This is a news story, published by Slate Magazine, that relates primarily to Frida Ghitis: news.
For more Frida Ghitis: news, you can click here:
more Frida Ghitis: newsFor more civil rights activism news, you can click here:
more civil rights activism newsFor more news from Slate Magazine, you can click here:
more news from Slate MagazineOtherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best politics news, business news, entertainment news, and much more. If you like this article about civil rights activism, you might also like this article about
sex discrimination provisions. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest entire Title IX rule news, Title IX news, news about civil rights activism, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
sex discrimination protectionsSlate Magazine
•
73% Informative
The Supreme Court refused to allow a new rule to protect trans students under Title IX .
Frida Ghitis: Bostock v. Clayton County: It's impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.
She says the court's structure and the prospect of former President Donald Trump ’s reelection have inspired a concerted effort to roll back the ruling.
Ghitis says the groups behind Project 2025 are executing their plan through the courts in 2024 .
The ADF represents a group called the Christian Employers Alliance .
The group argues that denial of needed gender-affirming care falls outside “hiring and firing’s” The 11th Circuit agreed to vacate and reconsider en banc its former 21 decision that applied Bostock .
VR Score
73
Informative language
70
Neutral language
34
Article tone
formal
Language
English
Language complexity
71
Offensive language
possibly offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
not detected
Known propaganda techniques
detected
Time-value
short-lived
External references
13
Source diversity
10
Affiliate links
no affiliate links