By
A federal judge said Monday that she’ll likely block the Trump administration’s efforts to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding for sexual health education grants. The revelation came as the judge reportedly reprimanded the administration and gave it a basic sex ed lesson from the bench.
I’ve written previously on the administration’s bigoted rationale for withholding the funds from states nationwide, a move it says is is necessary to “protect” children from “radical gender ideology.” The government’s related announcements on this issue — including a reference to curricula that purportedly “could encourage kids to contemplate mutilating their genitals” — make clear that the administration’s real issue is with acknowledging the existence of transgender people.
And according to Courthouse News, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken wasn’t feeling that justification at Monday’s hearing in Eugene, Oregon, in which she announced she’s likely to grant an injunction in favor of the 16 states that sued to block the cuts:
“The school year has already started, the programs are in place, the hiring has been done and right now you have the states caught in a catch-22,” U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken told Justice Department attorney Susanne Luse. “You’re intervening with a set of conditions that there isn’t a body or document or set of hearings that support that interjection. It looks pretty arbitrary and capricious.”
It doesn’t sound like things got much better for the administration at the hearing, according to the report — especially after Justice Department attorney Susanne Luse asked how so-called gender ideology comports with the goals of sex ed courses:
“Is it possible that a trans youth can get pregnant? Is it possible that individuals who are nonbinary can get STIs [sexually transmitted infections]? Is it possible that any and all of those diverse youth are in the position where, when they don’t have broad information about risks of sex, can become self-harming, suicidal or drug-affected or drug-using?” Aiken asked, followed by an explanation that she served full-time as a juvenile judge before she was appointed to the federal bench.
The answer to all of these questions, of course, is yes.
The judge’s line of questioning here — simplistic as it sounds — helped highlight the antiscientific absurdity of the Trump administration’s stance. And reports out of the hearing were met with support from sex ed advocates.
“This ruling is a powerful reminder that facts, law, and human dignity still matter,” said Callie Simon, executive director of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, said in a statement. “It’s heartening to see the courts uphold what Congress intended — education that supports all young people, not one that erases those who are transgender, nonbinary, or questioning. We stand with every educator and advocate who refuses to let federal funding be weaponized against inclusion.”