Recent Developments in Protecting Women's Athletics

Plus a lagniappe

The past few days have brought us several developments in women’s athletics, two of which are bad news.

First, PA SB 9, the Save Women’s Sports Act, was referred to the House Health Committee on a strictly party-line vote. Your Author has contacted SB 9’s primary sponsor, Senator Judy Ward, R-30, to find out why. If any readers know, please reply in the comments. This action is probably bad news for the passage of SB 9 this year and the integrity of women’s sports in Pennsylvania.

Second, the US Department of Justice is suing California for violating Title IX:

According to the complaint, the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) have engaged in illegal sex discrimination against female student athletes by allowing males to compete against them, depriving these girls of the equal education and athletic opportunities afforded to them by federal civil rights law. Thus, the suit seeks declaratory, injunctive, and damages relief for violations of Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity that receives federal funding.

The good news is that the Justice Department is defending women’s athletics. The bad news is that the government of California doesn’t care about women and girls, despite Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent flipping.

Note that legacy media, such as CNN, frame this as a “trans rights” issue, not the women’s rights issue is truly is. Sigh.

Third, SCOTUS accepted two cases for its next term on women’s right to single-sex athletics. The cases, Governor of Idaho v Hecox and West Virginia v BPJ, ask:

Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Hecox]

and

1. Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth [sic].

2. Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth. [West Virginia]

Note the “determined at birth” language.

Based on SCOTUS’s Skrmetti decision, their acceptance of these cases may be good news.

Finally, Your Author will try to include something funny and/or uplifting in her articles. She certainly needs it!

Cookin' With Congress is a humorous Substack invented by Bennett Rea, a guy from Pittsburgh, so it’s actually relevant here. CWC brings us both historical and contemporary recipes from US presidents, members of Congress, and the occasional British royal. As Rea writes, “Politics is cooked. Taste-testing America's politicians one horrific dish at a time.”

Recipes range from true gastronomic monstrosities like Richard Nixon’s ham mousse (“Unfathomably disgusting. Could not eat more than one bite. In fact, I technically swallowed a half-bite of this slimy, meaty Cool Whip, then spit the rest into the sink on top of my daughter’s lunchbox. Sorry.”) to Dana Rohrabacher’s Magnificent Margaritas. This is a Substack for all you presidential-food buffs.

Disclaimer: I have neither personal nor financial ties to CWC. I just enjoy it as a subscriber. And now I’m sharing it with you, dear readers.