Share This Article with a Friend!

Call Congress: Oppose House Resolution 124 To Force The Military To Enlist Transgenders

Bradley Chelsea Manning
Our friend Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness has asked organizations and individuals to unite in opposition to a House Democrat Resolution Expressing Opposition to Banning Service in the Armed Forces by Openly Transgender Individuals.

This is the text of the stand-alone bill, House Resolution 124, which is expected to come up for a vote in the House this week, possibly on Thursday. Similar legislation may come up in the Senate as well.

HR 124 essentially demands that the armed forces disobey policy directives of the Commander-in-Chief on a personnel issue affecting national security.

The various "Whereases" in HR 124 are full of factual errors and glaring omissions. This is not surprising, since claims in the resolution reflect LGBT ideology and a deeply-flawed 2016 report produced by RAND, a largely-civilian Pentagon contractor paid to support the previous administration's social agenda for the military.

Contrary to claims in the legislation, the Defense Department is not implementing a "ban" on transgenders in the military. A Pentagon panel of experts, which former Defense Secretary James Mattis convened in 2017, did a thorough job assessing the high costs and consequences of accommodating persons who have been diagnosed with the psychological condition called gender dysphoria.

On March 23, 2018, President Trump endorsed the resulting recommendations for a nuanced policy regarding persons identifying as transgender and persons diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Implementation of the Trump/Mattis policy is scheduled for April 12.

The "Resolved" paragraphs in HR 124 demand that military leaders ignore the President's directives and disregard the very real and serious medical concerns about persons with gender dysphoria, including high risks of psychological conditions and suicide that -- according to the 2018 D0D report - are not helped by LGBT-approved treatments.

Please do whatever you can to raise awareness of this legislation and to encourage resolute opposition. If your organization "scores" votes of elected members of Congress and the Senate, this issue should be high on the list.

The Department of Defense posted five key points explaining how the Trump/Mattis policy assigns priority to military readiness, morale, and combat lethality: 

DoD: 5 Things to Know about DoD's New Policy on Military Service by Transgender Persons & Persons with Gender Dysphoria (Mar. 13, 2019)

The DoD page includes a concise graph that visually summarizes the new policy, and a link to the Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 19-004 which provides details and principles guiding the Trump/Mattis policy.

Judge Stephen F. Williams is a member of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which recently reversed a district court's preliminary injunction against the Trump/Mattis policy. On March 8, Judge Williams issued a concurring opinion in the District of Columbia Jane Doe 2 v. Trump case. That opinion, which should be read in full, systematically discredited claims similar to those in HR 124. Wrote Judge Williams:

"[Transgender plaintiffs'] claims are fundamentally flawed in almost every respect. They give short shrift to the findings of a panel of military experts commissioned by the secretary of defense. They never grapple with the fact that the presidential tweet, on which they place so much weight, post-dates-rather than ante-dates-the decision of the secretary to reevaluate the previous administration's policies." (p. 61)

CMR has prepared excerpts of an instructive Timeline that Judge Williams included in his concurring opinion: 

CMR: Military Transgender Policy Timeline & DoD Summary Graph

This is an updated 4-page Summary of the Trump/Mattis policy and a more detailed report on the findings supporting it: 

CMR Policy Analysis: Trump/Mattis Transgender Policy Promotes Military Readiness (4-page update)

CMR Special Report: Trump Transgender Policy Promotes Military Readiness, Not Political Correctness (34 pages)

Appeals Court Judge Williams' concurrence with the three-judge panel's unanimous reversal of the district court's preliminary injunction against President Trump is another indication that the Trump/Mattis policy has a good chance of prevailing on the merits when it reaches the Supreme Court.

On January 4, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that implementation of the Trump/Mattis policy could proceed, pending ongoing litigation. Members of Congress should oppose the ill-advised House Resolution 124, which would urge military leaders to ignore the carefully-considered policies of former Defense Secretary James Mattis and the Commander-in-Chief. 

The toll-free Capitol Switchboard is (1-866-220-0044) we urge CHQ readers and friends to call their Representative TODAY. Tell your Representative to vote NO on HR 124, a Democrat bill that essentially demands that the armed forces disobey policy directives of the Commander-in-Chief on a personnel issue affecting national security.

Share this

Transgenders in Military

I spent 30 years in the military and believe firmly that a military unit must function as a cohesive unit to succeed in battle. Having a transgender in a fighting unit could have a detrimental effect on combat readiness and unit effectiveness. What is more objectionable is the democrats forcing their warped political agenda on the military when most democrats would never voluntarily serve in the military. Yes there are a few individuals who have served, but they have been brainwashed over the year by left-wing politics thus supporting transgenders in the military. The dems have taken God out of the military why not common sense and decency as well.