National
10 years later, firestorm over gay-only ENDA vote still informs movement
Ten years ago, a firestorm ignited in the LGBT community over a vote in the U.S. House that many transgender people remember vividly because it excluded them in favor of advancing employment non-discrimination protections to lesbian, gay and bisexual people.
The vote on the “gay-only” version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on Nov. 7, 2007, rocked the LGBT movement and prompted protests against the Human Rights Campaign and gay former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who backed the bill, arguing it was the best that could be done at the time. The 10th anniversary of the vote is Tuesday.
But the omission galvanized transgender rights advocates to such an extent that for the next 10 years the LGBT movement committed to moving forward only legislation that included the full community — both at the state and federal level — and today advancement of a sexual-orientation only bill is impossible to imagine.
Dana Beyer, a Chevy Chase, Md.-based transgender activist who’s running for state Senate in Maryland, said the vote on the gay-only version of ENDA was “a landmark” for trans inclusion in the LGBT movement.
“Whenever I discuss the progress that we’ve made, which has been remarkable, I begin there because that was basically the first real battle for the trans community on the national stage and over the succeeding decade, we’ve made incredible progress,” Beyer said.
Beyer added from that time forward after the creation of United ENDA — an unprecedented coalition of more than 400 organizations that emerged to fight against trans exclusion —there have been with few exceptions “no instances of any gay activism or legislation that did not include trans people.”
Rebecca Juro, a New Jersey-based transgender activist and radio show host, said the reaction to the vote on the sexual-orientation only version of ENDA was a significant turning point.
“The reason why Barney Frank was able to introduce and get the kind of support he did in Congress was because there was a feeling [of] who cares, nobody knows about these people,” Juro said. “What that did was it said, ’No, no, no,’ you’re wrong.’ and people are going to call you out and it’s going to cost you politically and people are going to show up at the Human Rights Campaign galas and make it difficult for you to solicit money for your campaign.”
In the year Democrats assumed control of the U.S. House after more than a decade of Republican majorities, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) brought the gay-only version of ENDA to the floor after Frank determined an initial version of the bill that included protections based on gender identity wouldn’t get a majority vote in the chamber.
That version of ENDA would pass on the House floor by a vote of 235-184. (Among those voting in favor of the bill was Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), although he also voted in favor of a motion to recommit that would have killed the legislation.)
Voting “no” on the legislation were 25 Democrats, many of whom — such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), former Rep. Anthony Weiner (N.Y.) and former Rep. Michael Michaud (Maine) — rejected the measure on the basis it lacked protections for transgender people. Then-Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), now a U.S. senator and still the only out lesbian in Congress, proposed an amendment to insert gender identity, but withdrew the measure before it could come to a vote.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign at the time of the vote, backed ENDA and 10 years later stood by his decision as a means to develop the legislation, citing “no hope of passing any legislation into law” with George W. Bush as president.
“It was a tactical decision to take a step in the direction of getting what we ultimately wanted, which was maybe a non-inclusive bill in the House, and inclusive bill in the Senate that would end up as a fully inclusive bill or that would end up as a fully inclusive bill by the time Obama became president,” Solmonese said.
Recalling a “great deal of debate within the community and the House” about whether sufficient votes for transgender inclusion were present, Solmonese said lawmakers pledged to LGBT activists support for a trans-inclusive bill before, then told Pelosi not bring such a measure to the floor.
“They sort of wanted it both ways,” Solmonese said. “They knew what they were supposed to do, but they didn’t want to do it.”
Frank said the vote on ENDA was “very important” because it paved the way for legislative victories on hate crimes protections and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“One of the problems we’ve had historically — we don’t have it anymore — is members being afraid to vote for us because they thought they could be defeated, that it would be a tough vote,” Frank said. “So, here we had members voting for a bill that was a broad protections for LGB people and nobody lost because of it. That was very helpful in setting the foundation.”
In his book “A Life in Politics,” Frank recounts the deliberative process that went into bringing the gay-only version of ENDA to the House floor, maintaining Republicans would have sought to amend the bill to remove the transgender protections.
Baldwin disagreed with moving forward without transgender inclusion, Frank wrote, even though she ultimately voted for the bill. (Baldwin’s office didn’t respond to a request to comment for this article.)
“As we approached the final vote, Tammy did her own informal whip count and concluded we would have enough Democratic votes,” Frank wrote. “Speaker Pelosi, a strong supporter of the bill, asked Tammy for her count, checked it herself with the members, and decided that Tammy had been too optimistic — a conclusion that [former Rep. George Miller and I, based on our own work, fully agreed with. We did not have the votes for the inclusive-bill. It was sadly but unmistakably clear to Pelosi, Miller and me that we could pass ENDA only in its earlier form, covering only lesbian, gay and bisexual workers.”
Backing that move was the Human Rights Campaign, which continued to support the gay-only measure as one of five co-signers in a letter to Congress dated Nov. 6, 2007 organized by the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights.
“With each significant step toward progress, the civil rights community has also faced difficult and sometimes even agonizing tradeoffs,” the letter said. “We have always recognized, however, that each legislative breakthrough has paved the way for additional progress in the future. With respect to ENDA, we take the same view.”
That vote sent a shockwave through the transgender community, which quickly marshaled opposition to the bill and protested any further advancement without their protections. Many angrily accused the Human Rights Campaign and Frank of abandoning the transgender community.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said the vote was “one of the most important things that happened in the movement in the last 20 years.”
“We wanted everything to be about setting up for what the movement was after this vote happened, after the bill died for the year,” Keisling said. “What were the lessons the movement was going to learn, what was the lesson HRC was going to learn, what was the lesson Barney Frank was going to learn?”
The night before the vote, Keisling said, she received a call from Frank’s office and was informed “it was over” a for trans-inclusive version of ENDA. Together with Dave Noble, then policy director of the National LGBTQ Task Force, Keisling said she planned to write a letter to Baldwin in hopes she could influence the vote, but was told the gay-only ENDA would move forward.
That night, Keisling and Noble reached out to the National Center for Lesbian Rights and other groups to form a coalition against the trans omission. By morning more than 60 organizations had joined United ENDA, Keisling said, a coalition that refused to support the gay-only bill and pledged to work with lawmakers to support a trans-inclusive measure.
Keisling said other groups “were calling up slightly annoyed that they hadn’t been asked to sign on” and soon the coalition grew to several hundred members.
“It essentially was because Barney Frank and HRC had totally lost touch with what the community was,” Keisling said. “So they did not understand that this would not be alright with the community and we all found out very quickly in a matter of hours that it really was not, that the movement had really become an LGBT movement and it wasn’t going to fly to take trans people out. So not only were we against the vote happening, we were the leaders of being against the vote happening.”
The gay-only version of ENDA never reached Bush’s desk for his veto, nor did any version of the bill — trans-inclusive or otherwise — come up in the U.S. Senate even though Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.
Had ENDA been brought to the floor for a vote in the Senate, the sponsor would likely have been the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, who was one of the rare champions of LGBT rights at the time.
Solmonese said he didn’t immediately remember why ENDA never came up in the Senate and said it “may have had to do with timing,” but said Kennedy would only have moved forward with a trans-inclusive bill, not a gay-only ENDA, as part of the strategy for the House vote.
“He understood and supported the rationale of having an overarching strategy,” Solmonese said. “George Bush is the president. This thing’s not going to get passed into law. You do one version in the House, an inclusive version in the Senate, the leadership of both chambers is such that the conference committee would likely end up with something that was fully inclusive, right?”
Keisling, however, said “there was no Senate plan” because the Democratic majority in the chamber was seen as too marginal to advance ENDA, nor did Kennedy ever express an aversion to the gay-only version of the bill.
“The plan was that Barney Frank and HRC thought that it was worth passing the gay-only bill through the House, just move the ball forward and get members on the record as Barney said many times,” Keisling said. “Everyone else believed that since it would never become law that year, we shouldn’t exclude anyone.”
Do the backers of the bill at that time have any regrets? Solmonese acknowledged a few even though he stood by his decision to support ENDA in 2007.
“I regret that I saw it one way, which was a step in building towards what all of us ultimately wanted and by no means a signal that that was the legislation that anybody would ultimately support, but the fact that many people didn’t see it that way and many people simply saw the symbolism around the act as one that was divisive to the community, that was never the intention of HRC or my intention, but I certainly regret that that’s the way that it unfolded,” Solmonese said.
Frank said his “regret was we didn’t have the votes” when asked about his approach and blustered at the suggestion anything else could have been done.
“I think to do nothing at all — that was the argument, if you can’t include everybody, you can’t include anybody — in the first place, that’s not the history of the civil rights movement,” Frank said. “I voted to help protect African Americans and immigrants and women. The civil rights movement…you move as much as you can as soon as you can and you build on that. So do I regret not trying hard to get votes? No, I tried as hard as I could to get the votes.”
‘The pendulum is all the way the other way’
Over the course of 10 years since that vote, it’s hard to imagine Congress — or any other legislative body — passing legislation that excluded transgender people. Each successful version of ENDA introduced and advanced in Congress has been trans inclusive and its supporters have defended that language against any objection it. The Equality Act, the successor to ENDA that would ban anti-LGBT discrimination in employment and in all aspects of civil rights law, has consistently been trans inclusive.
Keisling said the commitment to trans inclusion among LGBT groups is “almost total.”
“Most of the big LGBT organizations, including the legal organizations, the lion’s share of their work now is trans work and, no, I don’t think any of them would intentionally do work to cut trans people out. In fact, there are times that we have to talk people into doing things because they’re afraid trans people will think it means cutting them out when it doesn’t. So, yeah, the pendulum is all the way the other way, and then probably some extra.”
Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, pointed to enactment of the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and his boss’ support for the Equality Act as evidence of her support for trans inclusion.
“Leader Pelosi was proud to lead the Congress as speaker in passing a fully inclusive hate crimes bill signed into law by President Obama in October of 2009,” Hammill said. “A top priority for the leader is the Equality Act, comprehensive legislation to amend the Civil Rights Act and protect LGBT Americans from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex. The leader believes that this legislation would pass the Congress now should Speaker Ryan allow a vote.”
Times have changed for the Human Rights Campaign as well. In 2014, Chad Griffin, the current president of the Human Rights Campaign, apologized on behalf of his organization at the Southern Comfort transgender conference for having “done wrong by the transgender community in the past.”
Transgender work has become a major component of the LGBT group’s work. In recent years, the organization has opposed a gay-only non-discrimination bill in Michigan, worked to thwart the anti-trans House Bill 2 in North Carolina and successfully blocked an anti-trans bathroom bill in Texas. The organization has also opposed non-discrimination measures in Pennsylvania and Charlotte, N.C., without public accommodations protections, which were seen as a backdoor way of leaving out transgender people because of controversy over bathroom use.
Sarah McBride, who’s transgender and press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign, said in the past 10 years the organization is “proudly and unequivocally continuing to fight for trans-inclusive protections” and will only back legislation that is fully inclusive.
“From Michigan to North Carolina to Birmingham, HRC has forcefully and aggressively blocked laws and policies that don’t protect every LGBTQ person from discrimination while fighting to extend robust protections across the country,” McBride said. “We are also working to accelerate the pace of progress in other ways, from raising the visibility of the transgender community, to incentivizing trans-inclusive healthcare through our Corporate Equality Index, to shining a spotlight on the epidemic of anti-transgender violence which is taking the lives of so many trans women of color.”
But 2007 wasn’t the last time there would be fighting within the LGBT community over ENDA. In 2013, major LGBT groups (again with the exception of the Human Rights Campaign) dropped support from a version of ENDA over the scope of its religious exemption, which would have provided leeway for religious institutions, like churches or religious schools, to discriminate against LGBT workers in non-ministerial positions even if the bill were to become law. In a reversal from 2007, the Senate passed the legislation, but it didn’t come up for a vote in the Republican-controlled House.
Although ENDA has never become law, a growing consensus has emerged in the courts that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, also applies to anti-trans discrimination. Four federal appellate courts — the First, Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh circuit courts of appeals — have determined employment discrimination against transgender people is barred under Title VII, as has the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Keisling cautioned against too much reliance on laws against sex discrimination because “things are in flux,” noting U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ withdrawal of support for transgender protections under Title VII and President Trump’s appointment of anti-LGBT judges.
“We’re still convinced that the courts are on our side, cases and decisions have been building up to support us and actually [the idea] trans people are supported by sex discrimination is better supported than that gay people are,” Keisling said. “We just don’t exactly know how that’s going to maintain. We do know that there’s a handful of both sexual orientation and gender identity cases moving up through the court system, so what I say now might not be true a month from now and certainly will be changed somewhat in a year.”
Confidence in the legal landscape for trans protections under Title VII is at such a point that a pending petition filed by Lambda Legal before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a nationwide ruling for gay protections under the law, but not explicit trans protections, hasn’t registered as trans exclusion. The petition was filed on behalf of lesbian plaintiff Jackie Evans after the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her.
Beyer said she’s not bothered by the petition and it should only upset transgender activists “who don’t bother to parse the specifics” and recognize the transgender victories in lower courts.
“We could have easily won [trans protections] nationwide first,” Beyer said. “In this case, sexual orientation has been viewed differently and most courts haven’t wanted to touch it until the Hively case in the 7th Circuit took it, and now we’ve got Evans. That’s beginning to change. I’m certainly not at all offended by that because this is the way you go. You have a case and the case can’t equally be broadened to include different classifications simply because the community would like it.”
The social scene, in contrast to advocacy groups and the legal landscape, may not be as advanced in accepting transgender inclusion despite the explosion over ENDA 10 years ago. Transgender rights advocates noted a distinction between the LGBT community at large in accepting transgender people and advocacy groups.
Beyer said she doesn’t see transgender inclusion at the social level “anywhere near as advanced” as the current legal landscape.
“Acceptance, affirmation in the general culture is one thing, but the fact that, say, 35 percent of Americans do know a trans person, doesn’t mean that people are that much more comfortable with trans people,” Beyer said. “I think on balance they are, but not overwhelmingly so.”
Efforts to resist trans inclusion in the movement on occasion still emerge, although they’re rare and don’t represent mainstream LGBT views. In 2015, a petition was posted on Change.org titled “Drop the T” urging major LGBT organizations to “disassociate themselves from the transgender movement and return to representing their base support of gay men and lesbians.” The petition, signed by 3,227 people, had no impact on transgender advocacy at LGBT groups.
But transgender advocates also saw a generational divide in the approach to trans inclusion on the social scene that meets what is now seen at the advocacy level.
Juro said college-aged LGBT activists just beginning to come into the movement have a much different view of trans inclusion than their LGBT elders.
“They’re all like, no, you cannot separate, we’re all in this together and trying to say we’ll get rights for gay people without trans people is unacceptable,” Juro said. “And our youth, let’s be honest, are the ones who are driving the community. There the ones who get out there with the signs and the marches. People my age, 55, and old farts, we’re not always as active as we used to be and these are the kids who are driving the movement.”
In some respects, the transgender movement has evolved in strength to take on challenges on its own. Just recently, the National Center for Transgender Equality formed a 501(c)(4) political arm and the Breakthrough Fund, a political action committee and offshoot of the Trans United Fund run by transgender activists, launched with the goal of electing transgender people to public office.
Beyer said the transgender movement is rising to the occasion now that transgender issues have become the focus after many victories on gay rights.
“I think the grassroots trans community has seized the initiative simply because after marriage, after Obergefell, it seemed like the air went out of the gay balloon,” Beyer said. “On a local level, there are still black trans women being murdered. There’s still difficulty getting jobs for many trans people, particularly the younger ones. So, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done.”
With the LGBT movement changing dramatically, Keisling said “the LGBT movement is quickly becoming a trans movement,” and now she’s concerned “we’re sending signals to the gay community that trans work is more important than gay work.”
Nonetheless, Keisling cited concerns about insufficient trans presence in places where existing infrastructure is based on gay rights, such as states that have state LGBT equality groups, but no trans groups.
“That’s fine as long as the LGBT movement is strong, but after marriage, if the movement’s weakening…that means trans people don’t have enough support from the LGBT group because it’s weakening but they don’t have the ability to have a strong trans group because there’s an LGBT group,” Keisling said. “I think that’s a conversation we have to start having more explicitly.”
Congress
House GOP bars earmarks after controversy over LGBTQ projects
The alteration is related to an uproar during last year’s annual government funding process, when House members included three LGBTQ projects
By Jennifer Shutt | WASHINGTON — U.S. House lawmakers will no longer be able to request earmarked funding for some nonprofits under a change in eligibility made by the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee on Thursday.
The alteration is related to an uproar during last year’s annual government funding process, when House Republicans, who are in the majority, included three LGBTQ projects in one of their spending bills and then stripped that funding during a tense public markup.
The change to eligibility in the House affects nonprofits that fall under the Economic Development Initiative account within the Transportation-HUD spending bill, one of the dozen funding bills that are written by congressional appropriators.
The new guidance laid out by Chairman Tom Cole doesn’t apply to House lawmakers seeking funding for nonprofits in the other accounts eligible for earmark requests.
It also doesn’t affect how the earmark process will work on the Senate side. That means there is another avenue for lawmakers to secure funding for LGBTQ projects if they decide to make those requests and the Senate spending panel chooses to include it in its version of the bill.
“Similar to previous reforms made in this Congress, this change aims to ensure projects are consistent with the community development goals of the federal program,” Cole wrote in a “Dear Colleague” letter.
Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, became chairman of the powerful spending panel earlier this month after the former chairwoman, Kay Granger of Texas, decided to leave that leadership post early.
Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the committee, released a written statement, saying the change “is a seismic shift, as nearly half of all the 2024 House-funded EDI projects were directed to non-profit recipients.”
“In order to accommodate the extreme Republican wing, Republicans are trying to root out any help for the LGBTQ+ community,” DeLauro wrote. “They are willing to hurt their own religious organizations, seniors, and veterans.”
The eligibility change, she wrote, would exclude House lawmakers from requesting funding for “YMCAs, Boys & Girls Clubs, and other groups vital to our communities.”
Three LGBTQ projects
House Republicans originally included $1.8 million in funding for the William Way LGBT Center in Philadelphia, $970,000 for the LGBT Center of Greater Reading’s Transitional Housing Program in Pennsylvania and $850,000 for affordable senior housing at LGBTQ Senior Housing, Inc. in Massachusetts in their Transportation-HUD spending bill released last summer.
All three projects were requested by House lawmakers, the first step in the earmark process.
The projects were funded under the Economic Development Initiatives account that at the time was eligible for earmarks in the Housing and Urban Development section of the Transportation-HUD spending bill.
Cole, then-chairman of that subcommittee, removed the three projects through a so-called manager’s amendment that made numerous changes to the bill during committee debate.
While manager’s amendments are standard and typically bipartisan, the removal infuriated Democrats on the committee, who urged their GOP colleagues to reconsider during a heated debate last July.
Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan said at the time removing the funding was an insult to LGBTQ Americans as well as their families and allies.
“The fact that you would take away members’ earmarks simply because they refer to the LGBTQI+ community is insane, is bigoted,” Pocan said in July.
The final batch of spending bills Congress approved in March, following House-Senate negotiations, was slated to include $1 million for the William Way LGBT Center in Philadelphia, since the Pennsylvania senators also requested funding. But that was removed from the bill after it had been released, setting off a confusing blame game among lawmakers.
The final Labor-HHS-Education spending bill approved in March included $850,000 for LGBTQ Senior Housing, Inc., MA, for services for older adults within the Administration for Community Living account within the HHS section of the bill.
That funding in Massachusetts had been stripped from the House’s Transportation-HUD bill by GOP lawmakers, but was also requested by the state’s two senators and included in the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill within that chamber.
That final spending bill also included $400,000 for the Garden State Equality Education Fund, Inc., for trauma-informed strategies to support LGBTQ+ youth in New Jersey, within the Innovation and Improvement account for the Department of Education.
That funding was never requested by House lawmakers, but was asked for by the state’s two senators.
*****************************************************************************************
Jennifer covers the nation’s capital as a senior reporter for States Newsroom. Her coverage areas include congressional policy, politics and legal challenges with a focus on health care, unemployment, housing and aid to families.
*****************************************************************************************
The preceding article was previously published by The DC Bureau of States Newsroom and is republished with permission.
States Newsroom is the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
Alabama
Alabama lawmakers pass bill may lead to prosecutions of librarians
“This would open librarians and their staff in our most vulnerable libraries to criminal prosecution for books housed in the adult section”
By Alander Rocha | MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The Alabama House of Representatives Thursday passed a bill that could lead to the arrest of librarians if a person accuses them of distributing obscene or harmful materials to minors or exposes them to people dressed in revealing clothing.
HB 385, sponsored by Rep. Arnold Mooney, R-Indian Springs, also expands the term “sexual conduct” in state law to include conduct that “knowingly exposes minors to persons who are dressed in sexually revealing, exaggerated, or provocative clothing or costumes, or are stripping, or engaged in lewd and lascivious dancing, presentations, or activities in K-12 public schools, public libraries, and other public places where minors are expected and are known to be present without parental consent.”
“The thing that I would like to point out is, this is an effort to protect children,” Mooney said. “It is not a Democrat bill. It’s not a Republican bill. It’s a people bill to try to protect children.”
The bill passed 72-28 along party line votes. A message seeking comment was left with the Alabama Library Association.
The legislation comes amid right-wing attacks on the content and leadership of libraries in Alabama and around the country, mostly around books with LGBTQ+ characters or themes. Mooney introduced a similar bill last year that explicitly banned drag show performances where children were present. The bill did not become law.
The bill as filed could have subjected librarians to a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, on a second or subsequent violation. A first offense would have been a misdemeanor, with a fine up to $10,000 and county jail or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than one year.
Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook, offered an substitute to the bill he said was to “tighten up” the original bill and downgraded the criminal charges to a Class C misdemeanor, up to three months in jail or a $500 fine, for the first offense; a second offense would warrant a Class B misdemeanors, punishable by up to six months in jail; and a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail, for the third and subsequent offense.
The substitute also provided notice requirements for those accused of misdemeanor, allowing up to seven days for materials to be removed. It also replaced the term “material” for “conduct” in the “sexual conduct” definition. The bill previously defined sexual conduct as any “sexual or gender oriented material that knowingly exposes minors.”
“We wanted to make sure that people were protected, our librarians were protected, that our K through 12 officials were protected, and that’s what we’ve tried to do in the sub, is strengthen that protection,” Faulkner said.
Democrats, however, said that the changes actually made it easier to subject librarians to criminal prosecution. Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, said that lawmakers need to have “an actual class on what criminal law does, what intent is and the process.”
By reducing the felony charges to misdemeanors, England said, the bill would make it easier for librarians to be arrested via a warrant. A warrant clerk can sign a warrant “on the spot right there” without proper due process.
“In a situation where you have to have a warrant — that’s for felonies — it actually has to be investigated,” England said.
He said that the bill only requires district attorneys get notice, and there is no standard for what the notice is supposed to say, or requirement that the district attorney acknowledge the notice.
“This basically gives one person the ability to have a librarian arrested, as long as they can convince a warrant clerk that they’ve given notice and material is obscene. Does that make you comfortable?” England asked.
Rep. Neil Rafferty, D-Birmingham, said he was concerned that people will abuse the definitions provided in the bill and asked if there would be an appeals process in case a person is harassed based on the bill’s language.
“I’m talking about people abusing this definition that we have in here in order to target and harass people, who might be dressed up for a Halloween costume, or dressed up, like I said, in just the warmer months, wearing a sundress,” Rafferty said.
Faulkner maintained that there would still be seven days for the person to remove or change material or conduct in question. Rafferty questioned whether it is a good idea to bring people into the criminal justice system to resolve civil matters.
“I do still have some serious problems with this because I feel like this is a violation of First Amendment, I feel like is easily going to be abused, and we will be dealing with unintended consequences of it,” Rafferty said.
Rep. Danny Garrett, R-Trussville, said the bill was needed because “we woke up one day and things changed.”
Garrett cited the American Library Association adopting a user privacy policy stating children and young adults have the “right to receive information through the library in print, sound, images, data, social media, online applications, games, technologies, programming, and other formats.”
“I haven’t talked to anybody and anybody who believes that, but that was the national policy, and that began to drive a lot of things that just popped up that people didn’t understand. I don’t think the local libraries necessarily embraced that, but it just happens,” Garrett said.
Rep. A.J. McCampbell, D-Linden, said that while they may not want children to be exposed to the material in question, the “real world is full of a whole lot of stuff that we don’t want our children exposed to.” He said that he was exposed to a lot growing up, and the things he learned that was “lewd and not right” were not learned in a library.
“When we are trying to dictate by precluding what a person may learn about, then we limit their ability to operate in a society they actually live in,” McCampbell said.
Read Freely Alabama, an volunteer group opposing censorship in local libraries, said in a statement that even with the changes, the bill still “criminalizes normal library practices and subverts already established reconsideration procedures,” even after changes. The group said the bill would allow anyone to make a claim based on subjective personal beliefs.
“This would open librarians and their staff in our most vulnerable libraries to criminal prosecution for books housed in the adult section, giving them 7 days to ban these books from their libraries or be charged,” the statement read.
Craig Scott, president of the Alabama Library Association, said in a statement that despite the changes, librarians could still be penalized or arrested by “prosecutors eager to follow the demands of Alabama Republican Chair John Wahl, an Alabama Public Library Service Board member, who’s willing to jail librarians for having books he considers unacceptable.”
“This bill is government overreach, robs parents of their rights, and would have a chilling effect on free speech by potentially incarcerating librarians because particular books are available, including even the Bible,” Scott wrote.
The bill moves to the Senate for consideration.
******************************************************************************************
Alander Rocha is a journalist based in Montgomery, and he reports on government, policy and healthcare. He previously worked for KFF Health News and the Red & Black, Georgia’s student newspaper. He is a Tulane and Georgia alumnus with a two-year stint in the U.S. Peace Corps.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was previously published by the Alabama Reflector and is republished with permission.
The Alabama Reflector is an independent, nonprofit news outlet dedicated to covering state government and politics in the state of Alabama. Through daily coverage and investigative journalism, The Reflector covers decision makers in Montgomery; the issues affecting Alabamians, and potential ways to move our state forward.
We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
Colorado
Colorado’s high court okays anti-trans ballot initiative effort
Colorado Supreme Court greenlights signature collection for ballot initiative opponents believe would target LGBTQ+ students
DENVER, Colo. – A conservative group that bills itself as defending parental rights has received approval to collect signatures for a ballot initiative that would forcibly out transgender students in the state’s schools.
“We believe this measure is so supportive of our kiddos that do identify as LGBT,” Lori Gimelshteyn, executive director of the Colorado Parent Advocacy Network, told Denver’s NBC News affiliate KUSA 9 news. Gimelshteyn helped write the ballot initiative.
“We very strongly believe that parents are the ones that know best and help them,” she said.
According to KUSA, the measure was approved by the Colorado Title Board, but opponents including LGBTQ advocacy group One Colorado and Out Boulder County, challenged the decision with the Colorado Supreme Court. Late last week, the court affirmed the initiative, giving it the go-ahead to begin collecting signatures.
The exact text of the ballot measure states, “Any public school representative who obtains information that a child enrolled in their public school is experiencing gender incongruence shall notify the child’s parents within 48 hours of receiving such information.”
In a statement to the Blade Thursday, the executive director of Out Boulder County, Mardi Moore reacted noting that the Colorado Supreme Court decision “to allow the collection of signatures to place a measure on our November 2024 ballots that is an attack on our teachers, students, and families.”
“Today is a sad day in Colorado. Despite our state’s long history of honoring individual rights and freedoms, the Supreme Court has ruled that a vocal minority can begin collecting signatures from Coloradans to codify government overreach in our schools, communities, and lives. If successful, their efforts will place an additional administrative burden on our already-overworked teachers and school administrators and expose them to frivolous and costly lawsuits.
“The proponents of this measure do not understand Colorado’s values. And they do not care about the other consequences this ballot measure will have on teachers, kids, and families. You will hear several things about the measure they are gathering signatures for to put on our election ballot – that they want to protect kids, that it will only affect one part of the LGBTQ+ community – but they are lying to you.
“Out Boulder County will do everything in our power to ensure our teachers, kids, and families can be who they are and feel safe in schools.”
KUSA 9 News also reported that the Colorado Parent Advocacy Network has until August to collect about 125,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot.
“You can be ensured that our volunteers, our staff and our large community will do everything possible to ensure this is not passed in the state of Colorado,” Out Boulder County‘s Moore told KUSA. “We’ve had big wins. I don’t think Colorado will be any different.”
Colorado Parent Advocacy Network’s Gimelshteyn hopes to start collecting signatures on this measure by the end of this week. She told KUSA every local school district will have the ability to write a policy around how this measure will be implemented, if it does get on the ballot and pass.
Other Anti-LGBTQ measures
The Colorado Parent Advocacy Network effort is only one of several ballot initiatives targeting Colorado’s LGBTQ+ community. The Colorado Newsline reported two measures sponsored by Erin Lee, a Fort Collins anti-LGBTQ activist who since 2022 has made a string of appearances in conservative media crusading against what she calls the “indoctrination” of children by “predators” at public schools, have been approved by the Title Board. One would require Colorado public schools to notify parents when their child shows signs of “experiencing gender incongruence” at school, and another would codify a parent’s “legal right to review their child’s school records.”
Lee, her husband and two other parents sued the Poudre School District in federal court last year, alleging that her daughter’s experience with an after-school Genders and Sexualities Alliance club, which “introduced concepts of gender fluidity and various types of sexual attraction,” violated their constitutional rights as parents. Their characterization of some of the club’s discussions and materials has been disputed, and their lawsuit was dismissed.
Another set of ballot measures targeting transgender Coloradans has attracted high-profile support from prominent Republican politicians. One would prohibit transgender athletes from competing in “a sport or athletic event designated as being for females, women or girls.” The other proposes a sweeping ban on medical procedures and hormone treatments for transgender people under the age of 18.
The Title Board, however, ruled that both measures violate the single-subject rule, and upheld their decisions again last week, prompting criticism from Greg Lopez, the GOP’s nominee for a 4th Congressional District special election in June, and former state Sen. Kevin Lundberg.
“I believe it is doing a great disservice to we the people in Colorado, who reserve the right to make law independent of the General Assembly,” Lundberg said. “I’m saying this to you very directly, because I guarantee I’m going to say this publicly — you need to know that if … you’re going to say this is not a single subject, that’s a violation of our Constitution.”
Hearings on the anti-transgender initiatives have been marked by unusually tense scenes at the normally tranquil Title Board, including a session last month during which supporters of the initiatives shouted at board members while filming the hearing with their phones. Conley, the board chair, told Lundberg that his comments about speaking “publicly” were part of a pattern she found “unnerving.”
“We have put in a tremendous amount of effort, we are doing our best, we are seeking to be consistent. I am constantly concerned about being doxxed online,” Conley said. “People can always comment on public processes. It is in the news all the time. But to be reminded and directed at it, I can’t help but think that there’s a little bit of a hidden message there that is not appreciated and won’t be tolerated.”
Additional reporting by Chase Woodruff, the Colorado Newsline.
Minnesota
DA: Teen charged in fatal anti-LGBTQ Minneapolis mass shooting
The charged individual was 17 years old at the time of the shooting, in which one person was killed & seven others were injured by gunfire
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. – Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty today announced that her office has charged a now-18 year old with murder in the August 2023 mass shooting at a Minneapolis backyard concert venue known as “Nudieland” that was attended by many members of the LGBTQ+ community.
The charged individual was 17 years old at the time of the shooting, in which one person was killed and at least seven others were injured by gunfire. The document charging Dominic James Burris and another man says the shooting was motivated by bias against the victims’ gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.
The office charged the individual by sealed warrant on Friday, April 12. The complaint was sealed because the individual was not in custody at the time of charging. Police arrested the individual, currently age 18, last night, and he made his first appearance in juvenile court today. The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office will decide whether to pursue adult certification of the case or keep it in juvenile court after certification studies are completed.
“Gun violence will not be tolerated in our communities,” Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said. “This shooting, at what should have been a joyous event, rocked our LBGTQIA+ community, and increased fear among a community that is too often already under attack. We are committed to holding those who caused this harm accountable, and to offering, as we already have, our office’s resources to those who have been impacted by this senseless violence.”
The charges revealed today come after an investigation by the Minneapolis Police Department and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. The two offices collaborated since this tragic shooting to review evidence and prepare the cases for charging.
“The identification of those believed to be responsible for the terrible events of August 11th is the culmination of the careful, steadfast, and meticulous collaboration between MPD investigators, forensic scientists, federal partners, and prosecutors,” said Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara. “The violence inflicted in this mass shooting angers me, and I am moved to compassion for those who were impacted by this terrible murder and attempted murders. I am proud of the dedicated members of the MPD who continue to serve above and beyond for the victims of crime.”
The allegations detailed in the criminal complaint include:
Two males interacted with multiple people at the concert in the minutes before the shooting. Witnesses stated that the two males approached them and then made insensitive comments during an interaction characterized as “hostile” where the two men brandished firearms.
Other witnesses reported they overheard the respondents utter derogatory epithets about the sexual orientation of concert attendees.
Both suspects remained at the concert following the interaction before leaving together.
According to witnesses, the shooting began less than a minute after they left, coming from a yard next door. Both the location and number of bullet casings corroborated descriptions of where the victims and witnesses observed the suspects.
Upon arriving at the scene, officers encountered at least seven victims who had suffered gunshot wounds. One victim suffered a gunshot wound to his back and died shortly after law enforcement arrived.
Forensic examiners developed a DNA profile from a cigarette butt at the scene, which matched a known DNA profile of one of the suspects.
Investigators located surveillance videos from around the time and location of the shooting, confirming that two males matching the physical appearance of the suspects walked toward the direction of the party shortly before the shooting took place. A witness later identified the second suspect in the surveillance video.
Oregon
As hate crimes surge in Oregon, state launches hotline awareness
The Oregon Department of Justice wants to build awareness about the hotline, which connects victims to services
By Lynne Terry | SALEM, Ore. – With hate crimes rising in Oregon, the Department of Justice has launched a campaign to support minority communities and spread awareness of the state’s nonemergency hotline for reporting bias and hate crimes.
The campaign, dubbed “You belong,” will run for three months and include six public service announcements and ads in English, Spanish, Korean, Mandarin, Arabic, Russian, Vietnamese and Tagalog, the national language of the Philippines. They’ll be aired on the radio and television, streamed on YouTube, painted across buses and posted on Facebook, while an influencer will get word out on TikTok and Instagram.
The campaign also will include billboards in English, Spanish and Vietnamese in Portland, Gresham, Salem and Eugene.
“Every Oregonian should feel like they belong here, but acts of bias and hatred rob people of that sense of belonging,” Ellen Rosenblum, Oregon’s attorney general, said in a release. “To anyone who has experienced acts of hatred and bias, you are not alone. You belong.”
The hotline, the first of its kind nationwide, is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific time, Monday through Friday. It was launched in 2020, following the passage of Senate Bill 577 in 2019. That law defined a hate or bias crime as intimidation or harm of another person or their property motivated by the person’s actual or perceived protected class, including race, color, disability, religion, national origin, sexual orientation and gender identity. Punishment for bias crimes vary: Depending on the situation, they can be a misdemeanor or a felony, and state data shows that cases are fairly evenly divided between the two.
The confidential line was set up, in part, to help victims get services. Advocates, with services in more than 240 languages, are trained in trauma care, and sometimes callers just want to talk. They also direct callers to government and community services that range from counseling to help filing a police report. Operators also collect reports on the crimes for The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.
According to the commission’s dashboard, reported hate crimes in Oregon have more than tripled from about 1,100 in 2020 to 3,600 reports last year. The crimes are most prevalent in the populous Portland area, with about 2,300 reports filed over the past four years in Multnomah County and more than 700 each in Clackamas and Washington counties. More than 1,000 reports also have been filed in Lane County, and more than 800 in Marion County.
Report a bias crime:
To report a nonemergency event, call 844-924-BIAS (2427) on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The service has interpreters in more than 240 languages. You can also file a written report here.
Most bias crimes involve harassment, the data shows, and a majority of crimes are prompted by race, with Black people being the biggest racial target. Fay Stetz-Waters, the Department of Justice’s director of civil rights and social justice, said that one reason is likely Oregon’s racist past. The state’s early Black exclusion laws tried to keep Black people from residing in the state, and later they suffered widespread discrimination, especially in housing.
“It’s part of our history,” Stetz-Waters said. “It’s perpetuated throughout our communities and throughout our culture. It’s in our schools. It’s in our work. It’s in our places of business.”
Hispanics are the second biggest target, with LGBTQ+ people suffering about as many attacks.
Stetz-Waters said the crimes are somewhat predictable: She expects an uptick in May during Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month and then in June, which is Pride Month.
“As we hit the summer when more people are out, when we have more public events where people like to show up and show off, I expect these numbers to rise,” Stetz-Waters said.
The line itself is also attacked.
“We’ve been getting more than 100 robocalls a day,” Stetz-Waters said. “We’re getting people reporting nonsense, nothing related to hate or bias (and) asking questions that don’t have anything to do with our work. And I think it’s just to tie up the line so that someone who has need cannot use the line.”
The department also takes reports online, and the website has a chat feature.
The unit began small: At the beginning, Stetz-Waters, who’s a lawyer with a law enforcement background, answered the phones. Now, it has a staff of 11, including a prosecutor who helps officials in smaller counties understand the law and prosecute cases. Another staff member is an investigator with law enforcement experience who helps smaller communities with investigations.
The unit also has a $100,000 victims’ fund allocated by the Legislature for the current two-year budget to help with various needs.
The hotline awareness campaign is the department’s second. Stetz-Waters said the first one in 2020 to let people know about the service did not reach a wide audience. It came during the pandemic, when people were often socially isolated and focused on COVID.
She hopes this campaign increases awareness of the service and fosters a sense of inclusiveness.
“We want to build connections so people stay,” Stetz-Waters said. “We want people to recognize (they’re) not alone. You belong.”
******************************************************************************************
Lynne Terry, who has more than 30 years of journalism experience, is Oregon Capital Chronicle’s editor-in-chief. She previously was editor of The Lund Report, a highly regarded health news site; reported on health in her 18 years at The Oregonian, was a senior producer at Oregon Public Broadcasting and Paris correspondent for National Public Radio.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was previously published by the Oregon Capital Chronicle and is republished with permission.
Oregon Capital Chronicle focuses on deep and useful reporting on Oregon state government, politics and policy. We help readers understand how those in government are using their power, what’s happening to taxpayer dollars, and how citizens can stake a bigger role in big decisions.
We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
Alabama
Alabama House approves expansion of state’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law
The bill would extend a ban on discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity from fifth grade to eighth grade
By Alander Rocha | MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The Alabama House of Representatives Tuesday approved a major expansion of the state’s “Don’t Say Gay” law after a two-hour debate.
HB 130, sponsored by Rep. Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City, would expand the limitations on teachers addressing sexual orientation and gender identity, currently banned in kindergarten through fifth grade instruction, to kindergarten through eighth grade. The bill would also limit pride flags in the classroom.
“We’ve had a few teachers go rogue, and you’d be appalled at some of the things that are being taught. You’d be appalled at some of the things right now that you’re seeing on Chromebooks,” Butler said.
The House approved the measure on a 74-25 vote.
The bill would have previously expanded the ban through 12th grade, but Rep. Barbara Drummond, D-Mobile, offered an amendment to limit the ban on sexual orientation and gender identity instruction to the eighth grade.
Butler said that was a friendly amendment supported by the Alabama State Department of Education and thanked Drummond for bringing it.
“I’m trying to put lipstick on something that I think is going to be scarring our kids,” Drummond said.
Democrats said the bill could have unintended consequences, especially as it related to children’s mental health.
Rep. Marilyn Lands, D-Huntsville, said that in her background as a counselor, she’s worked with LGBTQ+ youth that have been ostracized and bullied for of their identity.
Lands named Nigel Shelby, a 15-year-old from Huntsville who died by suicide because of bullying. She said to the body that each legislator “knows people that have been personally affected by this kind of cruelty.”
Several Democrats expressed concerns the bill could contribute to suicide rates. Asked by Rep. Phillip Ensler, D-Montgomery, to respond, Butler said he didn’t believe that would be the case “at all.”
“You still would be able to go to your teacher and talk to your teacher. You wouldn’t be able to raise your hand in class and have an open discussion about what you’re going through, which I doubt is what would happen anyway,” Butler said.
Ensler said he was missing the point. He said that what children will take away from the legislation is that the Legislature is homophobic. He said anytime lessons on identity are prohibited, such as discussion on religion and ethnicity, it makes people feel like they don’t matter and are not seen as equal.
“That is so disturbing, and I just cannot believe that we’re going to potentially now pass something any moment here that could lead to a child — a child — taking his or her own life because of something that we’re going to do here today,” Ensler said.
Other Democrats questioned which rainbow flag the legislation would outlaw.
Rep. Neil Rafferty, D-Birmingham, asked whether the bill would be banning the traditional rainbow flag or the solidarity flag, also known as the progress flag. There are at least 25 pride flags, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
“At what point would you know that you’re coming upon another insignia or symbol that would be showing a student that might be struggling, hurting or are really trying to just make the best of what they can and talk to a teacher?” Rafferty asked.
He offered an amendment that would instead prohibit a teacher from having discussions intended to change a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Very simple. It changes that from regarding to getting to really what the intent of this bill is, and that is to protect children,” Rafferty said.
The amendment was defeated on a 70-27 vote.
Rep. Patrick Sellers, D-Birmingham, said that the issue was not in school, but at home and social media. He said the body was trying to “legislate morality within the home.”
“I have a little pause because I think we’re trying to do something that we cannot do,” Sellers said.
He added that teachers don’t have the time to teach material outside of the school curriculum.
“Their time is so scheduled, along with dealing with all that they deal with, especially with discipline issues that they deal with within the school system, they don’t have time to teach what I think what you’re suggesting that has been taught,” Sellers said.
Republicans spoke in support of the bill, saying that teachers need to focus on teaching the subject they are assigned.
Rep. Ernie Yarbrough, R-Trinity, said that it is “not the job of public education to sexualize our kids.” He said it was “disingenuous” to say it’s a “ban on teaching historical facts.”
“The sooner we realize that teachers need to focus on teaching, reading, writing and arithmetic, and leaving the purity and the minds, in regard to sexual knowledge, to the parents of our families, the better off our country will be,” Yarbrough said.
The bill goes to the Senate for consideration.
*****************************************************************************************
Alander Rocha is a journalist based in Montgomery, and he reports on government, policy and healthcare. He previously worked for KFF Health News and the Red & Black, Georgia’s student newspaper. He is a Tulane and Georgia alumnus with a two-year stint in the U.S. Peace Corps.
*****************************************************************************************
The preceding article was previously published by the Alabama Reflector and is republished with permission.
The Alabama Reflector is an independent, nonprofit news outlet dedicated to covering state government and politics in the state of Alabama. Through daily coverage and investigative journalism, The Reflector covers decision makers in Montgomery; the issues affecting Alabamians, and potential ways to move our state forward.
We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
Tennessee
Tennessee: Anti-LGBTQ parents can now foster, adopt LGBTQ kids
Advocates have pushed back to say that plain language of the law does not require the state to take into account the child’s own wishes
By Anita Wadhwani | NASHVILLE, Tenn. – With Gov. Bill Lee’s signature, Tennessee last week became the first state in the nation to establish the right of adults who claim moral or religious objections to LGBTQ identity to foster and adopt LGBTQ kids.
In the days since the law became effective, the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) has shelved a 10-year-old policy that said children in state custody must receive care that “promotes dignity and respect for all children/youth and families inclusive of their gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation.”
That policy is now “under review and will be updated on the web site once the review is complete,” DCS spokesperson Ashley Zarach said. New guidelines for how the state will navigate foster kids’ sexual orientation and gender identity in deciding where to place them are expected to be hashed out in the coming months.
The law’s passage has raised alarms among advocates for LGBTQ youth in Tennessee and elsewhere, who say it upends a central principle of child welfare systems: prioritizing the best interest of a child.
Instead, they say, the law gives gives greater weight to a prospective parent’s religious and moral beliefs over the need of a child for a loving, safe and supportive home.
“What’s really sad about this is there’s a really high volume of LGBTQ+ kids in the foster system whose needs aren’t being met now,” said Molly Quinn, executive director of OUTMemphis. Among the LGBTQ nonprofit’s programs is one that aids 18- to 24-year-old LGBTQ youth facing homelessness, many of whom are former foster kids who faced a tough time in the child welfare system.
“The fact that the state would accept a family that is willing to discriminate into this broken system with such vulnerable kids is difficult to understand,” she said.
Best interests of the child?
The law, formally called the Tennessee Foster and Adoptive Parent Protection Act, was backed overwhelmingly by Tennessee Republican lawmakers, who two years ago also approved a first-of-its-kind law allowing private adoption and foster care agencies that accept tax dollars to reject prospective parents for a variety of religious or moral reasons, including their faith or whether they are LGBTQ.
“In advocating for this year’s bill, Dickson Republican Rep. Mary Littleton characterized it as a necessary safeguard for families who want to offer loving homes to foster and adoptive kids but worry that they would have to compromise their faith or moral beliefs. Littleton also cited an urgent need for more willing families to step forward. Tennessee currently has 4,948 fully approved foster homes, but needs 400 more.
At the end of the day the state should be acting in the best interest of the kids and this doesn’t do this. This puts emphasis on beliefs of foster and adoptive parents.” – Laura Brennan, Family Equity
Littleton stressed that the new law says DCS is not precluded from taking a child’s preferences into account before placing them in a home.
“This bill does not disregard the values and beliefs of the child,” Littleton said, noting state child welfare officials can still take into account “a comprehensive list of factors.” before placing any child in any home.
Advocates have pushed back to say that plain language of the law does not require the state to take into account the child’s own wishes.
They also criticized what they call a mischaracterization by the law’s supporters that prospective foster and adoptive parents in Tennessee have been rejected for holding anti-LGBTQ beliefs.
Parents in Tennessee have not been required to be gender- or sexual-orientation-affirming as a condition of becoming approved as a foster or adoptive parent. They have, however, been required to promote dignity and respect of a child’s identity if they take an LGBTQ kid in their home — until now.
DCS: parents preferences already taken into account
According to the Department of Children’s Services, prospective parents’ “preferences” have routinely been taken into account before a child is placed in a home, a spokesperson for the Department of Children’s Services said in a statement.
“Prior to this legislation, the DCS home study process included asking prospective foster and adoptive parents a series of questions to identify their placement preferences,” a statement from DCS said.
“Among those are questions regarding willingness to parent a child who identifies as LGBTQ+. Our goal always is to find the most appropriate placement to meet the unique needs of each child in our care,” the statement said.
Tennessee currently has 8,854 kids in state custody — 6,686 of them residing in foster homes. Up to a third of all foster youth nationwide identify as LBGTQ — often kicked out of home or winding up in state custody as a result of mistreatment or rejection based on their gender identity, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Jace Wilder, education manager Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization that has vocally opposed the law, pointed to his own tough childhood as an example of the importance of supportive adults in a child’s life.
Wilder, who is transgender, was raised, in part, by a friend’s parents after suffering abuse at the hands of his father, he said. His mother was disabled and frequently hospitalized.
Wilder said the abuse wasn’t solely because of his gender identity, but “it kind of gave him more ammo to use against me, so that did not help.” He was also able to connect with LGBTQ people for support in his teens and college years, he said.
“Without finding people that accepted me and really helped me grow, I think I would have been stuck in the position of being too afraid to transition, too afraid of being out.” he said. “I think this puts kids at risk of being abused, neglected and harmed again.”
The nature of discourse over LGBTQ youth in Tennessee already exemplifies the need for safe and affirming homes, said Eli Givens, a college freshman from Tennessee who also serves as an advocate for the Tennessee Equality Project.
“It’s been just really unbelievable watching this session,” Givens said. “I’ve had adults telling me I need to go gas myself, that I was clearly molested when I was younger, just a wide array of threats,” they said.
“It’s bewildering that the same adults who told me to gas myself can adopt an LGBTQ child. That’s an extremely scary reality.”
Tennessee AG pushes back on proposed federal LGBTQ foster protections
The law was enacted on the heels of proposed new rules currently being considered by the U.S. The Department of Health and Human Services related to the placement of LGBTQI+ youth in foster care. Among the proposed rules for all foster homes is they “establish an environment free of hostility, mistreatment, or abuse based on the child’s LGBTQI+ status.”
In November, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti led a 17-state coalition opposing the rules, saying in a letter to the federal government that they would shrink the pool of available foster families and “further divert resources away from protecting foster children from physical abuse and toward enforcing compliance with controversial gender ideology.”
Laura Brennan, associate director for child welfare policy for Family Equality, which advocates for LGBTQ families, said national advocates are keeping a close eye on what’s happening in Tennessee. The state’s 2022 law allowing publicly-funded private adoption and foster care agencies to exclude LGBTQ parents has seen been adopted by 13 other states, she said.
“At the end of the day the state should be acting in the best interest of the kids and this doesn’t do this,” she said. “This puts emphasis on beliefs of foster and adoptive parents.”
******************************************************************************************
Anita Wadhwani is a senior reporter for the Tennessee Lookout. The Tennessee AP Broadcasters and Media (TAPME) named her Journalist of the Year in 2019 as well as giving her the Malcolm Law Award for Investigative Journalism. Wadhwani is formerly an investigative reporter with The Tennessean who focused on the impact of public policies on the people and places across Tennessee.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding piece was previously published by the Tennessee Lookout and is republished with permission.
Now more than ever, tough and fair journalism is important. The Tennessee Lookout is your watchdog, telling the stories of politics and policy that affect the people of the Volunteer State.
We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
The White House
Biden announces action plan targeting pollutants in drinking water
The administration has led more than 500 programs geared toward communities most impacted by health and safety hazards like pollution
WASHINGTON — Headlining an Earth Day event in Northern Virginia’s Prince William Forest on Monday, President Joe Biden announced the disbursement of $7 billion in new grants for solar projects and warned of his Republican opponent’s plans to roll back the progress his administration has made toward addressing the harms of climate change.
The administration has led more than 500 programs geared toward communities most impacted by health and safety hazards like pollution and extreme weather events.
In a statement to the Washington Blade on Wednesday, Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said, “President Biden is leading the most ambitious climate, conservation, and environmental justice agenda in history – and that means working toward a future where all people can breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in a healthy community.”
“This Earth Week, the Biden-Harris Administration announced $7 billion in solar energy projects for over 900,000 households in disadvantaged communities while creating hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs, which are being made more accessible by the American Climate Corps,” she said. “President Biden is delivering on his promise to help protect all communities from the impacts of climate change – including the LGBTQI+ community – and that we leave no community behind as we build an equitable and inclusive clean energy economy for all.”
Recent milestones in the administration’s climate policies include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s issuance on April 10 of legally enforceable standard for detecting and treating drinking water contaminated with polyfluoroalkyl substances.
“This rule sets health safeguards and will require public water systems to monitor and reduce the levels of PFAS in our nation’s drinking water, and notify the public of any exceedances of those levels,” according to a White House fact sheet. “The rule sets drinking water limits for five individual PFAS, including the most frequently found PFOA and PFOS.”
The move is expected to protect 100 million Americans from exposure to the “forever chemicals,” which have been linked to severe health problems including cancers, liver and heart damage, and developmental impacts in children.
An interactive dashboard from the United States Geological Survey shows the concentrations of polyfluoroalkyl substances in tapwater are highest in urban areas with dense populations, including cities like New York and Los Angeles.
During Biden’s tenure, the federal government has launched more than 500 programs that are geared toward investing in the communities most impacted by climate change, whether the harms may arise from chemical pollutants, extreme weather events, or other causes.
New research by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law found that because LGBTQ Americans are likelier to live in coastal areas and densely populated cities, households with same-sex couples are likelier to experience the adverse effects of climate change.
The report notes that previous research, including a study that used “national Census data on same-sex households by census tract combined with data on hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from the National Air Toxics Assessment” to model “the relationship between same-sex households and risk of cancer and respiratory illness” found “that higher prevalence of same-sex households is associated with higher risks for these diseases.”
“Climate change action plans at federal, state, and local levels, including disaster preparedness, response, and recovery plans, must be inclusive and address the specific needs and vulnerabilities facing LGBT people,” the Williams Institute wrote.
With respect to polyfluoroalkyl substances, the EPA’s adoption of new standards follows other federal actions undertaken during the Biden-Harris administration to protect firefighters and healthcare workers, test for and clean up pollution, and phase out or reduce use of the chemicals in fire suppressants, food packaging, and federal procurement.
Maine
Maine’s Governor Mills signs trans & abortion sanctuary bill into law
Despite a series of bomb threats against legislators in the state, Gov. Janet Mills has signed a trans & abortion sanctuary bill
By Erin Reed | AUGUSTA, Maine – On Tuesday, Gov. Janet Mills of Maine signed LD 227, a sanctuary bill that protects transgender and abortion providers and patients from out-of-state prosecution, into law.
With this action, Maine becomes the 16th state to explicitly protect transgender and abortion care in state law from prosecution. This follows several bomb threats targeting state legislators after social media attacks from far-right anti-trans influencers such as Riley Gaines and Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok.
An earlier version of the bill failed in committee after similar attacks in January. Undeterred, Democrats reconvened and added additional protections to the bill before it was passed into law.
The law is extensive. It asserts that gender-affirming care and reproductive health care are “legal rights” in Maine. It states that criminal and civil actions against providers and patients are not enforceable if the provision or access to that care occurred within Maine’s borders, asserting jurisdiction over those matters.
It bars cooperation with out-of-state subpoenas and arrest warrants for gender-affirming care and abortion that happen within the state. It even protects doctors who provide gender-affirming care and abortion from certain adverse actions by medical boards, malpractice insurance, and other regulating entities, shielding those providers from attempts to economically harm them through out-of-state legislation designed to dissuade them from providing care.
You can see the findings section of the bill here:
The bill also explicitly enshrines the World Professional Association of Transgender Health’s Standards of Care, which have been the target of right-wing disinformation campaigns, into state law for the coverage of transgender healthcare:
The bill is said to be necessary due to attempts to prosecute doctors and seek information from patients across state lines. In recent months, attorneys general in other states have attempted to obtain health care data on transgender patients who traveled to obtain care. According to the United States Senate Finance Committee, attorneys general in Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri, and Texas attempted to obtain detailed medical records “to terrorize transgender teens in their states… opening the door to criminalizing women’s private reproductive health care choices.”
The most blatant of these attempts was from the Attorney General of Texas, who, according to the Senate Finance Committee, “sent demands to at least two non-Texas entities.” One of these entities was Seattle Children’s Hospital, which received a letter threatening administrators with arrest unless they sent data on Texas patients traveling to Seattle to obtain gender-affirming care.
Seattle Children’s Hospital settled that case out of court this week, agreeing to withdraw its Texas business registration in return for Texas dropping its investigation. This likely will have no impact on Seattle Children’s Hospital, which has stated it did not treat any youth via telemedicine or in person in Texas; the hospital will be able to continue treating Texas youth who travel outside of Texas to obtain their care. That settlement was likely compelling due to a nearly identical law in Washington that barred out-of-state investigations on transgender care obtained solely in the state of Washington.
The bill has faced a rocky road to passage. A similar bill was debated in January, but after coming under intense attack from anti-trans activists who misleadingly called it a “transgender trafficking bill,” the bill was voluntarily withdrawn by its sponsor.
When LD 227 was introduced, it faced even more attacks from Riley Gaines and Libs of TikTok. These attacks were followed by bomb threats that forced the evacuation of the legislature, promising “death to pedophiles” and stating that a bomb would detonate within a few hours in the capitol building.
Despite these threats, legislators strengthened both the abortion and gender-affirming care provisions and pressed forward, passing the bill into law. Provisions found in the new bill include protecting people who “aid and assist” gender-affirming care and abortion, protections against court orders from other states for care obtained in Maine, and even protections against adverse actions by health insurance and malpractice insurance providers, which have been recent targets of out-of-state legislation aimed at financially discouraging doctors from providing gender-affirming care and abortion care even in states where it is legal.
See a few of the extensive health insurance and malpractice provisions here:
Speaking about the bill, Gia Drew, executive director of EqualityMaine, said in a statement, “We are thrilled to see LD 227, the shield bill, be signed into law by Governor Mills. Thanks to our pro equality and pro reproductive choice elected officials who refused to back down in the face of disinformation. This bill couldn’t come into effect at a better time, as more than 40% of states across the country have either banned or attempted to block access to reproductive care, which includes abortions, as well as transgender healthcare for minors. Thanks to our coalition partners who worked tirelessly to phone bank, lobby, and get this bill over the finish line to protect community health.”
Destie Hohman Sprague of Maine Women’s Lobby celebrated the passage of the bill despite threats of violence, saying in a statement, “A gender-just Maine ensures that all Mainers have access to quality health care that supports their mental and physical wellbeing and bodily autonomy, including comprehensive reproductive and gender-affirming care. We celebrate the passage of LD 227, which helps us meet that goal. Still, the patterns of violence and disinformation ahead of the vote reflected the growing connections between misogyny, extremism, and anti-democratic threats and actions. We must continue to advocate for policies that protect bodily autonomy, and push back against extremist rhetoric that threatens our states’ rights and our citizens’ freedoms.”
The decision to pass the legislation comes as the Biden administration released updated HIPAA protections that protect “reproductive health care” from out-of-state prosecutions and investigations.
Although the definition of “reproductive health care” is broad in the new HIPAA regulations, it is uncertain whether they will include gender-affirming care. For at least 16 states, though, gender-affirming care is now explicitly protected by state law and shielded from out-of-state legislation, providing transgender people and those seeking abortions with protections as the fight increasingly crosses state lines.
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
State Department
State Department releases 2023 human rights report
Antony Blinken reiterates criticism of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday once again reiterated his criticism of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act upon release of the State Department’s annual human rights report.
“This year’s report also captures human rights abuses against members of vulnerable communities,” he told reporters. “In Afghanistan, the Taliban have limited work opportunities for women, shuttered institutions found educating girls, and increasing floggings for women and men accused of, quote, ‘immoral behavior,’ end quote. Uganda passed a draconian and discriminatory Anti-Homosexuality Act, threatening LGBTQI+ individuals with life imprisonment, even death, simply for being with the person they loved.”
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni last May signed the law, which contains a death penalty provision for “aggravated homosexuality.”
The U.S. subsequently imposed visa restrictions on Ugandan officials and removed the country from a program that allows sub-Saharan African countries to trade duty-free with the U.S. The World Bank Group also announced the suspension of new loans to Uganda.
Uganda’s Constitutional Court earlier this month refused to “nullify the Anti-Homosexuality Act in its totality.” More than a dozen Ugandan LGBTQ+ activists have appealed the ruling.
Clare Byarugaba of Chapter Four Uganda, a Ugandan LGBTQ+ rights group, on Monday met with National Security Council Chief-of-Staff Curtis Ried. Jay Gilliam, the senior LGBTQI+ coordinator for the U.S. Agency for International Development, in February traveled to Uganda and met with LGBTQ+ activists who discussed the Anti-Homosexuality Act’s impact.
“LGBTQI+ activists reported police arrested numerous individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity and subjected many to forced anal exams, a medically discredited practice with no evidentiary value that was considered a form of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and could amount to torture,” reads the human rights report.
The report, among other things, also notes Ugandan human rights activists “reported numerous instances of state and non-state actor violence and harassment against LGBTQI+ persons and noted authorities did not adequately investigate the cases.”
Report highlights anti-LGBTQ+ crackdowns in Ghana, Hungary, Russia
Ghanaian lawmakers on Feb. 28 approved the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill. The country’s president, Nana Akufo-Addo, has said he will not sign the measure until the Ghanaian Supreme Court rules on whether it is constitutional or not.
The human rights report notes “laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults” and “crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or intersex persons” are among the “significant human rights issues” in Ghana.
The report documents Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and members of his right-wing Fidesz party’s continued rhetoric against “gender ideology.” It also notes Russia’s ongoing crackdown against LGBTQ+ people that includes reports of “state actors committed violence against LGBTQI+ individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, particularly in Chechnya.”
The report specifically notes Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 24 signed a law that bans “legal gender recognition, medical interventions aimed at changing the sex of a person, and gender-affirming care.” It also points out Papua New Guinea is among the countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized.
The Cook Islands and Mauritius in decriminalized homosexuality in 2023.
The report notes the Namibia Supreme Court last May ruled the country must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed outside the country. The report also highlights the Indian Supreme Court’s ruling against marriage equality that it issued last October. (It later announced it would consider an appeal of the decision.)
Congress requires the State Department to release a human rights report each year.
The Biden-Harris administration in 2021 released a memorandum that committed the U.S. to promoting LGBTQ+ and intersex rights abroad.
The full report can be read here.
House GOP bars earmarks after controversy over LGBTQ projects
Ricky Martin will be the headliner for 2024 LA Pride in the Park
Landmark systematic review of trans surgery
Alabama lawmakers pass bill may lead to prosecutions of librarians
2024 Music City Open Disc Golf Pro Tour suspends over threats
Tennessee: Anti-LGBTQ parents can now foster, adopt LGBTQ kids
“Queers in the Valley” Ojai launches & is ready to celebrate Pride
90 percent of trans youth live in states restricting their rights
Recognizing & celebrating lesbians: Mayor Pro-Tem of El Cerrito
600+ national polls shows Biden & Trump are tied
-
Tennessee2 days agoTennessee: Anti-LGBTQ parents can now foster, adopt LGBTQ kids
-
Ventura County3 days ago“Queers in the Valley” Ojai launches & is ready to celebrate Pride
-
Research/Study3 days ago90 percent of trans youth live in states restricting their rights
-
California Politics3 days agoRecognizing & celebrating lesbians: Mayor Pro-Tem of El Cerrito
-
Politics5 days ago600+ national polls shows Biden & Trump are tied
-
Politics4 days agoSmithsonian staff concerned about future of LGBTQ programming
-
Music & Concerts4 days agoHere is the Earth Day anthem we forgot we needed
-
Maine3 days agoMaine’s Governor Mills signs trans & abortion sanctuary bill into law
-
Florida4 days agoGov. DeSantis denounces ‘weaponization’ of book challenges
-
Political commentary & analysis4 days ago20 bills die as Iowa Legislature adjourns-attacks on LGBTQ+ fail