 2022, says that abortions are not allowed once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is typically around six weeks. Georgia's law does have limited exceptions, including medical emergencies

or cases where the pregnancy is medically futile, but the law does not explicitly address situations involving brain death, and this ambiguity can create confusion in medical settings. Could brain death be considered a medical emergency under the law? Maybe, but doctors can't be sure because what remains unclear is if the woman is brain dead but the fetus is still growing would taking the woman off life support violate Georgia's abortion law because in effect it would terminate the pregnancy. That's what doctors don't know. Now we do know that in May the Georgia Attorney General's office which is the office that would prosecute violations of

state law issued a statement that said quote there is nothing in the LIFE Act that requires medical professionals to keep a woman on life support after brain death. Removing life support is not an action with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy, end quote. However, on the other side of things, Georgia state Senator Ed Seltzer, which granted he would not be the one prosecuting a violation of state law, but he is one who sponsored the bill. He supported an opposing interpretation of the law saying, quote, I think it's completely appropriate that the hospital do what they can to save the life of the child. I think this is an unusual circumstance, but I think it highlights the value of innocent human life. I think the hospital is

acting appropriately. End quote. So that certainly illustrates the ambiguity there because while Georgia's attorney general may not feel that prosecution is warranted in that situation, the issue that doctors are having is the hypothetical of what if a new attorney general comes in that feels differently? What happens in that case? So that's where the ambiguity sort of gets in the way. Emory Healthcare said it could not comment on individual cases for privacy reasons, but they did release a statement saying the hospital, quote, uses consensus from clinical experts, medical literature, and legal guidance

to support our providers as they make individualized treatment recommendations in compliance with Georgia's abortion laws and all other applicable laws. Our top priorities continue to be the safety and wellbeing of the patients we serve." Last one. Rumor has it that the Trump administration is ending a 9-8-8 suicide hotline for LGBTQ individuals. This is true. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, announced that the 9-8-8

suicide and crisis lifeline will no longer offer the press three option as of June 17th. So the national 988 suicide and crisis lifeline is something that launched in 2022 as a federally funded resource for people experiencing mental health, substance abuse, or suicidal crises. It was president Trump actually that signed the national suicide hotline designation into law in October, 2020, which designated the number 988 as the three digit dialing code to be used for a nationwide suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline. When the 988 line was ultimately launched in 2022 under the Biden administration, it included multiple call-in options. Option three specifically directs callers to counselors who are specifically

trained to work with LGBTQ plus people who are under 25 years old. The Trevor Project, which is a nonprofit that focuses on suicide prevention and crisis intervention for LGBTQ youth is the main contact center that partners with the 988 Lifeline to provide this option three support. According to agency data, since 2022,

more than 14 and a half million people have called, texted, or sent chats to the Lifeline and have subsequently been transferred to a crisis contact center. Roughly 1.3 million of those people were routed to the LGBTQ specialized service by pressing option 3. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's announcement reads, quote, On July 17, the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline will no longer silo LG-LGB Plus Youth Services, also known as the Press 3 option, to focus on serving all help seekers, including those previously served through the Press 3 option. The Press 3 option was established as a pilot program in fiscal year 2022 under a government agreement with a third party. The fiscal year 2023 omnibus included a

congressional directive for 29.7 million dollars to fund the specialized services. Federal funding in fiscal year 2024 for the press three services increased to 33 million. As of June 2025 more than 33 million dollars in funds have been spent to support the sub networks, fully expending the monies allocated for 988 Lifeline LGB Plus sub network services. Everyone who contacts the 988 Lifeline will continue to receive access to skilled, caring, culturally competent crisis counselors who can help with suicidal, substance misuse, or mental health crises or any other kind of emotional distress.

Anyone who calls the lifeline will continue to receive compassion and help." End quote. So basically what the agency is saying is that the funds that were appropriated to Press 3 services for the current fiscal year have been exhausted and therefore the option is being terminated. And just to touch on that funding component a little more. Press three was the only option that had dedicated funding. So press one is for veterans, it's funded separately through the VA as well as through general 988 appropriations. Press two, which is for Spanish speakers,

is also supported under the overall 988 Lifeline budget without specific appropriations. But press three is the only option that had its own specific appropriation of about 30 million dollars annually for the last few years. Now could the HHS use the general 988 funding to continue funding option 3 since it's under the 988 lifeline umbrella? Sure, but it doesn't want to do that. In fact we know earlier this month that the HHS proposed cutting

option 3 from the fiscal year 2026 budget so it's not something the HHS wants Congress to continue funding. So just to recap, the press three option will no longer be an option for callers starting July 17th. But all callers can still call 988 and receive help from counselors. For those that are looking specifically for LGBTQ counselors, the Trevor Project will still be running their own crisis hotlines that are available. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. As always, have a great weekend. Don't miss my next newsletter going out tomorrow morning,

which you can sign up for for free using the link in the episode show notes. I will talk to you again on Monday.