HOLLYWOOD, August 7, 2013 (American Life League) - Planned Parenthood’s has its guns aimed squarely at Hispanic teens, as it continues its latest foray into eugenic targeting via an unbelievably salacious novella featuring an all-Latino/Latina cast.

Set in East Los Angeles, Episode 1 of East Los High (ELH) features Vanessa, who has just been crowned Winter Queen. She receives a text and, stopping mid-dance with her boyfriend, the Winter King, dashes to a car and has sex with the caller. The scene flashes from the dance floor to the car, where Vanessa is seen gyrating and moaning, while someone videotapes the sex scene with a cell phone.

This is Planned Parenthood’s avenue for curbing teen pregnancy?

A Hollywood Reporter headline proclaims: “How Hulu lured Latinos to East Los High” with a subtitle that says, “The streaming service’s racy soap, designed to curb teen pregnancy, uses ‘salacious’ storylines to lure kids to the message.”

Hulu streams video via the Internet, and is very popular among the teen population.

Population Media Center (PMC) is the creator of East Los High. PMC’s founder and president is William Ryerson, a former Planned Parenthood executive. Since 2008, he has also served as CEO of the Population Institute, which works in partnership with his social engineering organization Population Media Center.

The Hollywood Reporter article trumpeting East Los High continues:

It’s a hit drama set among Latino teens with themes of love, sex, violence and revenge—all the elements of a racy telenovela. But East Los High is designed to teach as much as titillate.

The first TV series exclusively on Hulu in English with a Latino cast, the show is the brainchild of the nonprofitPopulation Media Center, which creates serialized content to promote social change, and is designed as a PSA of sorts for the target Latino audience. Storylines have a moral, characters become role models, and viewers ultimately are directed to websites with resources on such issues as teen pregnancy.

Which begs the questions: What kind of public service is done by the airing of this trashy novella directed to Hispanic teens? And just what is the “moral” of Episode 1? Finish the dance with your boyfriend before dashing to the car to have sex with someone else? Watch out when you have sex in a car because someone may be videotaping you? Being voted Winter Queen will make you extremely popular on the hookup circuit?

How can anyone even use the word “moral” in connection with this series?

Vanessa does become a role model, however. Not one that parents would want their teens to emulate, but a role model nevertheless, as borne out by comments on the East Los High Facebook page, where a teen comments that Vanessa is “real,” but the girl who plays the role of a virgin is “annoying.” Getting her out of the “virgin’s club” is a recurring theme of the series.

A quick visit to EastLosHigh.com will show that the websites and resources offered are from Planned Parenthood and its cohorts. The trailer for the series on YouTube shows scene after scene of sex, dirty dancing, sex, violence, sex, foul language, and more sex.

The Reporter article continues describing the methodology of pulling Hispanic teens in to Planned Parenthood’s web with the soap opera:

“You start out with a very salacious soap opera and get them in,” says Evangeline Ordaz, who writes the show with creators Carlos Portugal and Kathleen Bedoya. “Then hit them up with, ‘If you’re going to have sex, be responsible.’”

After watching Episode 1, this author found no hint of a responsibility message connected to the sex taking place on camera or the sale of cocaine that is the subject of the last half of the episode.

Click "like" if you want to end abortion!

A July 30 Huffington Post article pinpoints Planned Parenthood as an originating partner of the series: “The series grew out of partnerships with sexual health organizations and the Latino advocacy groups Planned Parenthood, Advocates for Youth, Voto Latino and the California Family Health Council.”

The series shows teens putting themselves in inappropriate, dangerous situations—including drug sales, alcohol use, violent relationships, and engaging in sex—and having no regrets, except when they fail to use contraception or end up on the wrong end of a gun.

Some of the excerpts from the show are featured on the ELH Facebook page as memes, including: “Sexaholic and proud of it,” “You can’t get out of a DUI with a hand job,” and “You’re getting buried—I mean married.” Teens are also instructed on the Facebook site, “Watch Maya get personal—with a banana. You too might learn something.” Also included are tips on how to “pleasure your partner.” Remember, all this is supposedly presented by Planned Parenthood and friends to curb teen pregnancy. Vanessa’s Winter Queen sex video is also featured on the Facebook page.

How could Planned Parenthood orchestrate a more blatant attempt at targeting the Hispanic teen population to draw them into its facilities? The series hands teens the recipe for their demise on a platter via Hulu—which is owned by Walt Disney Co., News Corp. and Comcast, and claims a subscriber base of four million—and frames it to teens, to parents, and the public as education.

Interestingly, Disney collaborated with the Population Council, founded by John D. Rockefeller, as early as 1968 to produce a “family planning” propaganda cartoon employing overpopulation scare tactics. The propaganda piece was translated into 25 languages. Rockefeller was an initial supporter and funder of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. The Rockefeller Foundation continues to be a major funder of Planned Parenthood today. The Ford Foundation is another longtime supporter of Planned Parenthood, so it comes as no surprise that as the credits roll at the end of Episode 1 of East Los High, thanks is given to the Ford Foundation and Planned Parenthood supporters Fred and Alice Stanback. The Stanbacks gifted Planned Parenthood in North Carolina with $300,000 in 2012 alone for “affiliate-wide support.”

Parents and concerned citizens should contact Hulu’s corporate headquarters at 310-571-4700. Let them know that the targeting of Latino teens by Planned Parenthood is not acceptable, and request that the videos be removed and a second season contract not be extended.

This article originally appeared on the website of the American Life League and is reprinted with permission.

December 23, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Pro-abortion bias has once again reared its ugly head at The Washington Post, in a double-standard that undermines the journalistic principles of the paper and the credibility of the rest of the publication's reporters and editors -- and is ill-timed, given the media bias controversy over a now-pulled Post editorial cartoon that portrayed Sen. Ted Cruz's, R-TX, children as chained monkeys.

Abortion poll article omits key facts about Colorado shooter – and poll results

Yesterday, the Post's Niraj Chokshi reported on an Associated Press-Gfk (AP-Gfk) poll that found 58 percent of Americans support abortion being legal "most" or "all" of the time -- a seven percent jump from January of this year -- compared to 39 percent who believe it should be illegal "most" or "all" of the time, a drop of six percent. Toward the end of his piece, Chokshi noted the poll was conducted shortly after a deranged man engaged in a shoot-out with police at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic.

On Nov. 27, an armed gunman stormed a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, killing three and injuring at least nine others. The suspect in the incident, Robert Lewis Dear Jr., used the phrase “no more baby parts” to explain his actions, according to law enforcement.

The poll was conducted days later, from Dec. 3 to Dec. 7, with 1,007 adults interviewed. The margin of sampling error is 3.4 percentage points. Respondents were chosen randomly by phone or by mail and then subsequently interviewed online.

Somehow, Chokshi didn't see fit to report that Dear is almost certainly mentally unstable, with a history of unstable activity. Furthermore, the "no more baby parts" quote was reported anonymously and significantly qualified. From The New York Times:

But one senior law enforcement official, who would speak only anonymously about an ongoing investigation, said that after Mr. Dear was arrested, he had said “no more baby parts” in a rambling interview with the authorities.

The official said that Mr. Dear “said a lot of things” during his interview, making it difficult for the authorities to pinpoint a specific motivation.

Despite being Tweeted about Dear's mental instability, Chockshi has not updated his article.

Chokshi also failed to note that the poll found a plurality of respondents -- 37 percent -- supported abortion laws being more strict, with 32 percent of people believing the status quo is acceptable, and 27 percent believing laws should be loosened.

Chokshi does deserve credit for a little bit of intellectual honesty, which closed out the article:

The rise in abortion support in the latest AP-Gfk survey may be fleeting. Research has shown that Americans’ attitudes regarding abortion have been relatively consistent over the decades, despite the occasional fluctuation.

Chokshi's reporting is bad enough -- but it continues a pattern of behavior

Chokshi's mis-reporting would be bad enough on its own. However, it also highlights a double-standard of poll reporting and analysis at the Post that definitively favors promotion of the abortion industry.

Just a week before Chokshi's article was published, one of the Post's fact-checkers, Michelle Ye Lee, hammered a Robert Morris University (RMU) poll for alleged inaccuracy because the poll was conducted online.

While online surveys typically have issues of response bias, RMU professor Philip Harold (disclosure: Harold was briefly a client of mine, to promote the RMU poll; the contract was fulfilled two weeks ago, and has no bearing on this post) told Lee in an e-mail that his poll's response bias was negated by other factors:

Of course online polling began by simply putting polls out there and people deciding whether to complete the survey or not – opting in or opting out.  This is an unscientific straw poll suffering from self-selection bias, which is not representative of anything.  Our poll is not that at all; we make very specific invitations to a randomly selected group of panel members.  So while respondents originally opted to join the panel of millions of Americans, they were randomly selected by invitation to complete a survey designated for them, so it does not qualify as an opt-in survey.  We hire a polling firm to run our polls; they in turn work with the firms who provide the panels.

Despite exchanging numerous e-mails with Harold, Lee concluded that the RMU poll "does not meet The Post’s methodology standards, as it was conducted as an opt-in Internet panel and was not based on a probability sample of U.S. adults. We’ve repeatedly warned readers about such panels, which have led to cautions by the American Association for Public Opinion Research."

In an e-mail to LifeSiteNews, Harold explained that Lee's attacks on his work contrast sharply with Chokshi's uncritical citation of the AP poll -- a poll that Harold noted "absolutely" violated the Post's alleged poll standards.

"The Washington Post was critical of [our] poll because of the findings and not the methodology," he wrote. "For example, this article in The Washington Post reports on a poll for Saint Leo University that uses the exact same methodology the RMU Polling Institute uses, yet there is no discussion about the methodology.  The AP poll also uses nearly identical methodology as the RMU Polling Institute, but since the findings fit the Post's slant they see no reason to be critical of the methodology."

While Harold praised the AP-Gfk's question about abortion laws as "well-designed," he said the question about abortion's legality is vague. In the end, however, the Post's uncritical citation of the AP-Gfk poll is "a clear example of media bias."

This bias by Lee and the Post's editors isn't limited to the AP-Gfk poll. The article cited by Harold is just one example of an online poll that was uncritically cited by the news outlet. This article, which used a biased website with a woefully inadequate methodology to claim there has been an average of one mass shooting per day in America in 2015, is another recent example.

Lee is not alone in her error-filled approach to "fact-checking" the abortion issue -- her former colleague, Sarah Kliff, had similar issues when comparing studies on contraceptives and abortion -- but she and her editors clearly need to figure out what their "standards" are.

Lee's "fact-checking" consistently takes second fiddle to ideology

Lee's practice of undermining pro-life data is not new. Earlier this year, she "fact-checked" whether unborn children feel pain. Despite exchanging many e-mails with Just Facts president James Agresti (again, a client whose inclusion in this piece is separate from any professional relationship) about a flawed study and the generally flawed premise of her analysis, Lee cited disbelief in fetal pain as equal to the scientifically proven pain felt by unborn children.

She also uncritically cited a study with enormous flaws -- which she was aware of -- and the American College of Gynecologists, which is well-known for its pro-abortion, pro-Democratic Party bias. And her "update" to her initial fetal pain assessment was based upon information she had received before publishing her original piece -- and readers were not made aware of the update.

Later in the year, on August 12, Lee concluded Planned Parenthood's claim that 3 percent of its services are abortion is "misleading." Six days later, I contacted her and her boss, Glenn Kessler, to let them know that the 3 percent claim is not misleading -- it's flat-out wrong, if for no other reason than that, as I e-mailed, "many of the FDA's 'contraceptives' are actually abortifacients" because the FDA does not differentiate between drugs and devices that prevent the creation of life... and those that end it."

Neither Lee nor Kessler responded to my e-mail, and Lee's piece was never updated.

Finally, last week, Lee claimed in an e-mail to Harold that "the current funding situation for [Planned Parenthood]" is that Planned Parenthood "receive[s] tax $ for healthcare services but not for performing abortions..."

Lee doubled down on this false statement, declaring no abortion funding for Planned Parenthood to "be the status quo."

However, as acknowledged by Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards in testimony to the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, "federal funds pay for abortion services at PP or anywhere else...in the very limited circumstances allowed by law."

That law is the Hyde Amendment, which for nearly 40 years has officially allowed federal funding for abortions only in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Chokshi, Lee, and others violated the Post's standards of credibility

According to the Post's official Standards and Ethics, "Reporters and editors of The Post are committed to fairness. While arguments about objectivity are endless, the concept of fairness is something that editors and reporters can easily understand and pursue. Fairness results from a few simple practices:

"No story is fair if it omits facts of major importance or significance. Fairness includes completeness.

"No story is fair if it includes essentially irrelevant information at the expense of significant facts. Fairness includes relevance.

"No story is fair if it consciously or unconsciously misleads or even deceives the reader. Fairness includes honesty – leveling with the reader.

"No story is fair if reporters hide their biases or emotions behind such subtly pejorative words as “refused,” “despite,” “quietly,” “admit” and “massive.” Fairness requires straightforwardness ahead of flashiness."

In his story, Chokshi declined to inform readers of Dear's mental illness and how a plurality of Americans support greater regulations on abortion. Likewise, several of Lee's "fact-checks" have relied heavily on misdirection and omission of evidence contrary to the conclusion she desires the reader to come to.

Beyond the editorial standards listed above, Post editors have allowed polls using similar or the same methodology as the RMU poll to be uncritically cited, yet allowed Lee to malign one with a conclusion she didn't like. And Lee's lack of knowledge on basic facts of abortion funding is concerning in the extreme.

December 23, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – It is the “argument of love” that can and will win the day in the fight for justice for the pre-born and for the preservation of marriage, family, and culture, LifeSiteNews editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen told more than 3,300 delegates from over 60 countries attending the World Congress of Families in Utah in October.

Westen said that the “argument of love” for the pre-born child as well as for the pregnant woman has moved America to a “tipping point” where in the past five years a majority of citizens identify themselves as “pro-life.”

He said the pro-life movement has learned important lessons from the American civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King, lessons that also need to be applied by those fighting for marriage and family.

Westen quoted King’s response to the tragic circumstance when the 1963 children’s Crusade for Freedom to end discrimination resulted in the police releasing their attack dogs on the crowd and using fire hoses to disperse them.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said at that time: “We will match your capacity to inflict suffering with our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. We will not hate you, but we cannot in good conscience obey your unjust laws. Do to us what you will and we will still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children; send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities and drag us out on some wayside road, beating us and leaving us half-dead, and we will still love you. But we will soon wear you down by our capacity to suffer. And in winning our freedom we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process.”

Westen called these “memorable words” for everyone in the fight for life, marriage, and family.

“Love, my friends, is the answer. Love. As horrific as the challenges we face are, love is the answer to it all. That kind of love. The love that the world would say is completely insane. But yet it is motivated by Christ who showed his love, not by great miracles, but like this (arms extended on a cross). And it is that great love in which we must use in the fight for life and in the fight for family,” he said.

Westen pointed out how the pro-life movement underwent a “metamorphosis” a number of years ago from focusing exclusively on saving children targeted for abortion to seeing the woman as another victim who is emotionally and psychologically harmed by abortion.

“Over the years we've learned a new language, a language of love, of recognizing the harm that abortion causes women. And so we speak out in love,” he said.

Westen related one encounter he had at a demonstration with a young woman who was adamantly pro-abortion and was arguing that women need access to abortion because they often have no support.

“She said to me, ‘Well, would you be willing to give the shirt off your back right now to support me and my unplanned pregnancy?’”

“And that was the most beautiful question in the world, because we can answer in all truth and honesty, ‘absolutely.’”

“As I said to her, ‘Yeah I'd give not only my shirt, but my right arm, because that child in there is a child of God, and I care about you enough to not let you go through with that,’” Westen related.

Westen said the pro-life movement has learned about using the ‘argument of love’ to great effect and it is now time for the defenders of marriage and family to learn to use this argument as well.

“The pro-life movement learned its lesson, as you can see by the crowds at the March for Life and by the fact that we're doing so well in America, at least, we can see the effect that it's had. We now need to take that ‘love’ and apply it in the fight for the family.”

Westen said that at the end of the day ‘love’ is the only answer that will remain standing in the face of the most convincing same-sex “marriage” argument out there.

The argument, he said, usually runs as follows: “If these two ladies, or these two guys, love one another, how come they can't get married? I thought you said your God was all love. How come you guys are against love?"

“And if our answer back can't be ‘love,’ we're going to be in big trouble,” he said.

“And how do we do that? By telling these young men and young women, ‘We love you enough to tell you that this behavior harms you. It harms your body, as we know from all the studies that have ever been written on it. It harms you psychologically. And it harms your soul.’”

“While we know that many of them aren't Christian, aren't believers at all, but we nevertheless say, ‘In full disclosure, let me at least say that we believe that homosexual practices cause you to lose your eternal salvation, and we don't want that. We want eternal happiness for you. But, if you don't believe that, that's fine, let's talk about the studies. Let's talk about the studies that show the harms psychologically and physically,’” he said.

For those who say the researchers are biased against gays, Westen turns to sources from within the gay community itself, such as Canadian gay-rights activist Gens Hellquist, who in 2009 — four years after the passage of same-sex "marriage" in Canada — argued for an increase of healthcare dollars for the LGBTQ community in Canada.

Hellquist, who recently died at age 66, wrote at that time: "We have one of the poorest health statuses in this country. ... Health issues affecting queer Canadians include lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS."

He continued: "There are all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community. We have higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer ... the reality is there is (sic) more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS….”

And powerfully he concluded: “Now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don't have any issues any more. A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden, we don't see them. Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I'm tired of watching my community die."

Westen said that genuine love demands that such truth about rates of sickness and disease within the gay community be spoken boldly.

“We are speaking in love and in truth when we tell practicing homosexuals that this is harmful for you. They know it too, because they see now that the whole wide world condemns us for saying it, but we say it anyways, out of love,” he said.

He said those who fight for marriage and family have one more lesson to learn from the pro-life movement, namely, lobbying religious leaders of every denomination to motivate their members to make a stand. It’s a tactic that is already used by those who oppose our efforts, Westen said.

“Margaret Sanger, when she started, reached out to pastors in order to convince them that they needed to encourage their congregations to implement population control for their own good. The other side has been lobbying the churches since the beginning,” he pointed out.

“Look at who our supporters are: everyone in this room will know that most supporters of life and family are religiously motivated. Every single study will tell you that. And yet, by not having our religious leaders speaking the truth, by having them shy away because the media pressure is so great and the lobbying they get from the other side is so great, we risk having our own base eroded, and it happens every day,” he said, to an applause of acknowledgment in the room.

Westen gave the example of how Catholic religious leaders caved to political pressures in allowing pro-abortion politicians Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden to continue receiving Holy Communion, despite an explicit directive from Rome in 2004 to the contrary.

“Can you imagine the outrage, the uproar, the wonderful and amazing stuff that would happen if Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden were told publicly that they would not be allowed to receive Holy Communion? What an incredible thing that would be: It would demonstrate, of course, the seriousness with which the Church, along with Christian denominations, take abortion,” he said.

Westen said that Christians need to boldly proclaim the truth about marriage and the family in love, without any fear or prejudice. He concluded with the words of Penn Jillette, one of America's best-known atheists, that he said should “convince us — God willing one and all — to proclaim Christ's truth without fear, out of love.”

Jillette said: “If you believe that there's a heaven and hell, and that people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward ... – how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible, and not tell them that?”

NEW YORK CITY, December 23, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The New York City Commission on Human Rights has issued rules that fine employers for referring to transsexuals by their real gender.

The new “guidance” (“NYC Pronoun Ban”), which has power to levy hefty fines against “violators” who “discriminate,” is an extension of the New York City Human Rights Law, based on the city’s laws against gender discrimination.

Failing to use an individual’s preferred name or pronoun, under the new ban, will be considered a violation of New York City Human Rights Law, punishable by fines up to $250,000.  

“Refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment,” the new NYC Pronoun Ban reads.

“Gender is defined as one’s ‘actual or perceived sex and shall also include a person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression,’“ the new ban reads, “‘whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.’“

Fines may be levied whether the man who wants to be called a woman, or the girl who wants to be called a boy, has legally changed their name or not.

Additionally, the new ban lists “refusing to allow individuals to utilize single-sex facilities and programs” as against New York City law, so boys may use girls’ toilets, showers, and locker rooms, and girls may participate in boys’ activities and programs.  This policy has the force of law “regardless of their sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on their identification.”

Such “discrimination” is “unlawful,” not only in single-stall bathrooms and showers, but in group facilities and locker rooms.  “Forcing a transgender or gender non-conforming person to use the single-occupancy restroom” is an example the NYC Pronoun Ban gives of illegal “discrimination.”

The NYC Pronoun Ban makes a special example of a women’s shelter, which may not “turn away” a man who identifies as a woman, or a men’s shelter which “may not deny service” to a woman who wants to be male.  Critics point out obvious dangers for the safety of shelter inhabitants, such as a battered women’s shelter, inherent in the application of this policy.

“The New York City Commission on Human Rights (the ‘Commission’) is the City agency charged with enforcing the New York City Human Rights Law,” the new ban reads.

A great deal of power is put in the hands of members of the Commission.  “The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.”  The new ban clarifies, “These penalties are in addition to the other remedies available to people who successfully resolve or prevail on claims.”

The new ban states that individuals may file complaints with the Commission within one year of a “discriminatory act,” and file with the New York Supreme Court within three years of a “discriminatory act.”  Significantly, the new ban does not qualify “discriminatory acts” as “alleged.”

The NYC Pronoun Ban goes on to define transgender-sensitive terms: “Cisgender: an adjective denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex.”

“Gender Identity: one’s internal deeply-held sense of one’s gender which may be the same or different from one’s sex assigned at birth.  One’s gender identity may be male, female, neither or both, e.g., non-binary.”

In its definitions section, the NYC Pronoun Ban uses words of disdain for the natural acceptance of one’s sex, calling that “traditional gender-based stereotypes.”

The NYC Pronoun Ban also reads, “Someone who identifies their gender as androgynous, gender queer, non-binary, gender non-conforming, MTF (male to female), or FTM (female to male) may also consider themselves to be transgender."

The new ban notes that any difference in work assignments is actionable as gender discrimination.  

Also actionable:  “Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir.”  Such chosen pronouns must be used “regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change.”

“For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender woman her preferred name, Jane, because her identification says that her first name is John.”

Furthermore, the new NYC Pronoun Ban “guides” employers and public workers to “avoid violations” by “creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is...and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders.”

Employers and public workers “should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.”

Employers and public workers are advised to avoid toilet, shower, and locker room “violations” by “providing private space within multi-user facilities for anyone who has privacy concerns.”  They should also post a sign in all bathrooms, showers and locker rooms stating, “Under New York City Law, all individuals have the right to use the single-sex facility consistent with their gender identity or expression.”

It is “discriminatory” for employers to have “a policy in which men may not wear jewelry or make-up at work.”  It is also “discriminatory” for employers to have different uniforms or dress codes for women than for men.  Additionally, the NYC Pronoun Ban instructs that it is now illegal for employers to have different “grooming standards,” such as hair length rules, for men than for women.

“The fact that the grooming standard or dress code differentiates based on gender is sufficient for it to be considered discriminatory, even if perceived by some as harmless” or “innocuous,” the new ban explains, because that “reinforces a culture of sex stereotypes and accepted cultural norms based on gender expression and identity.”  Additionally, “It will not be a defense that an employer or covered entity is catering to the preferences of their customers or clients.”

Examples of discrimination cited in the new ban include not allowing men “to wear wigs and high heels,” and, “Requiring all men to wear ties in order to dine at a restaurant.”

The NYC Pronoun Ban concerns healthcare, as well.  “To be non-discriminatory with respect to gender, health benefit plans must cover transgender care, also known as transition-related care or gender-affirming care,” including “hormone replacement therapy, voice training, or surgery.”  Surgeries that must be covered by employers include “reconstructive breast surgery” for transgender men.

Ironically, the new ban requires traditionally male healthcare for self-identified “women”:  one noted “violation” is “offering benefits that cover prostate cancer screening for cisgender men but not for transgender women.”

Employers are advised to comply with “the standards of care of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.”

The ultimate arbiter of “gender discrimination,” according to the new ban, is the transsexual.  “An individual’s assessment of their own safety should be a primary consideration.”

The entire NYC Pronoun Ban may be read here.