transgender

Female Officer Sues Virginia Police Department After Locker Room Incident With ‘Transgender’ Recruit

A female police officer is suing the city of Norfolk, Virginia and its police chief for $15 million after the police department forced her to unknowingly share a women’s locker room with a male who identifies as a female. 

Army veteran and practicing Catholic Meghan Grabow filed a lawsuit this month claiming the city of Norfolk, through their police department, intentionally inflicted emotional distress on her by forcing her to change in front of a man identifying as a woman. 

Grabow also claims the police department denied her right to exercise her religion by being required to refer to the male recruit with female pronouns.

The former Norfolk Police Officer is seeking $15 million in compensatory damages, according to The Virginian-Pilot. 

The suit describes an incident on August 12, 2024, when Grabow was changing in a women’s locker room at a downtown police station. She alleges on that day, the department’s new “transgender” recruit – a man – walked in on Grabow in her underwear. Although the man claimed to “identify” as a woman, Grabow reported he wore men’s clothing and looked at her “as a man looks at a woman.” 

Multiple sources report when Grabow complained about the incident to police officials, she was told to either “learn to deal with it” or “find another locker room.” Grabow also claims she was advised to “take her gun into the shower” if she felt unsafe. 

The incident sparked significant controversy throughout the police station. One female police officer allegedly objected to the man’s presence in the women’s locker room, but said the department “made no accommodations.”

Another woman reported a separate encounter in the locker room, during which the male recruit used her towel and saw her in her sports bra.

Norfolk Officer Martin Powers reportedly supported Grabow and the other women, stating the department failed to notify female officers that a male identifying as a woman would begin using the female locker room. 

“How is that going to work?” asked Powers. “Where does this person, what shower do they use, what locker room? Are we figuring this out?”

In a meeting a few days after Grabow’s complaint, Norfolk Police Chief Mark Talbot allegedly directed all officers to refer to the male recruit as “she.” Talbot also stated he was not legally required to notify female officers of the male recruit’s presence in the locker room.

Officer Jennifer Baron spoke up in the meeting, saying the lack of notification regarding the “transgender” recruit’s presence “makes us feel dismissed, invisible, and not valued.”

Talbot responded:

For me to announce to the organization that a woman has been hired would have been inappropriate. … This woman will use the restroom that’s appropriate for her gender. … The female facilities are for females. Full stop.

Baron later told Talbot, “We are feeling violated. There’s a lot of pent-up frustration. … I don’t feel safe or protected at my job.”

The Virginian-Pilot cited portions of the lawsuit, which is not yet public: 

[Grabow] will not call a biological man a woman or a biological woman a man regardless of dress or behavior.
She believes that she has a duty in faith to tell the truth according to her conscience and her religious beliefs.

Her suit also describes the Norfolk Police Department’s alleged retaliation against her for speaking up. 

Grabow’s fiancé, a Norfolk police sergeant, was reportedly warned not to talk about the incident and reminded that “his promotion was on the line.” 

Grabow also claims in 2025, Norfolk Police Department indefinitely suspended her without payment due to a minor traffic violation that occurred prior to the locker room incident. She had been a Norfolk Officer since 2017.

Officer Powers was also terminated from the department. He is suing for $5 million on violations of religious freedom and retaliatory firing. 

Five other female officers have willingly left the Norfolk Police Department, “at least in part” due to the transgender recruit issue, The Virginian-Pilot reports. The male recruit who used the women’s locker room has also reportedly left the department. 

Related articles and resources:

Christian Spa Petitions Supreme Court After Man Demands Access to Female-Only Space

Christian Physician Assistant Fired for Religious Beliefs Reaches $410K Settlement

Christian Lifeguard in California Suspended After Refusing to Fly Pride Flag

Addressing Gender Identity with Honesty and Compassion

Faith, Freedom, and the Future of America

DOJ Releases Guidance Strengthening Religious Liberty Protections

New Jersey Governor Sherrill Signs Pro-Abortion Bill Into Law

New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill targeted pro-life supporters on Thursday by signing legislation that may outlaw prayer and protests at abortion clinics. The law also expands protections for “transgender” medical interventions.

“This law is a deliberate act of defiance against the most basic human right — the right to life of every child in the womb with a beating heart,” said New Jersey Right to Life Executive Director Marie Tasy.

The bill (S. 2260) makes it illegal for individuals to “injure, threaten, intimidate, or physically block patients or providers … to interfere with reproductive healthcare services,” according to the governor’s office.

It allows abortion providers and women seeking abortions to take legal action against individuals who get in their way; and shields healthcare providers from malpractice claims for providing abortions and other “reproductive healthcare.”

Furthermore, the law expands the definition of “reproductive healthcare services” to include transgender medical interventions. This change places sex-rejecting procedures under the umbrella of New Jersey’s shield laws, which protect New Jersey doctors from lawsuits for violating other states’ laws.

According to the governor’s office, these shield-law protections include:

  • Protecting patient information related to “reproductive healthcare” from disclosure without prior authorization, as provided by law;
  • Restricting New Jersey entities from assisting certain out-of-state investigations or legal proceedings that seek to impose liability for providing or receiving protected reproductive healthcare; and
  • Protecting professional licenses by preventing licensing boards from taking action against a provider solely for providing protected reproductive healthcare.

This means New Jersey physicians who provide harmful and damaging transgender drugs, hormones and surgeries to out-of-state minors can’t be prosecuted for violating other states’ laws against mutilating minors.

“Here in New Jersey, we are standing firm in defense of reproductive freedoms – including the right to choose and the right to receive gender-affirming care,” said Governor Sherrill.

“With this legislation, we are making clear that New Jersey will protect patients, providers, and the fundamental freedom to make personal healthcare decisions.”

While the law ostensibly protects abortion clinic workers and women seeking abortions, pro-life leaders warn S. 2260 may open the door to lawsuit against peaceful pro-life supporters. Tasy argues the law threatens citizens’ First Amendment rights.

“Because terms such as ‘threat,’ ‘intimidate,’ and ‘coerce’ are inherently subjective and rest on individual feelings, this language poses a serious danger to free speech,” Tasy warns.

“Peaceful sidewalk counseling, prayer, holding signs, or simply offering help and alternatives outside a facility can easily be labeled ‘intimidation’ by someone who claims to feel threatened, leaving pro-life advocates open to criminal charges that are difficult to disprove and chilling constitutionally protected expression.”

Attorney Erin Mersino, vice president of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, agrees the law may be used to restrict free speech and target pro-life sidewalk counselors who try to counsel women heading into abortion clinics.

“It’s very concerning,” she told NTD Good Morning. “The cases from the Supreme Court on this issue say that the sidewalks since time immemorial have been places where free speech is supposed to be exchanged.”

If New Jersey officials use the new law to target pro-life supporters for selective prosecution, it will be nothing new.

Under the Biden administration, officials brought 22 lawsuits against peaceful pro-life supporters, some of whom spent time in prison before being pardoned by President Donald J. Trump. At the same time, the Biden Department of Justice practically ignored over 400 violent attacks on pregnancy resource centers and churches.

New Jersey’s S. 2260 also makes it illegal to damage, deface or destroy property because the facility provides abortions or transgender interventions.

Given the law-abiding nature of the vast majority of pro-life supporters, and the extremely violent nature of pro-abortion groups and individuals, it’s obvious New Jersey would be better served by a law protecting pregnancy resource centers and churches from anti-life radicals.

The Sherrill administration has also provided over $52 million to subsidize the abortion industry this year alone. Abortion is legal in New Jersey up to the moment of birth.

All told, New Jersey’s S. 2260 is just the latest bad news for the Garden State. Pro-life supporters might be stirred to action as a result.

Consider signing up to pray outside your local abortion clinic with the 40 Days for Life campaign, which has helped save 26,545 babies from abortion.

You can also support Focus on the Family’s Option Ultrasound program, which places ultrasounds in pregnancy resource centers around the country. Focus provides millions of dollars in resources to these centers annually, and has helped save over 500,000 preborn lives, thanks to the generous donor support.

As more states embrace anti-life laws, it’s up to pro-life supporters to respond by building a culture of life nationwide.

If you are experiencing an unexpected pregnancy and want to learn more about your options, you can visit My Choice Network.

Related articles and resources:

My Choice Network

I’m Pregnant, Now What?

Dealing With Unplanned Pregnancy

Become an Option Ultrasound Life Advocate

New Insights on the Dangers of the Abortion Pill

Overcoming Abortion and Becoming a Force for Life

How You Can Join the Pro-Life Movement

Scriptures Advocating For The Pre-Born

The History of Christianity and Abortion

Massachusetts Bishops: Eliminating ‘Any Legal Restraint’ on Abortion ‘Gravely Immoral’

Massachusetts Removes Abortion Restrictions, Allows Abortion Up to Birth

Photo from Getty Images.

Should President Trump Pardon Mother Who Tried to Save Her Son From Sexual Confusion?

California mother Shana Gaviola surrendered on Monday to authorities to begin a three year prison sentence. 

Her crime?

In official legalese, Gaviola was convicted of interstate violation of a protection order, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2262(a)(2), and aiding and abetting that offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2.

But her story is a lot more layered and complex than dry legal language suggests.

In short, Shana Gaviola went to prison because she attempted to rescue her son from the irreversible harm and damage brought about by his sexual confusion.

For the last decade, Shana has been navigating a nightmare. When her son, Blake, was just 13 years old, he announced he was “transgender” and wanted his mother and three younger siblings to call him “Brianna.” They correctly refused to do so.

Shana, a single mother, was shocked to learn that Blake had been seeing a counselor at his public school in Fresno, Calif. It was during those secret sessions that the school official fed his confusion and delusion and even suggested the boy consider mutilating surgery to address and align his physical anatomy with his feelings and emotions.

Shortly thereafter, police records indicate that Blake was arrested and accused of abusing a seven-year-old child in the family’s neighborhood. It’s not clear how those charges were fully addressed and resolved. But overwhelmed by it all, Shana turned to an area “friend” she thought would help. 

To give some breathing room to the tension in the Gaviola home, and to protect her own children from their sexually confused brother, Blake moved in with the other family. Tragically, the individual with whom Shana entrusted her son only fed and affirmed the boy’s confusion and made the situation even worse. 

When Shana tried to bring Blake back home, the teen claimed he was being mistreated and harassed by his mother. 

Translation: His distraught mom was refusing to play along and affirm his claim he was a girl trapped in a boy’s body.

In July of 2021, the boy applied for and received a restraining order against his mother.

Desperate to try and prevent her son from making a destructive, life-altering decision, Shana Gaviola turned to a Christian boarding school in Missouri that she believed had a reputation for helping young people sort out such confusion. Unwilling to voluntarily go, Shana hired a “transport team” composed of former law enforcement officials to move Blake from Fresno to the new facility.

Despite having a restraining order against her, Gaviola’s lawyers have said their client believed she still had legal authority to choose and direct her minor son’s care.

As it turned out, that legally fraught decision only compounded an already troubled and rapidly evolving situation. The team transporting Blake restrained him during the 27-hour drive. The school would later be shut down after officials there were accused of abusing the students.

The family “friend” who Blake had been living with reportedly financially helped his biological father go and retrieve Blake from the Missouri school. 

Shana Gaviola was indicted on the charges in 2022 by the Biden Justice Department, and in December of 2025, after a five-day trial, Shana Gaviola was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison.

It should be noted that prosecutors successfully prevented many of the troubling details surrounding Blake’s school years from being shared at the trial, including the sexual abuse allegations. 

To be clear, Gaviola has been open that she could have done some things differently and that she trusted and relied on some people who, in hindsight, she was unwise to work with.

“As a mother, I did what I believed was necessary to protect not only my child, but other children as well,” Gaviola has said. With her now in custody, Shana’s remaining minor children will be living with relatives.

“Instead of support, I was handed a prison sentence,” she stated. “I would not be going to prison if I had done nothing. That’s the part I can’t accept – the law was safe for the mother who looks away, and unforgiving to the one who didn’t.”

The one silver lining in this otherwise dark cloud? According to reports, Blake has yet to pursue destructive gender surgery.

At this point, Shana Gaviola’s final legal play is a presidential pardon, which she has officially requested through her attorneys. Various parental rights groups have been encouraging supporters to petition President Trump on Gaviola’s behalf.

President Trump has yet to publicly comment on the request for clemency or the campaign to pardon Shana Gaviola. Please join us praying for this tragic situation.

Federal Judge Throws Out Minnesota Lawsuit Challenging Biological Reality

A federal judge last week threw out most of a Minnesota state lawsuit challenging the federal government’s protection of biological reality.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued the Trump administration in April 2025 to stop the enforcement of two executive orders: “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which defines sex as biological and binary, and “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which prohibits the federal government from funding educational organizations that allow boys to play girls sports.

Together, the executive orders reestablished the power and integrity Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination, after years of confusion.

Attorney General Ellison sued to stop the enforcement of “Defending Women” and “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” after the Trump administration threatened to withhold Minnesota’s federal education funding for violating Title IX.

Minnesota public schools allow students to use bathrooms and play sports consistent with their “gender identity” — what gender ideology activists calls “a person’s internal sense of being male or female.”

Ellison’s suit challenged the executive orders’ interpretation of Title IX, arguing the definition of “sex” in the statute could be plausibly expanded to include “gender identity” because the language of Title IX neither specifically references “biological” sex nor explicitly excludes transgender-identified boys from participating in girls sports. 

Title IX’s failure to explicitly ban boys from competing in girls sports does not mean Congress intended Title IX to allow transgender-identified boys to participate in girls sports. This is a false dichotomy.

Given Title IX passed in 1972, it’s far more likely Congress never imagined “sex” could mean anything other than biological sex.

But Minnesota redefined “sex” in Title IX anyway.

In February 2025, Ellison issued an opinion declaring Minnesota’s Declaration of Human Rights, which protects citizens based on “gender identity,” superseded “Defending Women” and “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”

Consequently, Ellison’s suit argued the executive orders violate the Tenth Amendment, which protects state’s rights, because the government can’t enforce executive orders which directly conflict with state law.

Minnesota District Chief Judge Eric Tostrud rejected Ellison’s Tenth Amendment argument and Title IX challenge in his ruling issued on August 10, 2026.

The judge cited Supreme Court precedent finding the federal government can attach spending restrictions meant for the “general welfare” to federal funds. These spending restrictions do not violate the Tenth Amendment, he noted, so long as states can freely choose to accept the money.

Torstrud also denied the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title IX violated the executive branch’s constitutional power to determine law, writing:

As the Eighth Circuit recently explained, “There can be no dispute that whether Title IX … permits[] or prohibits the participation of transgender[-identified] athletes in female athletics remains an open question of law.”

As the Eighth Circuit recently explained, “There can be no dispute that whether Title IX … permits[] or prohibits the participation of transgender[-identified] athletes in female athletics remains an open question of law.”

He further cited the Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in State of West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox, which upheld state laws separating sports by sex.

“The Supreme Court’s determination that ‘sex’ in Title IX refers to biological sex provides at least some support for the [Trump administration’s] interpretation of the statute,” Torstrud explained.

The judge did not entirely dismiss Ellison’s suit. He agreed the Trump administration did not give Minnesota enough warning regarding the changes to Title IX to warrant rescinding its federal funding.

However, Torstrud also noted Minnesota has yet to experience any injury. The Trump administration’s findings and letters warning the state it violated Title IX by failing to separate sports and private spaces by sex do not themselves constitute a legal violation, the judge ruled.

In denying Ellison’s first two claims, Torstrud not only legitimized the federal government’s right to enforce the law of the land, but acknowledged the legal validity of biological reality.

We at the Daily Citizen wish it were less surprising when courts acknowledge the existence of “male” and “female.” But, too often, judges happily side with those like Attorney General Ellison, who claimed the Trump administration’s definition of “sex” — “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female” —  was “inconsistent with decades of scientific research and evidence on how human bodies develop, physically and cognitively.”

On the contrary, it is Ellison’s denial of sex which ignores biological fact, scientific evidence and common sense.

We are always grateful when truth prevails.

Additional Articles and Resources

Minnesota Lawsuit Advances Shockingly Poor Attacks on Title IX

Department of Education Launches Multiple Investigations Into Title IX Violations

Blockbuster Supreme Court Ruling: Girls Sports are for Girls

President Trump: ‘There are Only Two Genders: Male and Female’

Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

Christian Spa Petitions Supreme Court After Man Demands Access to Female-Only Space

A Christian immigrant family has requested the Supreme Court review their petition to keep a man who identifies as a woman out of a nude, female-only area inside their Korean spa.

Attorneys with the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) have filed the petition on behalf of Sun Lee, a first-generation Korean American who operates two Olympus Spa locations in Washington State with the help of his family. 

The petition explains:

[Olympus Spa] provides an intimate environment exclusively for women and girls. Its mission is to restore women’s physical and spiritual health through Korean customs that require complete nudity in communal areas and during full-body scrubs administered by female employees. The owners hold the religious conviction that men and women should not be unclothed together unless married to each other. So the Spa admits only female patrons.

In 2020, Haven Wilvich – a man who identifies as a woman – called the spa to inquire about the “female-only” policy. After employees told Wilivich that he would be denied access to the female-only communal spaces due to his male body parts, he filed a petition with the Washington Human Rights Commission (WHRC).

Sun Lee commented:

The Korean body scrub has been always served by the same gender over hundreds of years. A service provider never serves a Korean body scrub to an opposite-sex customer.

The petition to the Supreme Court also explains:

Olympus Spa is not just for adults. Girls as young as 13 visit the Spa … For their protection, the Spa’s entry policy ensures an intimate, safe, and private experience. Mr. Lee believes the Spa has a responsibility to safeguard young girls’ privacy.

After Wilvich’s initial complaint, Olympus Spa was charged with “active violation” of the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) by the WHRC. An investigator gave the spa 10 days to either change its policies or face referral for prosecution.

Olympus Spa filed a complaint with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the WHRC’s judgement violated its First Amendment rights.

The spa’s complaint was eventually dismissed by a divided, three-judge panel in March 2026. According to the panel majority, the WLAD “imposes only incidental burdens on religious expression.”

ADF and PJI attorneys have now appealed to the Supreme Court to intervene on Olympus Spa’s behalf.

PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider said:

It is an abuse and perversion of the public accommodation laws to give biological males access to the intimate spaces of unconsenting females in a state of full or partial undress.
No woman or girl should have to give up her right to bodily privacy and safety to avoid offending a man. That’s wrong, and it puts women and girls in harm’s way.

According to the petition, Olympus Spa has already experienced several incidents where a man entered the spa dressed as a woman, undressed in the locker room and entered female-only communal areas. The petition describes these incidents as shocking, humiliating and frightening to female customers, as well as damaging to the spa’s reputation.

“The Spa’s employees and customers have made it clear that they will not return if naked individuals with male genitalia use the female-only spa,” states the petition.

ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch said:

The Lee family was living the American dream while staying true to their Korean heritage and Christian values. Now, the state is turning their lives into a nightmare, insisting they compromise not only their deeply held religious beliefs but also the privacy and safety of women and girls as young as 13 who visit the spa. The First Amendment forbids all that, which is why we’re urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Lee family’s case.

Related articles and resources:

Christian Physician Assistant Fired for Religious Beliefs Reaches $410K Settlement

Addressing Gender Identity with Honesty and Compassion

DOJ Releases Guidance Strengthening Religious Liberty Protections

Religious Freedom is not a Problem to Be Managed

Faith, Freedom, and the Future of America

Photo from Shutterstock.