Sep 23, 2026
Erika Jordan
Women are 85% more likely to die from an ectopic pregnancy in states with abortion bans.
Bluing The Senate
Win 4 out of the 10, and the Dems own the Senate.
The upper chamber is clearly in play. Here’s my assessment of the races.
With the midterm outlook darkening for Republicans, the central question has shifted from the House to the Senate. Can the GOP, which currently has a three-seat majority, hold on to the upper chamber? Here’s my ranking of the seats that are most likely to change hands.
1. North Carolina
North Carolina unsurprisingly tops my rankings. The Tar Heel State leans Republican in federal elections and has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since Kay Hagan in 2008. But most statewide races there are close, and the Democrats nominated popular two-term former governor Roy Cooper, who has led in polling all year. Some of that lead — he’s ahead of GOP nominee Michael Whatley by eight points in the RealClearPolitics average — is certainly because Whatley is still largely unknown to about a third of voters. But RCP has Cooper at 49.3 percent, and as long as he remains around the magic 50 percent mark, it will be hard for Whatley to win.
2. Ohio
Democrat Sherrod Brown appears on track to reenter the Senate two years after he was defeated by Republican Bernie Moreno. Throughout his career, Brown has run ahead of the Democratic trend, and polling has consistently put him ahead in this race by three to eight percentage points. Like many states with large agricultural sectors, Ohio seems to be swinging against Republicans this year. Husted is losing badly among independents and not getting the 90-percent-plus support he needs from Republicans to offset that. Brown seems to be in the driver’s seat given his historic strength and a good — maybe great — year for Democrats.
3. Maine
Republican Sen. Susan Collins remains popular with the state’s independents, which explains why she only trails by two points in the RCP average. Her problem is demographic: Collins has survived in this blue state only because she attracts many Democratic voters. She certainly can win again, but Trump’s low popularity will be a barrier to the levels of ticket splitting she needs, and this week brought a bombshell ProPublica report that until 2025 she had been a subject of an FBI bribery investigation (her office strongly denied any impropriety by the senator). The polls here were epically wrong in 2020, when she was projected to lose by a wide margin but won by over eight points. One to watch, but Democrat Troy Jackson is the favorite.
4. Michigan
Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed’s well-known weaknesses give Republican Mike Rogers a shot to pull off a blue-to-red upset. Michigan has not elected a Republican to the Senate since 1994, but Rogers came close in 2024. The big unknown: Will Michiganders who vote Democratic in other races abandon El-Sayed knowing his defeat could cost the party control of the Senate? It’s a good sign for El-Sayed that his support has been steadily rising since he won his primary on Aug. 4, but the race is far from over.
5. Alaska
It may surprise some readers to see Alaska this high on the list. But here’s another case of a good Democratic candidate combining with a good environment. Former congresswoman Mary Peltola beat a flawed Republican nominee and showed her crossover appeal by running five points ahead of Kamala Harris even when she lost in 2024. The race has not been heavily polled, and the two most recent ones send conflicting signals. Republicans are worried enough, however, to have committed nearly $15 million, a huge sum for a state with such a small population. They wouldn’t be doing that if they thought Sen. Dan Sullivan had reelection in the bag.
6. Texas
Democrat James Talarico has been ahead in the last nine polls, but his lead still averages under three points. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the scandal-scarred GOP nominee, is flawed in the extreme. Will Republicans and GOP-leaning independents vote party over person? This is the flip side of the question animating the Michigan race. The fact that Texas is much more Republican than Michigan is Democratic is why I rank it here.
7. Iowa
According to the polling, the race between Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson and Democrat Josh Turek is a dead heat. Hinson does not seem to be suffering as much GOP voter defection as other nominees, and she trails among independents by a smaller margin than her more endangered colleagues. It’s still a toss-up, but I join most raters in thinking Hinson is likelier to prevail.
8. New Hampshire
Republicans have reason to be excited about New Hampshire, where polls consistently show former senator John E. Sununu running ahead of expectations in this light-blue state. Three respected race raters have moved this one into their toss-up category. The fact remains, however, that New Hampshire is a highly educated, moderate state that has only elected one Republican to the Senate (Kelly Ayotte in the GOP wave of 2010) since President George W. Bush’s first term. It would be extremely strange if Sununu, who lost his reelection bid in 2008 to outgoing senator Jeanne Shaheen, can buck that trend in such a Democratic year.
9. Minnesota
Recent polling shows Minnesota close. The Democratic candidate, Peggy Flanagan, is very progressive, and as the sitting lieutenant governor she can be tied to the benefits-fraud scandal that destroyed Gov. Tim Walz’s career. Republican Michele Tafoya, a former NFL sideline reporter, is a talented campaigner, and one cannot entirely rule out an upset. But it’s very rare for a candidate from a party likely to do poorly in a midterm to capture a seat in the opposing party’s column.
10. Georgia
Georgia rounds out my top 10. After a narrow runoff win in 2021, Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff has turned himself into a fundraising powerhouse and dark-horse presidential contender. Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Mike Collins has had trouble raising money and has been stalked by a series of controversies involving problematic staffers. Georgia is Republican enough that the GOP is spending to try to elevate Collins, but don’t be surprised if he gets cut off — triaged, in political parlance — in October.
Saddam The Builder
Saddam fancied himself a military commander, and when he planned an attack on Khafji in 1991, it failed, as coalition forces counterattacked and drove the Iraqis out of the city three days later.
Trump fancies himself a builder, and Trump is the process of fucking this up, because everything trump touches turns to shit.
James McCrery II resigned in October after warning that the president was insisting on designs that violated fire and safety codes.
In the weeks leading up to his resignation last year, the first architect on the White House ballroom clashed with President Donald Trump over design features that the architect believed violated building safety codes, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions and corroborating documents reviewed by The Washington Post.
James McCrery II withdrew from the project last October after warning repeatedly that Trump was insisting on a preliminary design that did not provide adequate emergency exit routes or fire-containment measures, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions.
Trump brushed off McCrery’s concerns, they said, and the president countered that no building codes apply to White House construction.
“I am the code,” Trump said.
That episode, as described by the people familiar with the matter, offers new insight into Trump’s priorities for the ballroom at a time when he is flexing executive power to fast-track construction projects across the nation’s capital. The interviews and documents obtained by The Post — including early ballroom designs and images Trump appeared to have marked up with his trademark black-ink Sharpie — also show how deeply involved the president has been in the details of the project.
White House renovations and construction are typically handled by federal agencies required by law to comply with nationally recognized building safety standards to the “maximum extent feasible,” unless doing so would present a national security risk.
But Trump’s White House construction projects are being routed through the Executive Residence, a tiny office that is not a federal agency and is therefore exempt from rules governing agencies.
The District of Columbia government has no jurisdiction to enforce local building codes on federal property. The contractors hired to design and build the ballroom are responsible for adhering to safety standards as they work nearly round-the-clock to meet Trump’s ambitious deadlines, according to experts.
Discussions about the safety issues in the ballroom’s design continued for months after McCrery resigned, according to White House records. It is not clear from the records reviewed by The Post whether the safety issues he identified have been resolved in more recent designs by Shalom Baranes Associates, the architecture firm that replaced McCrery’s firm late last year.
Shalom Baranes Associates declined to comment.
When Post reporters visited McCrery’s office this month, he asked them to leave and not contact him again. On Tuesday, in response to questions from The Post and details about its reporting for this story, McCrery issued a statement through a spokesman.
“President Trump entrusted me with the earliest stages of the new ballroom design,” the statement said. “I am truly grateful for that honor and for the rich experience of working for him alongside all the highly talented and committed patriots at the Executive Mansion. Having completed the earliest designs, I stepped aside and a new firm was engaged.”
The Post previously reported that McCrery clashed with Trump over the size of the ballroom. In response to questions Tuesday, McCrery did not provide a specific reason for his resignation. A White House spokesman emailed a statement that said it would be “factually false and totally inaccurate” to say that “McCrery’s departure from the project was in any way associated with code issues.”
Compliance with safety codes has been a priority since the East Wing project began, and aesthetics have not outweighed fire and safety standards, the statement said. The current team of architects and consultants is responsible for designing the East Wing according to nationally recognized fire and safety codes, it said.
“Life safety issues have been addressed and resolved continuously as the design has evolved,” the statement said.
“McCrery was a valued member of the initial design team of the East Wing Modernization Project,” the statement said. “The decision was made to move in another direction for the second phase of the project and we continue to make tremendous strides in realizing the goal of providing a world class military and functional facility for future Presidents to utilize.”
The ballroom is the most expensive of the projects Trump has initiated to leave his imprint on monumental D.C. The president has described the project as a “gift” to the American people. Polls show that it is deeply unpopular. The Post previously reported that as of March, the ballroom project was expected to cost hundreds of millions more than the administration has publicly acknowledged — and that half the cost was expected to be covered by taxpayers.
Renderings show an ornate and gilded interior that departs from the simplicity of the original White House and echoes the look of the ballroom at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, a look he has said was inspired by the Palace of Versailles in France. A March budget for the new White House ballroom included nearly $6 million in gold leaf. The project also includes secure underground facilities that Trump has said are necessary for national security.
McCrery, a classical architect and professor at Catholic University of America, runs a boutique firm on Capitol Hill that specializes in designing churches, libraries and buildings for college campuses.
During his first term, Trump appointed McCrery to the United States Commission of Fine Arts, a position in which the architect consulted on projects in the capital through President Joe Biden’s administration.
Trump handpicked McCrery Architects to design the aboveground portion of the ballroom, and the firm began drafting drawings as early as April 2025, documents show. “I am honored that President Trump has entrusted me to help bring this beautiful and necessary renovation to The People’s House, while preserving the elegance of its classical design and historical importance,” McCrery said in a White House news release announcing the project.
Trump was immersed in the minutiae of the project that spring and summer, often spending hours at a time discussing it at the White House with McCrery, the people with knowledge of the meetings said. The president also called McCrery on his cellphone at all hours to relay his thoughts on the design, they said.
The Post reviewed draft plans and other images featuring dozens of undated handwritten notes that appeared to be from Trump to McCrery as the two worked together on early designs for the ballroom. The notes were later returned to the White House, where images show they were stored in a box containing the label “Docs bearing POTUS’s mark.”
Sharpie markings on one of the documents expanded the footprint of McCrery’s sketch of a ballroom that would have seated 640 guests. The Sharpie marks also scratched out proposed service corridors, extending the ballroom the entire width of the second floor.
The markings offer input on tiny details in the design, including how far decorative interior columns should extend into the ballroom or whether doors should hinge on the left or right. They emphasize a preference for Corinthian-style columns over simpler columns. And they cross out two sets of service stairs.
The documents reviewed by The Post also hint at friction, previously reported by The Post and others, that grew last summer as Trump insisted on expanding the ballroom until it was nearly twice the size of the historical mansion — a size that would seat more than 1,300 guests.
One document features an image of a planned data center overlaid on a map of Manhattan, a mash-up that demonstrated the data center’s massive size. “James,” begins a note for McCrery at the top, an apparent reference to the architect’s concerns about the size of the ballroom, “And you think we are big.”
Trump’s growing vision for the ballroom triggered a cascade of design issues, including conflicts with building standards McCrery was trained to follow, according to the people familiar with their discussions.
McCrery informed the White House that Trump’s ballroom design did not meet fire safety codes, which require the majority of guests to be able to quickly exit through the main entrance during an emergency, according to the people and documents. The architect also pointed out that alternative emergency exit routes out of the building were insufficient, and that there was little in the design to prevent a kitchen fire from rapidly spreading into the event space on the floor above.
In addition to fire safety concerns, Trump’s desired ballroom design did not include enough toilets to accommodate the structure’s maximum occupancy, according to documents, and there were few options for adding more, as the event space occupied most of the building’s footprint. One early ballroom design featured just seven stalls in the women’s bathroom.
On Sept. 30, 2025, a White House team met to review the ballroom design, and they discussed “areas of concern” and comments from contractors on the project, according to a White House official’s meeting notes. “Life safety — big concern,” the notes said.
Major renovations and construction on the White House are supposed to be handled by the General Services Administration or the National Park Service, according to a memorandum of understanding governing site operations.
The GSA, which handles most nonmilitary government real estate projects, has previously told The Post that it has no role in the ballroom project and Tuesday referred questions to the White House. The Park Service is acting as a pass-through for private donations to the project but is not running the construction. The Park Service did not respond to a request for comment.
Instead, the work has been routed through the White House Executive Residence, an unusual arrangement that has allowed the president to dictate the terms of the project, The Post previously has reported.
Typically, the GSA and other federal agencies write language into their construction contracts that allows them to enforce code compliance, according to Kevin Kampschroer, who oversaw numerous federal construction projects in a 50-year career at the GSA.
While it’s difficult to quantify the risk of designing a structure without adequate emergency exits and other fire-protection mechanisms, Kampschroer said, “bottom line is, I don’t know any commercial building owner that would cheat on the fire code, because the risk is too great.”
The Post has not reviewed McCrery’s contract with the White House but has examined the contract between the White House and the project builder, Clark Construction. The agreement says Clark must conduct its work in accordance with “Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, codes, directives, or guidance provided by the Contracting Officer.” The contracting officer in this case is Joshua Fisher, director of White House management and administration and an assistant to Trump.
Fisher did not respond to a request for comment.
Clark has hired a private company to do third-party inspection of the construction, according to a memo notifying the White House of its plan to issue a no-bid subcontract for the work.
A spokesperson for Clark Construction, the project’s general contractor, said in a statement, “As demonstrated by our successful history delivering projects for Federal clients across the United States, we consistently follow applicable building codes and life safety requirements.”
Documents show that McCrery resigned the week of Oct. 20, the same week demolition began on the former East Wing.
In the months that followed his resignation, documents show, the White House team continued to discuss life-safety issues and a code review for the ballroom project. It is unclear if a review was ever completed.
“Life safety — needs POTUS buy in,” read one White House official’s notes from a Nov. 6 meeting on the project.
The ballroom plans should have been finalized by early June 2026, according to an initial schedule reviewed by The Post, but current and former administration officials — who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations — told The Post in late August that the president was still tweaking the design as construction continued.
“Refinements to the design are continuing as construction proceeds,” said the White House statement to The Post. “These refinements are primarily associated with the interiors.”
Shiny Objects
Republicans are at it again. Their culture war bullshit does nothing to make anything better for anyone but themselves. The "issues" they're putting up are intended only to drive gullible voters to the polls.
Three Bigoted Ballot Measures
When your ballot arrives in the mail in a few weeks, it will be the size of a phonebook. That’s due to the whopping 14 ballot initiatives which qualified for the November election, tying 2008 as the high water mark for Colorado’s initiative system. As I’ve spent the last several weeks rambling about, 8 of those 14 initiatives are sponsored by billionaire-backed conservative organization Advance Colorado, and every single one of those eight deserve a no vote.
The eight Advance-backed measures are not the only initiatives on the November ballot which deserve your no vote, though. Three others – a slate of conspiratorial and bigoted measures backed by right-wing activist group Protect Kids Colorado – also warrant resounding rejection. In order to give you the most concise explanation of why each of the PKC initiatives should be discarded with as much disdain as possible, I turned to someone who knows more about the initiatives and the group behind them than anybody else I know: CTR’s own Jamie O’Rourke.
This fall is the first time many Coloradans will hear about Protect Kids Colorado, thanks to their slate of ballot initiatives, but Jamie has been covering the group for years. Jamie covered the group’s attempt and failure to make it this far in the ballot process in 2024, founder Erin Lee’s ties to both local and national networks of Christian nationalists, the group’s long journey to this year’s ballot, and much more.
The three PKC-sponsored initiatives which will appear on your ballot next month each deal with different topics, but are united by the same themes animating the group behind them: homophobia, conspiracism, and an utter disregard for the children they claim to be protecting.
Proposition 133 – Penalties for Human Trafficking a Minor
Proposition 134 would prohibit transgender youth of any age from participating in any K-12 or collegiate sports – quite literally a measure to single out specific children for exclusion. Thanks in no small part to heavy spending by deep-pocketed political interests and the deployment of an enormous astroturf campaign, and despite transgender individuals making up about 1% of the population, there has been a nationwide debate in recent years about exactly this topic. Proposition 134 is PKC’s way of getting in on the action.
In short
Amid the feverishly well-funded push to ban transgender student athletes from competition nationwide, certain facts have become muddy in the public mind. There now exists in some corners an idea that children assigned male at birth are going through a lengthy and arduous transition process simply to excel at athletics against competitors assigned female at birth. That is, of course, ridiculous – as are a number of other myths surrounding the topic.
Worse than ridiculous, though, are the consequences the measure might have if passed. How exactly does one ensure that the trans kids are weeded out? Proponents tend to dismiss the claim that the law might require children around the state to submit to mandatory genital inspections before being allowed to play sports, but that exact consequence has been flagged as a serious possible outcome in a very similar initiative in Washington State this year.
“The mechanism for confirming a student’s sex assigned at birth is not specified whatsoever by the bill,” Jamie told me. “Similar bills in other states, while bad, at least give clarity that something like a birth certificate or other document will suffice. Prop. 134 only defines ‘male’ and ‘female’ by reproductive organs, which is where you get the concern from opponents of this bill that it will potentially subject children to invasive inspections.”
Verdict: Not only is it based on a willful misunderstanding of well-established facts, Prop 134 is also a recipe for subjecting children around the state to invasive, traumatic exams, all in service of bullying 1% of them. Vote no.
Proposition 135 – Prohibit Certain Surgeries on Minors
Proposition 135 aims to restrict gender-affirming medical care for minors by prohibiting “any surgery to alter sex characteristics.” The number of such surgeries performed on minors nationwide is vanishingly small, and zero such surgeries are performed on anyone 12 or younger. These claims have been fact-checked relentlessly over the last few years, but activists like those at Protect Kids Colorado have declined to accept the checked facts.
Beyond being an attempt to “solve” a “problem” which – even if either of those descriptors were accurate – simply does not exist, opponents have argued that the bill could have serious consequences if passed. By barring “any surgery to alter sex characteristics,” there is a risk that it may become illegal to perform critical procedures, like a mastectomy on a young woman with breast cancer, for instance. It would also likely ban chest reduction surgeries for cisgender boys, who comprise the vast majority of minor patients whose doctors prescribe gender-affirming surgery.
“While the bill does contain an attempted carve-out saying that it only applies to treatment ‘in response to a minor’s perception of sex or gender,’ this is still fairly vague as to what it would entail legally,” Jamie told me. “What we’ve seen in states that have restricted abortion is that physicians are less willing to provide care for miscarriages, for example, out of fear of getting into legal trouble. Physicians are going to be nervous about operating in legally murky areas.”
Verdict: A cohort of people who have ignored every possible fact check of every possible claim surrounding gender-affirming surgery for minors now want to turn their ignorance into law. Vote no.
Over the last several weeks, I have covered 11 of the 14 initiatives which will bulk-up your November ballot, and I have recommended that you vote no on all of them. Next week, I will look at the only three measures out of the whole bunch which I believe warrant a yes vote – or at least neutrality – and what a nice change of pace that will be.
When your ballot arrives in the mail in a few weeks, it will be the size of a phonebook. That’s due to the whopping 14 ballot initiatives which qualified for the November election, tying 2008 as the high water mark for Colorado’s initiative system. As I’ve spent the last several weeks rambling about, 8 of those 14 initiatives are sponsored by billionaire-backed conservative organization Advance Colorado, and every single one of those eight deserve a no vote.
The eight Advance-backed measures are not the only initiatives on the November ballot which deserve your no vote, though. Three others – a slate of conspiratorial and bigoted measures backed by right-wing activist group Protect Kids Colorado – also warrant resounding rejection. In order to give you the most concise explanation of why each of the PKC initiatives should be discarded with as much disdain as possible, I turned to someone who knows more about the initiatives and the group behind them than anybody else I know: CTR’s own Jamie O’Rourke.
This fall is the first time many Coloradans will hear about Protect Kids Colorado, thanks to their slate of ballot initiatives, but Jamie has been covering the group for years. Jamie covered the group’s attempt and failure to make it this far in the ballot process in 2024, founder Erin Lee’s ties to both local and national networks of Christian nationalists, the group’s long journey to this year’s ballot, and much more.
The three PKC-sponsored initiatives which will appear on your ballot next month each deal with different topics, but are united by the same themes animating the group behind them: homophobia, conspiracism, and an utter disregard for the children they claim to be protecting.
Proposition 133 – Penalties for Human Trafficking a Minor
Proposition 133 would institute mandatory life sentences for anyone convicted of trafficking a child. Rather than being based on best practices for the support and healing of children who have been victims of a traumatic crime, Prop 133 has been called a “Trojan horse” for a broader political agenda.
Sex trafficking is real, and it is horrible. In 2023, Colorado reported 84 cases, making it the state with the 10th most recorded cases that year – a fact not unrelated to our state’s location at the crossroads of two major interstates. Around the country and here in Colorado, many organizations are dedicated to combatting sex trafficking, and providing care and support for victims.
While Protect Kids Colorado claims to be interested in doing the same thing, Proposition 133 contains none of the best practices embraced by the established organizations in the space, which might explain why the initiative has not been endorsed by any legitimate anti-trafficking orgs. According to a report from Colorado Newsline earlier this year, the National Survivor Network is actively opposing the measure.
Unlike the other two initiatives on this list, Jamie pointed out that Prop 133 doesn’t specifically target trans people — “but I think it’s important to note its place in the milieu of anti-trans politics. LGBTQ people have long been smeared as dangerous to children. PKC’s Erin Lee has previously claimed that LGBTQ advocacy orgs are part of a QAnon-esque conspiracy to lure children into sex trafficking. While promoting the PKC initiatives last year, Jim Burgen of Flatirons Community Church explicitly called the three out as part of the same spiritual battle.”
Verdict: Prop 133 is a Trojan Horse for a tough-on-crime agenda with no measures to help the actual children it claims to care about. If it was a meaningful measure to curb human trafficking, surely even one anti-trafficking org would have endorsed it, right? Vote no.
Proposition 134 – Male and Female Participation in School Sports
Sex trafficking is real, and it is horrible. In 2023, Colorado reported 84 cases, making it the state with the 10th most recorded cases that year – a fact not unrelated to our state’s location at the crossroads of two major interstates. Around the country and here in Colorado, many organizations are dedicated to combatting sex trafficking, and providing care and support for victims.
While Protect Kids Colorado claims to be interested in doing the same thing, Proposition 133 contains none of the best practices embraced by the established organizations in the space, which might explain why the initiative has not been endorsed by any legitimate anti-trafficking orgs. According to a report from Colorado Newsline earlier this year, the National Survivor Network is actively opposing the measure.
Unlike the other two initiatives on this list, Jamie pointed out that Prop 133 doesn’t specifically target trans people — “but I think it’s important to note its place in the milieu of anti-trans politics. LGBTQ people have long been smeared as dangerous to children. PKC’s Erin Lee has previously claimed that LGBTQ advocacy orgs are part of a QAnon-esque conspiracy to lure children into sex trafficking. While promoting the PKC initiatives last year, Jim Burgen of Flatirons Community Church explicitly called the three out as part of the same spiritual battle.”
Verdict: Prop 133 is a Trojan Horse for a tough-on-crime agenda with no measures to help the actual children it claims to care about. If it was a meaningful measure to curb human trafficking, surely even one anti-trafficking org would have endorsed it, right? Vote no.
Proposition 134 – Male and Female Participation in School Sports
Proposition 134 would prohibit transgender youth of any age from participating in any K-12 or collegiate sports – quite literally a measure to single out specific children for exclusion. Thanks in no small part to heavy spending by deep-pocketed political interests and the deployment of an enormous astroturf campaign, and despite transgender individuals making up about 1% of the population, there has been a nationwide debate in recent years about exactly this topic. Proposition 134 is PKC’s way of getting in on the action.
In short
Amid the feverishly well-funded push to ban transgender student athletes from competition nationwide, certain facts have become muddy in the public mind. There now exists in some corners an idea that children assigned male at birth are going through a lengthy and arduous transition process simply to excel at athletics against competitors assigned female at birth. That is, of course, ridiculous – as are a number of other myths surrounding the topic.
Worse than ridiculous, though, are the consequences the measure might have if passed. How exactly does one ensure that the trans kids are weeded out? Proponents tend to dismiss the claim that the law might require children around the state to submit to mandatory genital inspections before being allowed to play sports, but that exact consequence has been flagged as a serious possible outcome in a very similar initiative in Washington State this year.
“The mechanism for confirming a student’s sex assigned at birth is not specified whatsoever by the bill,” Jamie told me. “Similar bills in other states, while bad, at least give clarity that something like a birth certificate or other document will suffice. Prop. 134 only defines ‘male’ and ‘female’ by reproductive organs, which is where you get the concern from opponents of this bill that it will potentially subject children to invasive inspections.”
Verdict: Not only is it based on a willful misunderstanding of well-established facts, Prop 134 is also a recipe for subjecting children around the state to invasive, traumatic exams, all in service of bullying 1% of them. Vote no.
Proposition 135 – Prohibit Certain Surgeries on Minors
Proposition 135 aims to restrict gender-affirming medical care for minors by prohibiting “any surgery to alter sex characteristics.” The number of such surgeries performed on minors nationwide is vanishingly small, and zero such surgeries are performed on anyone 12 or younger. These claims have been fact-checked relentlessly over the last few years, but activists like those at Protect Kids Colorado have declined to accept the checked facts.
Beyond being an attempt to “solve” a “problem” which – even if either of those descriptors were accurate – simply does not exist, opponents have argued that the bill could have serious consequences if passed. By barring “any surgery to alter sex characteristics,” there is a risk that it may become illegal to perform critical procedures, like a mastectomy on a young woman with breast cancer, for instance. It would also likely ban chest reduction surgeries for cisgender boys, who comprise the vast majority of minor patients whose doctors prescribe gender-affirming surgery.
“While the bill does contain an attempted carve-out saying that it only applies to treatment ‘in response to a minor’s perception of sex or gender,’ this is still fairly vague as to what it would entail legally,” Jamie told me. “What we’ve seen in states that have restricted abortion is that physicians are less willing to provide care for miscarriages, for example, out of fear of getting into legal trouble. Physicians are going to be nervous about operating in legally murky areas.”
Verdict: A cohort of people who have ignored every possible fact check of every possible claim surrounding gender-affirming surgery for minors now want to turn their ignorance into law. Vote no.
Over the last several weeks, I have covered 11 of the 14 initiatives which will bulk-up your November ballot, and I have recommended that you vote no on all of them. Next week, I will look at the only three measures out of the whole bunch which I believe warrant a yes vote – or at least neutrality – and what a nice change of pace that will be.
Prophesy
I’m dead, and this is what killed me.☠️☠️☠️ pic.twitter.com/zCVs5XQqVa
— ☘️𝕃𝕦𝕔𝕜𝕪 𝕄𝕔𝔾𝕖𝕖 (@LuckyMcGee) September 22, 2026
Overheard
Got my flu & COVID shots today.
Feeling a touch autistic.
Might have transgender surgery later.
Sep 22, 2026
Overheard
I live in Texas, and I know a very MAGA woman who just had a miscarriage. She's planning to leave the state tomorrow so she can see an OB/GYN for a D & C.
In spite of it going against everything I believe in, I'm very tempted to report her so I can get that bounty money. Because fuck her - she voted for this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)