'Girls actually get hurt': Rep. Victoria Spartz shows videos of transgender athletes injuring girls in fiery House hearing

'Girls actually get hurt': Rep. Victoria Spartz shows videos of transgender athletes injuring girls in fiery House hearing



Indiana Republican Rep. Victoria Spartz played evidence of male athletes injuring young girls in sports during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on barring transgender athletes from Olympic women's sports.

Spartz was just one of several Republican House members who gave impassioned remarks surrounding protecting young women from males in their locker rooms and regarding scholarships, as well as in sports in general.

"I actually would like to play some video. ... I want to see what it really can cause, how much harm, and we can show examples to [how] much stronger guys playing the sports against biologically not-as-strong women," the Republican stated.

"Most of us as I said are not biologically as strong, and it is unfortunate the other side tries to really deter the conversation in a different direction and divert it. ... Let's talk about how we are going to protect our women and girls."

Spartz then showed a compilation of three separate instances in which female high school athletes were injured by male athletes who were allowed to compete against them.

The first example was from a Massachusetts high school, when a trans-identifying male student caused multiple injuries during a girls' basketball game. At halftime, the school's coach decided to forfeit the game after the remaining players expressed concerns about potentially becoming injured and missing the upcoming playoffs.

Shockingly, the school later defended the right of the male student compete against girls.

The next example came from a North Carolina high school volleyball game, in which a male player spiked a ball into a female player's face. The girl reportedly suffered severe injuries to her head and neck and was seen lying on the floor for some time before recovering enough to walk off the court under her own power.

A third example was shown from a Massachusetts high school girls' lacrosse game. A male player took a shot that hit a girl in the face and reportedly knocked out several of her teeth.

After the compilation video played, Spartz stated that she wanted to focus on preventing injuries, not enforcing rules after the fact.

"Girls actually get hurt by males biological playing sports. I mean, it is really unbelievable for me that this is an issue that we cannot stand with women and girls on," she continued.

"Let's just be honest, boys, you know, natural biological boys, have a different advantage against women playing sports. Let's recognize and be honest about that and not divert [the] conversation," she added.

Spartz's testimony faced little pushback, unlike other exchanges between California Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell and Wyoming Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman. Swalwell repeatedly claimed that males entering into female locker rooms "is not a thing" because there are not enough examples of it.

Swalwell also called the bill under discussion "creepy" and stated that it would result in "on-demand gender check[s]."

New York Democrat Jerry Nadler also called the potential law barring transgender athletes from women's sports "cynical and dangerous."

Today, @JudiciaryGOP passed the Protection of Women in Olympic & Amateur Sports Act. \n\nAs a mother of two girls and someone who has worked in male-dominated professions her entire life, Rep. Spartz will stand with women to protect their rights & opportunities as athletes.
— (@)

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats immediately object when House Republican proposes members recite Pledge of Allegiance before committee meeting



Fireworks erupted at a House Judiciary Committee meeting on Wednesday after a Republican member proposed a resolution that members say the Pledge of Allegiance before meeting.

But the seemingly innocuous resolution caused a long, heated debate when Democratic members immediately objected.

What happened?

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) proposed an amendment to the committee's rules that would require each member to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before conducting committee business.

"On the Judiciary Committee, we are charged with vindicating the constitutional rights of our fellow Americans, and our Pledge of Allegiance is a national symbol of pride and unity," he explained. "My amendment gives the committee the opportunity to begin each of its meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance."

But Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the committee, immediately opposed it.

"I would oppose it simply on the grounds that, as members know, we pledge allegiance every day on the floor. And I don't know why we should pledge allegiance twice in the same day to show how patriotic we are," he said. "I don't think this is the most important amendment in the world."

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) swiftly demonstrated why Nadler's objection was, perhaps, not justified.

"I've not seen Mr. Nadler on the floor when the pledge is done, and most members are not present there," Johnson said. "So it's not accurate to say we do the pledge every day or participate in the pledge every day. It may be offered, but you’re not there for it."

JUST IN: Matt Gaetz Amendment Causes Massive Debate In House Judiciary Committee Hearing www.youtube.com

From there, the civility of the meeting quickly went downhill. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) countered with his own amendment barring "insurrectionists" from leading the Pledge of Allegiance. Gaetz responded that Democrats also have a history of not supporting the outcome of presidential elections or denying their legitimacy.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) later undercut Cicilline's argument completely, noting that "insurrection" is a crime and would disqualify those convicted of it from serving in the House. Cicilline was thus forced to admit that no one on the committee was guilty of "insurrection."

At one point, Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) took the opportunity to point out what he believed was the absurdity of the debate.

"I'm almost speechless," he said. "I know it's a real backbreaker. ... We can [go] that little extra mile, stand up, put our hand on our chest, say what we believe, and reaffirm this America that we love. Come on. This can't be real. I can't believe we're having this debate."

\u201cWould you believe me if I said the first half hour of our @JudiciaryGOP hearing has been wasted because Democrats oppose saying the pledge of allegiance?\u201d
— Congressman Jeff Van Drew (@Congressman Jeff Van Drew) 1675263416

What was the result?

Ultimately, Cicilline's amendment was blocked by a vote of 24-13, NBC News reported.

Gaetz's, on the other hand, was unanimously approved by a vote of 39-0.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Whistleblower email shows the FBI is, in fact, using counterterrorism tactics to monitor parents protesting school boards



Despite Attorney General Merrick Garland's insistence otherwise, the FBI has, in fact, begun using counterterrorism tactics to track and investigate concerned parents protesting at school board meetings, according to a whistleblower email released this week by House Republican lawmakers.

What are the details?

The email, obtained and posted to Twitter by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, shows that FBI leadership instructed agents to monitor and "track" any "threats of violence or fear" against "school board administrators, members, teachers, and staff" to determine whether the alleged threats violated federal law.

To do so, the bureau created a "threat tag, EDUOFFICIALS," for agents to use to "identify" the motivation behind the threats and decipher whether there are "federal violations that can be investigated and charged."

In the email, sent on Oct. 20, FBI Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Timothy Langan specifically mentions that these actions were taken in accordance with an internal Department of Justice memo sent by Garland on Oct. 4.

FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER:pic.twitter.com/4IfJRPVKMk

— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) 1637093531

Yet during testimony in front of Congress last month, Garland emphatically dismissed the notion that his department was treating parents like "domestic terrorists" and using counterterrorism tactics to investigate them.

"I can't imagine any circumstance in which the PATRIOT Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism," the attorney general said, in part.

In his Oct. 4 memo, Garland called on the FBI to help address an alleged "disturbing spike" of "harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence" against local education personnel. The email came just days after the National School Boards Association sent a letter to the White House comparing concerned parents to "domestic terrorists."

What else?

House Judiciary Republicans, led by ranking member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), said Tuesday that the email "calls into question the accuracy and completeness" of Garland's testimony before Congress.

"At best if we assume that you were ignorant of the FBI's actions in response to your October 4 memorandum at the time of your testimony, this evidence suggests that your testimony to the committee was incomplete and requires additional explanation," Jordan wrote in the letter addressed to the attorney general.

In a separate statement, House GOP Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said the email shows that "Garland was either ignorant of the actions of the agency he leads, or was purposely misleading Congress during his answers."

McCarthy further called the FBI's actions against concerned parents "an egregious abuse of power" and "further proof that we have a President in the White House who is more interested in going after our own citizens, including concerned parents, than he is in going after actual threats."

"Attorney General Garland must return to Congress to address, under oath, in detail, the discrepancies regarding the directives he issued involving investigating America's parents," he demanded.

Republicans demand answers from Biden administration on taxpayer funding for research at Wuhan lab



House Republicans have begun the first congressional inquiry into the Department of Health and Human Services' apparent failure to review research grants of American taxpayer dollars that funded the bat coronavirus research at a lab in Wuhan, China.

House Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Wisconsin Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher on Wednesday sent a letter to HHS senior science adviser David Hassell demanding explanations for why the agency did not review a $600,000 annual five-year grant that was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology between 2014 and 2019.

The Federalist was the first to report the new investigation.

The letter raises concerns over the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly whether American taxpayers funded "gain of function" research at the Wuhan lab at a time when the federal government had issued a moratorium on such research. Gain of function research involves deliberately manipulating pathogens to make them more transmissible by humans to study ways in which naturally occurring diseases could evolve to threaten us.

With scientists and the media increasingly open to the possibility that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was leaked from the Wuhan lab, the lawmakers want to know why funding for research abroad that may have had a role in the outbreak of the pandemic was not reviewed before it was approved.

🚨 #BREAKING: @Jim_Jordan and @RepGallagher demand answers on how U.S. taxpayer dollars could fund dangerous researc… https://t.co/vC0RF0by4c

— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) 1622652977.0

"There is mounting evidence to suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic may have originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology with research on bat coronaviruses partially funded by EcoHealth's grant," the lawmakers wrote, citing a Wall Street Journal report that detailed how three researchers at the Wuhan lab were hospitalized in November 2019 "with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illness."

They observed that the timing of these illnesses matches scientific estimates for when SARS-CoV-2 began spreading in Wuhan and that the Wall Street Journal's reporting contradicts the Chinese Communist Party's claim that the first COVID-19 illness was reported on Dec. 8 that year.

"The Trump Administration was rightly concerned enough about the EcoHealth grants that it directed the NIH to terminate funding in April 2020," the Republicans said. "But questions still remain about how the U.S. government could use taxpayer dollars to fund research on dangerous pathogens at the Chinese lab with known safety deficiencies."

The federal government issued a moratorium on funding gain of function research in October 2014. In January 2017, before President Donald Trump was sworn into office, the Obama administration partially lifted the freeze and ordered U.S. agencies to establish review boards to evaluate funding proposals before approving gain of function research.

HHS created the Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight, or P3CO, review committee to handle the agency's review process.

Between 2014 and 2019, the U.S. nonprofit organization EcoHealth Alliance received $600,000 in taxpayer funds from the National Institutes of Health as subgrants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — led by Dr. Anthony Fauci — and diverted those funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to study coronaviruses from Chinese bats.

The Daily Caller reported in April that the P3CO review committee established by HHS did not review the grants to the Wuhan lab.

What this could mean is that gain of function research was funded by the U.S. in violation of the law, but there is disagreement among scientists on whether the research conducted on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab was gain of function. Under Fauci's leadership, NIAID determined the research in the grant was not gain of function "because it did not involve the enhancement of the pathogenicity or transmissibility of the viruses studied," an NIH spokesperson told the Daily Caller.

In sworn congressional testimony, Fauci claimed the research conducted in Wuhan was not gain of function.

Jordan and Gallagher cite examples of credentialed scientists and academic experts who disagree with Fauci's determination. They request that Hassell answer questions on HHS' failure to review the decision to fund research in Wuhan and inquire about the scope of the board's review powers, asking if it is too limited in Hassell's opinion.

On Wednesday, BuzzFeed News published a massive trove of Dr. Fauci's emails obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request. Emails from February 2020 reported by the Washington Examiner reveal that at the onset of the pandemic, Fauci was aware of potential controversy regarding possible gain of function research at the Wuhan lab.

In newly FOIA'd emails, there are at least two instances of Fauci sending colleagues a paper about "gain of functio… https://t.co/TMJUUVfOjN

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) 1622639013.0

In an email dated Feb. 1, 2020, Fauci forwarded an an attachment labeled "Baric, Shi et al - Nature medicine - SARS Gain of function.pdf" with the subject line, "IMPORTANT" to NIH Principal Deputy Director Hugh Auchincloss.

"Hugh: It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on. I have a conference call at 7:45 AM with [Health and Human Services Secretary Alex] Azar. It likely will be over at 8:45 AM. Read this paper as well as the e-mail that I will forward to you now. You will have tasks today that must be done," Fauci urgently wrote.

In reply, Auchincloss wrote, "The paper you sent me says the experiments were performed before the gain of function pause but have since been reviewed and approved by NIH. Not sure what that means since Emily is sure that no Coronavirus work [has] gone through the P3 framework."

The Examiner suggests "Emily" may refer to Emily Erbelding, director of the NIH's division of microbiology and infectious diseases, who is named in several other emails.

"She will try to determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad," Auchincloss continued.

"OK. Stay tuned," Fauci replied.