By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – On Thursday, 21 state attorneys general filed an amicus brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that transgender people must be allowed to use restrooms matching their gender identity.

This action comes after a district court judge in Idaho refused to block a ban on transgender bathroom usage in the state; he was promptly overruled by the 9th Circuit, which did block the ban.

The letter represents the latest development in a fight that has worked its way across the country, focusing on equal rights in bathroom accommodations for transgender people and barreling towards the Supreme Court.

The amicus brief is substantial. It represents the work of attorneys general in 21 states, and contains legal precedents, nondiscrimination laws, and the experiences of those states around allowing equal accommodations for transgender people. It cites 13 pages worth of laws, court decisions, and studies to support the rights of transgender people in bathrooms. It draws a final conclusion stating that disallowing trans bathroom access causes “emotional, psychological, educational, and constitutional harm,” and requests that the court uphold these rights for transgender students.

The brief is unique in that it outlines the findings of negative events that stem from allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their gender identity. The brief finds that “nondiscriminatory restroom policies produce important benefits and pose no safety concerns.” Importantly, it shows that in states that allow trans students to use bathrooms according to their gender identity, there were “no reported instances of transgender students harassing others in restrooms or locker rooms.”

See the briefing on this topic:

Meanwhile, the brief highlights the many negative effects of disallowing transgender people from using locker rooms and bathrooms. The report states that discriminatory policies for transgender people promote absenteeism, leading to trans youth missing valuable school time. These policies also harm the physical and mental health of transgender students.

The brief reports that 73% of trans students avoid restrooms in school because they feel unsafe or uncomfortable. Additionally, over half report negative health effects from doing so, such as kidney infections and other kidney-related problems. Rebecca, one of the plaintiffs in the case, reported limiting fluid intake at school and suppressing bathroom urges, both of which are unsafe for children.

The brief also details expansive case law surrounding the constitutionality of bathroom access. Courts across the United States have determined that transgender people have the right to access bathrooms that match their gender identities. Among the most significant cases is Grimm v. Gloucester County, where the 4th Circuit Court ruled that a transgender boy has the right to use the bathroom of his gender identity.

Similarly, in the 7th Circuit Court, A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville was ruled in favor of a transgender plaintiff. Even the 9th Circuit Court, which is hearing this case, has favorable precedent. In Parents for Privacy v. Barr, it was ruled that transgender bathroom access does not violate other students’ privacy.

Ultimately, the strength of these cases was bolstered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which the report also heavily references. In that decision, which was ruled 6-3 with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch authoring the opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

Although the decision covered employment law and not bathroom access, many courts have interpreted it as applicable to bathroom access and other areas protected by Title IX.

The brief also directly addresses the idea that Title IX only protects “biological sex.” It points out that Title IX regulations do not state that it only applies to “biological” sex “as determined by chromosomes and internal and external reproductive anatomy.” Instead, the brief argues that discrimination based on assigned sex at birth treats, for instance, a transgender girl different from a cisgender girl when allowing restroom access. The overreliance on a very specific facet of biological sex likely renders the bill unconstitutional, the brief states.

For now, the bill is blocked in court, allowing Idaho transgender students to use the restroom that matches their gender identity if their school permits it. Meanwhile, cases concerning bathroom access are swiftly moving towards the Supreme Court, with a recent decision from the 7th US Circuit Court currently being appealed to the Supreme Court.

It appears likely that the Supreme Court will soon revisit transgender rights. In this interim, this coalition of 21 states has emerged, vocally advocating for the rights of transgender students and leveraging their collective authority to do so.

Related:

****************************************************************************

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.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

WASHINGTON – Lawmakers on Friday voted 311-114 to expel embattled U.S. Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from Congress, exceeding the two-thirds majority needed for the resolution to pass with two members voting present.

The third vote to expel the congressman comes after a 56-page report by the U.S. House Ethics Committee found Santos had siphoned campaign contributions to shop at luxury retailers like Hermes and for purchases at OnlyFans, a site used primarily by sex workers who produce pornography.

During the previous votes to expel Santos, critical numbers of members from both parties voted “nay” for fear that it would set a dangerous precedent in the absence of a guilty verdict from a court of law or the committee.

Members who debated the expulsion resolution on the House floor Friday mentioned the many scandals that have enveloped Santos from the time he began serving in January, such as the revelations that he had lied on the campaign trail about having Jewish heritage, ties to the Holocaust, and a parent who was at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.

“George Santos is a liar — in fact, he has admitted to many of them — who has used his position of public trust to personally benefit himself from Day 1,” said U.S. Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, another Republican from New York.

The number and nature of those lies, along with the allegations of financial malfeasance, made Santos a pariah, as well as a liability for Republicans in vulnerable districts, particularly in neighboring parts of New York.

Politico congressional reporter Olivia Beavers posted a photo on X of members talking to news cameras, captioned “NY Rs taking a victory lap.”

NY Rs taking a victory lap pic.twitter.com/lVl55UmU3g

— Olivia Beavers (@Olivia_Beavers) December 1, 2023

Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul will now schedule a special election to replace Santos, with her party privately lining up behind Thomas Suozzi, who held the seat from 2017 to 2023 and who last year defended Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law, calling the measure prohibiting classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity “reasonable” and “common sense.”

Separately, Santos is facing a 23-count indictment for alleged financial crimes that was brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.

He walked out of the chamber before Friday’s vote was finalized, stepping into a waiting car as he told reporters “Why would I want to stay here?” and “To hell with this place.”

WASHINGTON – President Joe Biden honored Friday’s World AIDS Day observance with a proclamation on Thursday night as the red ribbon was displayed at the White House to mark the occasion.

Crediting the “enormous progress” that has been made in the fight against the disease, Biden noted that “about 39 million people continue to live with HIV, including more than one million people in the United States.”

“Far too often, people living with HIV face discrimination that prevents them from accessing the care they need,” he said.

The president then named some of his administration’s accomplishments in tackling this public health issue, including ending discriminatory blood donation bans, reviving the White House Office of National AIDS Policy, and launching “a new National HIV/AIDS Strategy — a roadmap for using innovative community-driven solutions to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States by 2030.”

Biden said the White House continues working with “state and community leaders” to combat HIV criminalization laws that “wrongly punish people for exposing others” to the disease and noted that he has asked Congress for $850 million “to aggressively reduce new HIV cases, fight the stigma that stops many people from getting care, and increase access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).”

Meanwhile, overseas, “We are also focused on ending HIV/AIDS as a public health threat worldwide by 2030 under the bipartisan President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR),” Biden said. “PEPFAR is focusing on forging a future where every HIV infection is prevented, every person has access to treatment, and every generation can live free from the stigma that too often surrounds HIV.”

The president noted that “My Administration is committed to working with the Congress to pass a clean PEPFAR reauthorization bill to extend this lifesaving bipartisan program for 5 years and end HIV/AIDS by 2030.”

Biden concluded his proclamation by calling to “let us honor all the families who have lost a loved one to this disease and all the people currently living with HIV/AIDS.  Let us remember the activists, scientists, doctors, and caregivers who have never given up in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic.  Let us recommit to finishing this fight — together.

Related:

WORLD AIDS DAY, 2023 BY THE PRESDIENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION

On World AIDS Day, my message is simple:  Let us finish the fight.     Since recognizing the first World AIDS Day 35 years ago, we have made enormous progress in preventing, detecting, and treating HIV — greatly reducing annual HIV diagnoses and transmission.  But despite these advancements, about 39 million people continue to live with HIV, including more than one million people in the United States.  Far too often, people living with HIV face discrimination that prevents them from accessing the care they need.  So, as we reflect on our progress today, we must also come together to renew our promise to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic.      At home, my Administration has taken historic steps to achieve this goal.  During my first year in office, I reestablished the White House Office of National AIDS Policy and launched a new National HIV/AIDS Strategy — a roadmap for using innovative community-driven solutions to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States by 2030.  This year, my Administration also ended the disgraceful practice of banning gay and bisexual men from donating blood.  We continue to work with State and community leaders to repeal or reform so-called HIV criminalization laws, which wrongly punish people for exposing others to HIV.  I have asked the Congress for $850 million for the Department of Health and Human Services’ Ending the HIV Epidemic Initiative to aggressively reduce new HIV cases, fight the stigma that stops many people from getting care, and increase access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) — a critical drug that can help prevent the spread of HIV.      We are also focused on ending HIV/AIDS as a public health threat worldwide by 2030 under the bipartisan President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).  PEPFAR has reduced transmissions, expanded testing, and saved more than 25 million lives in over 50 partner countries over the last two decades.  Further, PEPFAR is focusing on forging a future where every HIV infection is prevented, every person has access to treatment, and every generation can live free from the stigma that too often surrounds HIV.  My Administration is committed to working with the Congress to pass a clean PEPFAR reauthorization bill to extend this lifesaving bipartisan program for 5 years and end HIV/AIDS by 2030.      We are within striking distance of eliminating HIV-transmission.  We have the science.  We have the treatments.  Most of all, we have each other.  On this 35th World AIDS Day — let us honor all the families who have lost a loved one to this disease and all the people currently living with HIV/AIDS.  Let us remember the activists, scientists, doctors, and caregivers who have never given up in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic.  Let us recommit to finishing this fight — together.      NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 1, 2023, as World AIDS Day.  I urge the Governors of the United States and its Commonwealths and Territories, the appropriate officials of all units of government, and the American people to join the HIV community in activities to remember those who have lost their lives to AIDS and to provide support, dignity, and compassion to people with HIV.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-eighth.

By Bob Norman | SARASOTA, Fla. – Christian Ziegler, Florida’s GOP chairman and husband of Sarasota County School Board member and Moms of Liberty co-founder Bridget Ziegler, is under criminal investigation after a woman filed a complaint with the Sarasota Police Department alleging the longtime Republican official had raped her, according to a heavily redacted police report obtained by the Florida Trident. 

The complaint was filed on October 4 and the alleged sexual battery occurred inside the woman’s home in Sarasota on October 2, according to the report. Among the few words that went unredacted in the report are “rape” and “sexual assault complaint.”

The woman, according to sources close to the investigation, alleged that she and both Zieglers had been involved in a longstanding consensual three-way sexual relationship prior to the incident. The incident under investigation by Sarasota police occurred when Christian Ziegler and the woman were alone at the woman’s house, without Bridget Ziegler present, the sources conveyed. 

Sources also corroborated that a search warrant was executed on Christian Ziegler’s cell phone and that investigators continue to conduct a forensic examination of the electronic device. Christian Ziegler is also alleged to have secretly videotaped the sexual encounters between the couple and the woman, which had been occurring for the past three years, sources said. 

There have been no charges filed in the case and the Trident is unaware whether the woman’s allegations have been substantiated. A voicemail was left with Mr. Ziegler for comment and a message was left at Bridget Ziegler’s school board office. Neither had been returned prior to publishing this story.  

After our story was published, Christian Ziegler’s attorney, Derek Byrd, issued a written statement saying that his client has been “fully cooperative with the Sarasota Police Department” and predicting Ziegler will be “completely exonerated.”

“Unfortunately, public figures are often accused of acts that they did not commit whether it be for political purposes or financial gain,” Byrd said in the statement. “I would caution anyone to rush to judgment until the investigation is concluded. Out of respect for the investigation, this is all Mr. Ziegler or myself can say at this time.”

The Zieglers are one of Florida’s top political power couples in the GOP. Christian Ziegler is a longtime Republican Party official who served as vice chairman of the state party prior to his election as chair in February. Prior to that he was a Sarasota County Commissioner who ran on a “family values” platform. 

Bridget Ziegler has become a star within the MAGA movement who was personally endorsed for her school board seat by Florida Governor and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, who also appointed her in March to the state board that oversees the special district previously overseen by Disney World prior to DeSantis’s politically motivated feud with the entertainment company. 

She is perhaps best known as the cofounder of the right-wing group Moms for Liberty, which has supported book bans in public schools across the country. Bridget Ziegler personally helped lay the groundwork for DeSantis’ Florida Parental Rights In Education Act (known as the “Don’t Say Gay” law) that disallows instruction on “sexual orientation or gender identity” in kindergarten through the third grade. She stood behind DeSantis as he signed the bill.

Following in the Moms For Liberty model, Ziegler has been a leading anti-trans activist and “critical race theory” opponent who has said her aim is to bring “religious values” into public schools that she claims are “indoctrination centers for the radical left.”

“Bridget Ziegler, we should have her in every county in Florida,” DeSantis said in one speech. “We have to do a better job in these school board races.” 

She is currently a salaried vice president at the conservative Leadership Institute, which recently opened an office in Sarasota. At the Institute she oversees a school board training program that she said “teaches trains moms and dads how to run for school board, win, and then govern!”

Christian Ziegler has longstanding ties to both DeSantis and former President Donald Trump, who called out Ziegler’s name in a recent speech earlier this month during the “Florida Freedom Summit” in Kissimmee and said he was doing a “fantastic job.” Ziegler, as the state’s GOP chair, has remained officially neutral on the race.

In a written statement, Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Nikki Fried called for Christian Ziegler’s resignation.

“Allegations of rape and sexual battery are severe and should be taken seriously,” she said. “I applaud the accuser’s bravery in coming forward against a political figure as powerful as Christian Ziegler, and I trust that the Sarasota Police Department will conduct a thorough investigation into these allegations of criminal behavior. Christian Ziegler can’t possibly continue to lead the Florida GOP under these conditions. Given the severity of the criminal allegations, I’m calling for his immediate resignation.”

Fried stopped short of asking Bridget Ziegler to resign her school board and state seats, but noted the “hypocrisy” of the couple.

“As leaders in the Florida GOP and Moms for Liberty, the Zieglers have made a habit out of attacking anything they perceive as going against ‘family values’ — be it reproductive rights or the existence of LGBTQ+ Floridians,” said Fried. “The level of hypocrisy in this situation is stunning.”

Florida Center for Government Accountability public access director Michael Barfield contributed to the reporting of this story.

***************************************************************************************

Bob Norman is an award-winning investigative reporter who serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Florida Trident and journalism program director for the Florida Center for Government Accountability. He can be reached at [email protected] or by phone at 954-632-4343.  

The preceding article was previously published by the Florida Center for Government and is republished with permission.

The Florida Center for Government Accountability, a non-partisan 501(c)(3) organization, focuses its government accountability and journalistic efforts primarily on local governments, providing support and assistance for citizens and investigative journalists working to hold government accountable. All donations made to FLCGA are tax deductible.

FLCGA is a member of the Institute for Nonprofit News — a nationwide network of independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan news organizations. Learn more at inn.org.

Related:

By Erin Reed | COLUMBUS, Ohio – On Tuesday, the Ohio Senate Government Oversight Committee convened to hear House Bill 68, a bill that would ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth, force them into medical detransition, and ban trans women from women’s sports.

Representative Gary Click, a right-wing pastor known for practicing conversion therapy, is behind this latest effort in a series of attempts to enact transgender restrictions in Ohio. The hearing, designated “proponents only,” featured testimonies only from those supporting it. The proponents who spoke testified that family rejection, addiction counseling, and even conversion therapy may be the right options to treat transgender people, while also relying on retired pharmacists and fringe doctors to justify the bans.

The bill, which has already passed the Ohio House of Representatives, was proposed by Representative Gary Click. It is one of several bills targeting transgender and LGBTQ+ people in the state, including a public drag ban and a ban on transgender students in college bathrooms.

It comes after Republicans running on transgender issues lost in several school board races across the state. It combines two contentious anti-trans bills: a ban on gender affirming care up to the age of 18 years old and a ban on transgender people playing in sports of their gender identity.

Importantly, there are no exceptions for the gender affirming care ban for severe dysphoria, no alternate treatments presented in the bill, and it even would pull transgender youth who are already on medication off of their medication, forcing them to medically detransition.

The hearing included testimonies from several members of the small group of political detransitioners and social media influencers who frequently travel between state hearings to oppose gender-affirming care, paralleling the ex-gay movement of the 1990s and early 2000s. A recent article states that prominent figures in this group, like Chloe Cole, may be paid for their appearances.

Detransitioners and “trans regretters,” including Chloe Cole, Prisha Mosely, and Corinna Cohn — all recent participants in a controversial Genspect conference where trans women were said to transition due to thinking they are “failed boys” — spoke at the hearing. Riley Gaines, famous for tying for 5th place against transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, also made an appearance.

It’s crucial to acknowledge that, according to a Cornell University review, detransition rates are estimated to be between 1-3%. Moreover, the reasons for detransitioning most commonly do not stem from a lack of transgender identity but rather from parental pressure, employment challenges, or societal stigma.

One of the detransitioners who testified to ban gender affirming care seemed to make this point without realizing it. Richard Anumene, who is suing Kaiser Permanente for providing him gender affirming care as an adult, testified that he faced immense family pressure after transitioning at the age of 20.

Though he states that he experienced a wonderful transition early on, he was “convinced to return to presenting as a man” due to rejection by his father and economic difficulties, in line with recent studies showing transgender people experience heightened rates of poverty. Numerous other witnesses would suggest family rejection and non-affirmation could be a way to stop trans people from being trans.

Another detransitioner, Morgan Keller, testified for the first time that she detransitioned due to being “seduced” by “gender ideology” and a belief that her gender identity was a “delusion.” She left out an important part of her own detransition journey, however; Keller, when posting online about her detransition, stated that the actual reason she detransitioned was because she had a religious experience that resulted in an intense dream where God told her she was on the wrong path. Religious experiences like this are common in both the ex-gay and the religious detransitioner communities, which often teach that being LGBTQ+ goes against God’s will.

Perhaps one of the most extreme testimonies came from Jeanette Cooper, who rejected her own child’s transgender identity and who lost custody to the child’s father after the he testified that Cooper’s actions led to mental and emotional harm. Cooper revealed that she leads a group of “thousands of parents” who do not affirm their transgender children’s gender identities, promoting this form of rejection as a way to deter being transgender. Later, when asked how people with gender dysphoria should be treated, she stated that it must be treated “like an addiction.” There is no evidence that treating being transgender “like an addiction” helps health outcomes for them, but plenty of evidence that rejection has profound negative impacts. Transgender youth with parental support was reported in one study to show a 63% lower suicidality rate.

You can see an excerpt from her submitted testimony here:

One group that sent a representative to testify was the Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization behind writing most of the anti-trans laws in the United States and the organization being paid large sums of money to defend them in court.

Matt Sharp from the Alliance Defending Freedom testified that banning trans care does not violate the organization’s “parental rights” stance, and that the ban “only targeted puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgery” for trans youth. When asked what was left for these youth, he claimed that “therapy” was the best way to treat them.

It is important to note that organizations that often ally with the Alliance Defending Freedom push a variety of forms of conversion therapy. The Alliance Defending Freedom itself once allied with Exodus International, the ex-gay movement of the 1990s and early 2000s, and continues to defend conversion therapy for both gay and transgender people. Interestingly, the recently elected speaker of the US House, Mike Johnson, was part of that partnership.

There is no evidence that conversion therapy is a good treatment for transgender people, and plenty of evidence that it does harm. Meanwhile, gender affirming care has extremely strong evidence behind it. A recent journal article in the esteemed medical journal, The Lancet, judged that gender affirming care is a form of preventative healthcare. It leads to an improved quality of life and plays a major role in the well-being of transgender people.

Several studies have shown that it leads to positive mental health outcomes and heavily reduces suicides—some studies report a remarkable 73% decrease in suicide rates. The endorsement of gender affirming care is supported by a collection of over 50 journal articles compiled by Cornell University, all of which underscore its beneficial effects.

Several other proponents were brought in to testify. These proponents included fringe medical practitioners, such as Ohio pharmacist Kent Zellner, who resigned as a pharmacist after refusing to fill Plan B prescriptions in Yellow Springs, Ohio. Cynthia Millen, a woman often presented as a “USA Swimming official” who has stated that “predators love Planned Parenthood” and that gay people should “practice chastity,” testified as well.

Riley Gaines, a major conservative influencer, also showed up to testify in favor of the sports ban portion of the bill. Following the hearing, she announced to her followers that she played a major role in banning transgender women from women’s chess.

Despite anti-trans policies not being politically popular in Ohio—70% of of school board candidates running on transgender issues and Moms For Liberty platforms lost—sources indicate that Republicans intend to push this bill through. Should it pass into law, Ohio will be one of the last conservative states to pass a gender affirming care ban and sports ban for trans youth. The harm these bills will do is immense if passed into law.

The next hearing will be an opponent hearing, which will be announced at a later date.

****************************************************************************

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.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

By Clara Bates & Annelise Hanshaw | JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey this week joined with 18 other states to oppose a proposed federal rule that aims to protect LGBTQ youth in foster care and provide them with necessary services.

The attorneys general argue in a letter to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services that the proposed rule — which requires states to provide safe and appropriate placements with providers who are appropriately trained about the child’s sexual orientation or gender identity  — amounts to religion-based discrimination and violates freedom of speech.

“As a foster parent myself,” Bailey said in a news release Tuesday, “I am deeply invested in protecting children and putting their best interests first.”

“Biden’s proposed rule does exactly the opposite by enacting policies meant to exclude people with deeply held religious beliefs from being foster parents.”

The rule is part of a package of federal proposals on foster care and is an extension of the Biden administration’s broader push to protect LGBTQ kids in foster care.

“Because of family rejection and abuse,” the Biden administration said in a September press release, LGBTQ children are “overrepresented in foster care where they face poor outcomes, including mistreatment and discrimination because of who they are.”

State agencies would be required under the rule to provide safe and appropriate foster care placements for those who are “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex,” along with children who are “non-binary or have non-conforming gender identity or expression.”

A qualifying foster parent would need to be educated on the needs of the child’s sexuality or gender identity and, if the child wishes, “facilitate the child’s access to age-appropriate resources, services, and activities that support their health and well-being.”

An example of a safe and appropriate placement is one where a provider is “expected to utilize the child’s identified pronouns, chosen name, and allow the child to dress in an age-appropriate manner,” according to the proposal, “that the child believes reflects their self-identified gender identity and expression.”

The attorneys general characterize that as “forcing an individual to use another’s preferred pronouns by government fiat,” in violation of the First Amendment.

Robert Fischer, director of communications for Missouri LGBTQ advocacy organization PROMO, said the freedom of religion “doesn’t give any person the right to impose those beliefs on others, particularly to discriminate.” 

“Any state official who claims to put ‘children’s interests first’ and in the same breath is willing to risk their well-being and opportunity to thrive in the name of religion — I think that speaks for itself,” Fischer told The Independent. 

The rule prohibits retaliation against children who identify as LGBTQ or are perceived as LGBTQ.

Public agencies would need to notify children about the option to request foster homes identified as “safe and appropriate” and tell them how to report concerns about their placement.

Agencies would also have to go through extra steps before placing transgender, intersex and gender non-conforming children in group care settings that are divided by sex.

The “majority” of states, according to the proposed rule, would have to “expand their efforts” to recruit and identify providers who could meet the needs of LGBTQ children.

Missouri guidelines

Laws and policies for protecting LGBTQ youth in foster care — relating to kids’ rights, supports, placement considerations, caregiver qualifications and definitions — currently vary by state. 

According to a federal report published in January, which reviewed states’ laws and policies, Missouri does not have laws or policies explicitly addressing any of those five categories.

Most states — 39 states and Washington, D.C. — have “explicit protections from harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression,” according to a federal report, as of January. Missouri is not one of them. 

Twenty-two  states and D.C. as of January, require agencies to provide tailored services and supports to LGBTQ youth, and eight states and D.C. offer case management and facilitate access to “gender-affirming medical, mental health and social services.”

Children’s Division, the agency within the Missouri Department of Social Services that oversees foster care, offers guidance on their website for providers and child welfare staff in “supporting LGBTQ youth in foster care,” but still does not appear to have official policy on the issue.

A spokesperson for the Missouri Department of Social Services did not respond to a request for comment. 

Those guidelines include using the child’s “preferred name and pronouns,” along with establishing a supportive environment and providing “physically and emotionally safe and supportive care and resources regardless of one’s personal attitudes and beliefs.”

The Department of Social Services is part of the administration of Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, and the guidelines were in place the entire time Bailey was serving as Parson’s general counsel — the second highest ranking job in the governor’s office.  

Bailey’s spokesperson did not immediately respond when asked whether he raised any objections to the guidelines during his tenure with Parson.

AG arguments

The 19 attorneys general contend the federal rule would “remove faith-based providers from the foster care system” because of their “religious beliefs on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

They cite Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled a public agency couldn’t force private, religious foster agencies to allow same-sex foster parents.

The proposed rule itself also acknowledges the Supreme Court case and alleges that by not requiring religious foster-care providers to welcome LGBTQ children, it is complying with the court’s precedent.

But the attorneys general do not believe this is enough. Their letter argues the proposal violates freedom of religion because those unwilling to support LGBTQ foster children “would be excluded from providing care to as many as one-third of foster children ages 12-21.”

“In addition to discriminating against religion, the proposed rule will harm children by limiting the number of available foster homes, harm families by risking kinship placements, and harm states by increasing costs and decreasing care options,” the letter says.

The rule would “discourage individuals and organizations of faith from joining or continuing in foster care,” the attorneys general argue, and “reduce family setting options.” Without faith-based foster parents, the attorneys general say, children would be more likely to be placed in congregate settings.

They also say the rule could disqualify family members who volunteer as placement, or kinship care, if the family member does not agree to support the child’s sexuality or gender identity with age-appropriate resources, as the rule entails.

******************************************************************************************

Clara Bates covers social services and poverty. She previously wrote for the Nevada Current, where she reported on labor violations in casinos, hurdles facing applicants for unemployment benefits and lax oversight of the funeral industry. She also wrote about vocational education for Democracy Journal. Bates is a graduate of Harvard College and a member of the Report for America Corps.

Annelise Hanshaw writes about education — a beat she has covered on both the West and East Coast while working for daily newspapers in Santa Barbara, California, and Greenwich, Connecticut. A born-and-raised Missourian, she is proud to be back in her home state.

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was previously published by the Missouri Independent and is republished with permission.

The Missouri Independent is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to relentless investigative journalism and daily reporting that sheds light on state government and its impact on the lives of Missourians. This service is free to readers and other news outlets.

DES MOINES, Iowa – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa and Lambda Legal on Tuesday sued to block a sweeping Iowa education law that seeks to silence LGBTQ+ students, erase any recognition of LGBTQ+ people from public schools, and bans books with sexual or LGBTQ+ content, arguing in a federal lawsuit that the measure violates the constitutional rights of LGBTQ students.

The law also requires teachers, counselors, school psychologists, and other staff to report students to their parents or guardians if a student asks to be referred to by names or pronouns that align with their gender identity. This reporting is required regardless of whether it violates a student’s expectation of confidentiality, professional ethical obligations, or whether the school official knows that the student would be rendered unsafe, kicked out of their home, or subject to abuse as a result, the suit alleges.

The lawsuit is being brought on behalf of Iowa Safe Schools, a non-profit organization supporting LGBTQ and allied youth, and seven Iowa students and their families affected by the law. The students range from 4th to 12th graders and span the state.

One of the clients in the case, Puck Carlson (they/them), a high school senior in Iowa City, said the law is having a devastating impact on LGBTQ+ students like them. “Reading has always been a fundamental part of how I learned to understand the world around me. Every student should have the right to do the same: to be able to learn about people, cultures, and perspectives and to be able to learn about all of the world around them—not just parts of it. Furthermore, every student should be able to see themselves in their libraries—so that they not only understand the world around them but that they also belong in it.”

Another plaintiff is Percy Batista-Pedro, high school junior, Waterloo, Iowa who said:

“I am a junior and I also attend orchestra, participate in theater, and lead my school’s Gay-Straight Alliance. I have experienced harassment in school because of my transgender identity, but SF496 and its provisions to shut down open, healthy discussion of LGBTQ issues, and its silencing of students like me make me fear for my happiness and safety more than ever. 

“I am scared of being harassed if I wear Pride apparel, or if I talk about my identity in class. This fear, which is shared by my transgender friends, is why I have chosen to be a plaintiff in this case. During my freshman year while I was performing in a play, a student in the crowd threatened to kill me. I believe the student knew me because of a protest I had staged earlier that year at my high school. Now, after SF 496 and the climate it has created to shame and invite violence against transgender people, I would be terrified of organizing another protest.

“Transgender youth should not have to live in fear at their schools. We should not have to take unnecessary steps to gain the respect of being called by the correct name and pronouns that no cisgender kid ever has to ask for. It is blatant discrimination and should not be permitted to continue.”

Belinda Scarrott, Percy’s mom noted:

“I have joined with other parents in the State of Iowa to act against this unnecessarily cruel law. My 16-year-old child is transgender and queer. Prior to the passage of SF 496, school already presented difficulties for him that are not faced by cisgender, straight children. We struggled for years, and continue to struggle, with him being misgendered, bullied, and called the wrong name. We even received death threats posted to social media and shouted at school functions, with no action taken by the school. 

“I send my child to school, work, and play every day knowing there are many individuals who, given the opportunity, would harm my child simply because he exists as his authentic self. This law only serves to make life more perilous for him and more terrifying for me. This law claims to protect parental rights, but it does the opposite. Instead of sending my child to school and assuming he will be safe, as every parent of a cis-gendered, straight child does, I spend my days worrying about what potential damage this school day might do to my child’s physical or mental well-being.”

The law went into effect this fall. Penalties for violating portions of the law start January 1, 2024, and administrators, teachers, librarians, and other school staff will be subject to disciplinary action, which could include being fired or losing a license.

SPECIFICS OF THE LAWSUIT

SF 496 is a law with wide-ranging implications for students’ academic experience, safe school climate, and mental health. The lawsuit challenges multiple portions of the law that target LGBTQ+ youth and require school districts to ban books, including the following provisions:

1. The law forbids “any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation” in grades K-6. This prohibition has frightened LGBTQ+ young people into concealing who they are for fear of violating the law or getting a teacher in trouble. This provision has caused school districts to take down safe space stickers, remove references to LGBTQ historical figures from library displays, and ban books with LGBTQ themes or characters from libraries and classrooms. This provision also has forced student groups for LGBTQ+ students and their allies to stop meeting entirely.
2. The law requires public schools K-12 to remove all books containing “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act” with the explicit exception of the Bible. This portion of the law has caused school districts to remove hundreds of titles from school libraries. School districts have interpreted this provision as requiring the removal of classics from authors such as James Joyce, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Alice Walker, and many others.
3. The law requires school counselors and other school employees to report to parents or guardians any student’s request for a gender-affirming accommodation, including any request to be addressed by particular pronouns. This forced outing provision requires disclosure of a student’s gender identity to the student’s parents or guardians regardless of whether a school official knows that the report will expose the student to potential family rejection, being kicked out, or physical abuse.

On Nov. 15, the Iowa Board of Education issued proposed rules implementing the law, but those rules do not clarify the law and do not address its unconstitutionality.  

The plaintiffs ask the court to 1) temporarily block the law’s implementation while the litigation proceeds because of ongoing irreparable harm to LGBTQ+ students. The lawsuit also asks 2) that SF 496 then be declared unconstitutional and permanently blocked. 

Related:

COCONUT CREEK, Fla. –  Students at Monarch High School in northern Broward County walked out of classes Tuesday protesting in support of the trans community and school staff who were reassigned amid an investigation involving a transgender female student allowed to play on a girls’ sports team.

In a statement, officials with Broward County Public Schools said that Monarch High principal James Cecil, a 25 year veteran of the Broward district, had been reassigned off-campus while an investigation into allegations of improper student participation in sports, specifically allowing a trans student to participate on the girls’ volleyball team.

Florida Governor starts Pride Month off signing anti-Trans youth sports ban

Local NBC News affiliate WPTV 6 reported that in addition to Cecil, several other staff were reassigned as school district officials investigate the allegations that the Florida state law signed by Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis two years ago, banning Trans youth athletes from participating in sports was violated.

Local journalist Kevin Deutsch reported that in an email and robocall Monday morning, Monarch High School parents and staff were informed that Cecil and three others “have been notified that they are part of the BCPS Special Investigative Unit’s investigation and have been reassigned to non-school sites pending the outcome,” according to a district spokesperson.

The other staff members are Assistant Principal Kenneth May, Teacher/Athletic Director Dione Hester, and Information Management Technician Jessica Norton, according to BCPS.

Additionally, Alex Burgess, a temporary athletic coach at the school, “has been advised his services are paused while the investigation is ongoing,” the spokesperson said.

Related:

Students perform MASSIVE WALKOUT at Monarch High School after staff reassigned:

OAKLAND, Calif. — California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday announced the public release of a largely unredacted copy of the federal complaint filed by a bipartisan coalition of 33 attorneys general against Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates (Meta) on October 24, 2023.

Co-led by Attorney General Bonta, the coalition is alleging that Meta designed and deployed harmful features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children and teens to their mental and physical detriment.

As originally filed, however, much of the federal complaint included information conditionally under seal. Based on the company’s own documents, the removal of the redactions provides additional context for the misconduct that the attorneys general allege against Meta. 

“Meta knows that what it is doing is bad for kids — period. Thanks to our unredacted federal complaint, it is now there in black and white, and it is damning,” said Bonta. “We will continue to vigorously prosecute this matter.”

Calif. Attorney General announces nationwide investigation into Instagram

CBS News reported that the state’s prosecutors built their case, in part, using snippets of emails, earnings call transcripts and other internal communications — all of which suggest the extreme value of young users’ personal information and time to company profits. 

In an emailed statement from October when the joint suit was filed, Meta said it was disappointed by the route taken by the attorneys general.

Meta is determined to provide teens with “safe, positive experiences online, and have already introduced over 30 tools to support teens and their families,” the company said at the time.

In a Monday statement, a Meta spokesperson said, “The complaint mischaracterizes our work using selective quotes and cherry-picked documents.”

Highlights from the newly revealed portions of the complaint include the following:

• Mark Zuckerberg personally vetoed Meta’s proposed policy to ban image filters that simulated the effects of plastic surgery, despite internal pushback and an expert consensus that such filters harm users’ mental health, especially for women and girls. Complaint ¶¶ 333-68.
• Despite public statements that Meta does not prioritize the amount of time users spend on its social media platforms, internal documents show that Meta set explicit goals of increasing “time spent” and meticulously tracked engagement metrics, including among teen users. Complaint ¶¶ 134-150.
• Meta continuously misrepresented that its social media platforms were safe, while internal data revealed that users experienced harms on its platforms at far higher rates. Complaint ¶¶ 458-507.
• Meta knows that its social media platforms are used by millions of children under 13, including, at one point, around 30% of all 10–12-year-olds, and unlawfully collects their personal information. Meta does this despite Mark Zuckerberg testifying before Congress in 2021 that Meta “kicks off” children under 13. Complaint ¶¶ 642-811.

Related:

Instagram is allowing accounts to spew hate at LGBTQ+ people

By Robert Downen | HOUSTON, Texas – Prominent anti-LGBTQ+ attorney and former Harris County GOP chair Jared Woodfill is running for the Texas House and to replace House Speaker Dade Phelan.

Woodfill announced his candidacy for House District 138 this week, touting his legal challenges to COVID-19 mandates and LGBTQ+ legislation, and the four “Republican sweeps” that Harris County Republicans saw during his tenure as the local GOP’s leader from 2002 to 2014.

He’s running against incumbent Republican Rep. Lacey Hull, who was first elected to represent the northwest Houston district in 2020 with backing from Gov. Greg Abbott and U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston. Hull was ranked as one of the most conservative members of the Texas House this year based on an analysis of voting records by Rice University political scientist Mark Jones.

Woodfill’s campaign has already tried to frame Hull as a Republican in Name Only — RINO — by citing D ratings from two conservative activist groups. His campaign also accuses her of conspiring with Phelan — a longtime nemesis of Woodfill and other ultraconservative Texas Republicans — to “undermine” conservative legislation and impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton.

“The entire episode was an example of why ‘RINOs’ in Austin must be voted out of office,” Woodfill’s campaign website states. “Woodfill will be ready on Day 1 to bring decency back to HD 138, and return our conservative grassroots values back to the Texas House of Representatives.”

Woodfill and Hull could not be reached for comment Friday.

Woodfill has for years been at the helm of conservative Christian and anti-LGBTQ+ movements in Houston and Texas. In 2015, he and well-known Houston GOP powerbroker and anti-gay activist Dr. Steven Hotze played key roles in the defeat of an ordinance that would have extended equal rights protections to LGBTQ+ Houstonians, during which they compared gay people to Nazis and helped popularize “groomer” rhetoric.

The two have remained close, leading a pro-Paxton fundraising group during the attorney general’s impeachment this summer and spearheading legal challenges to COVID-19 closure mandates and election results in Harris County. Woodfill is also representing Hotze in a criminal investigation stemming from a 2020 incident in which a private investigator, allegedly acting at Hotze’s behest, held at gunpoint an air-conditioning repairman who he believed was transporting fake ballots.

Woodfill has faced his own legal issues: He has for years been at the center of an ongoing lawsuit in which a man accuses Woodfill’s former law partner and Southern Baptist leader Paul Pressler of decades of sexual abuse. In March, The Texas Tribune reported that Woodfill testified under oath that he was alerted in 2004 about child sexual abuse allegations against Pressler, who Woodfill was representing at the time in an assault lawsuit that was settled for $450,000. Despite that, Woodfill continued to work with Pressler, providing him with a string of young, male personal assistants who worked out of Pressler’s home. The lawsuit is set for trial early next year.

In 2018, Woodfill was also investigated for money laundering by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office after being accused of misappropriating funds from two clients of his law firm, though no charges were filed.

Hull cruised to reelection in HD 138 last year, beating her Democratic opponent Stephanie Morales by 15 percentage points — or about 8,000 votes.

Disclosure: Rice University has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

****************************************************************************************

Robert Downen is a reporter covering democracy and the threats to it, including extremism, disinformation and conspiracies. Before joining the Tribune in 2022, he worked for five years at the Houston Chronicle. As a Hearst Media fellow, he developed what would become “Abuse of Faith,” a landmark investigation into child sexual abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention that prompted a Department of Justice investigation.

Before coming to Texas, Robert was a business reporter in New York’s capital region, and the managing editor of six newspapers in his home state of Illinois. He is a 2014 graduate of Eastern Illinois University.

The preceding article was previously published by The Texas Tribune and is republished by permission.

**********************

Quality journalism doesn’t come free

Perhaps it goes without saying — but producing quality journalism isn’t cheap. At a time when newsroom resources and revenue across the country are declining, The Texas Tribune remains committed to sustaining our mission: creating a more engaged and informed Texas with every story we cover, every event we convene and every newsletter we send. As a nonprofit newsroom, we rely on members to help keep our stories free and our events open to the public. Do you value our journalism? Show us with your support.

Donation Link Here: (Link)