Connect with us

National

Annise Parker on leading Victory Fund: ‘My focus is on the candidate’

“Trump is not the embodiment of the Republican Party for a lot of people.”

Published

on

Annise Parker, gay news, Washington Blade

Annise Parker is now CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Institute. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

After more than 40 years of activism and three terms as mayor of Houston, Annise Parker has taken on a new leadership role as CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Institute.

The change in leadership for the organizations was announced Friday at the annual International LGBTQ Leaders Conference. Parker, 61, told the crowd times have changed since she began her activism in the 1970s, but too many LGBT people “still have to fear” many of the dangers LGBT people faced decades ago.

“We celebrate milestones,” Parker said. “My race was one. But when you’re checking off milestones, it means you have not reached the end of the journey, and we don’t reach the end of this journey until all those fears are swept away and until all of our communities — across the United States, across cultures, across ethnicities — everyone of us has an equal opportunity to succeed.”

In an interview with the Washington Blade on Friday at the conference, Parker said the focus of her work would be on supporting LGBT candidates ready to make a difference.

“But it’s not just about having candidates, it’s about making sure that those candidates are funded and the Victory Fund does a great job of vetting candidates,” Parker said. “You have to have a good candidate, but passion’s not enough. You have to demonstrate their viability, and their ability to be successful.”

Parker takes the reins of the Victory Fund and Institute after the organizations were led for two-and-a-half years by Aisha Moodie-Mills, whose tenure was marked by historic wins by transgender candidates in local races in 2017. Moodie-Mills has left the organization with the stated purpose of championing work as a progressive activist.

Based on her long history in the LGBT movement, Parker said she brings a “different mindset” than Moodie-Mills and will be focused on the candidates, not progressive activism.

“I bring a different energy, I bring a different focus. My focus is on the candidate, but that doesn’t mean that anything we’ve done has been wrong or misplaced or inappropriate,” Parker said. “We just bring different styles and interests.”

Parker said the Victory Fund and Institute would take on the Trump administration “whenever we feel it’s necessary,” but keep electing LGBT candidates as the focus.

“Because it’s clear that simply standing up and speaking out against President Trump doesn’t have an impact, the best way to blunt his ability to hurt us is to put people in office who can vote against his anti-gay policies,” Parker said.

Parker will stay in Houston as CEO of the Victory Fund and Institute, but plans to travel often for the organizations, and will regularly be in D.C. Her tenure as CEO begins Monday.

Read the full interview here:

Washington Blade: We’ve seen a lot of success with LGBT candidates in 2017, particularly with the transgender wins in local races. How do you plan on building on that success going forward?

Annise Parker: Being successful in political campaigns starts with the candidate, so we are just as proud of the turnouts for our candidate training, the expressions of interest from candidates all over the country in running out and seeking Victory Fund support, so continuing to tap into the passion that people have right now and helping channel that into the campaigns.

But it’s not just about having candidates, it’s about making sure that those candidates are funded and the Victory Fund does a great job of vetting candidates. You have to have a good candidate, but passion’s not enough. You have to demonstrate their viability, and their ability to be successful. And so, that process is an important piece.

But then, once you have the right candidate in right race, it’s about making sure they have the resources and I know a lot of what I’ll be focused on, as the board does, is making sure that our candidates have the funding they need.

What I’ve seen over this — not quite a year — now, but through 2017 is the energy across the country. LGBT candidates, candidates of color, candidates who are women who are stepping up saying, “Enough is enough.” I want to make a difference and I’m going to jump into races, and they’re not discouraged at all by the idea that it’s an uphill battle, or that from an objective perspective, doesn’t look like they can win there.

They’re in it to win, but they’re not afraid of losing. They want to get out there and make statements. It’s a great time to come and tap into that kind of energy.

So we’re going to do that, but the fundamentals of Victory Fund haven’t changed in a very long time.

Blade: I wanted to ask you about that because I know you talked in your speech about how hard it was to be part of an organization in 1975 compared to 2017.

Parker: Different and it’s not different.

We have made tremendous progress, but if you look at when I was an activist in the 70s and 80s, I used to debate homophobes all the time, and they used to talk about the gay agenda. Remember the gay agenda? And I used to laugh and say there was no gay agenda.

Over time, I finally realized that there was a gay agenda, and the gay agenda is fairly straight forward. We want to be able to go to school without being bullied, we want to be to work at jobs we love and earn a paycheck so we can pay taxes to this country, we want to be able to serve openly in the military, we want to be able to walk down any street in America in safety, we want to be able to marry the people we love, we want to be able to adopt and raise children. That’s the GLBT agenda.

Many of those things we have achieved, but what we see now is how easily they can be swept away when we have the wrong person in the White House and the wrong attitude in Congress. So we made progress, but we can take this giant step back if we don’t keep our eyes focused on moving forward.

Blade: But what I wanted to get at there is do you think it’s simply enough for candidates to be out about their sexual orientation and gender identity, or is there something more that’s needed in 2017 in order to make an impact?

Parker: Yes and no.

It’s not enough to be a gay candidate. You have to be good at what you do. We have high expectations for our candidates, and that’s why we vet them, it’s why we look closely at their viability and the races they’re in. Not everybody who seeks a Victory Fund endorsement gets that Victory Fund endorsement.

But are we sending them out to be activists? No. We are sending them out to be who they are and represent their constituents and do the job they’ve been elected to do because when they do that, they make the really profound changes that we need to see that have been so transformative in America.

This latest anti-trans movement really, I think, unfortunately, wasn’t launched in Houston, but our HERO campaign [the 2015 campaign to preserve the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance] was where it really flowered. We had right-wing groups from all over the country, pouring money and resources in Houston. We had the right-wing ideologues coming through, the Mike Huckabees and Ted Cruzes coming though Houston and doing trans-bashing in Houston, and then they took it on the road to North Carolina and back to Texas with the statewide bathroom bill.

The difference in my more than 40 years of activism: No one in America can say they know no person who is gay or lesbian. Whether it’s simply they say, “Well, I know Ellen on TV,” whatever it is, they know someone, and very, very few people in America today can say they don’t know anyone, either in their family or their community who is gay.

But for too many Americans, transgender issues are unknown. They don’t know someone who is transgender; they don’t understand what the issues are, and they make them the other. And a lot of what we’re seeing is the arguments are the same arguments they used against us — us meaning the gay and lesbian part of the LGBT community — against the transgender community. Today, it’s the same arguments just slightly repackaged, but it’s all about taking something that is unknown and that you can create a fear around it and use it for either for political purposes or economic purposes.

And so, what is going to be so powerful, just as it took us a long time to get there for the gay and lesbian community, but this is a different era, and I think we’re going to make much faster progress, but what it’s going to take is our transgender brothers and sisters to get out there and speak for themselves, to go out as candidates and raise awareness.

And again, they don’t have to carry the flag for the community. They have to be out and they have to do a good job, and that’s what changes hearts and minds.

 Blade: Let’s talk about the Victory Institute. Where do you envision that going as an organization, particularly the robust international program?

Parker: I started by saying the focus is on the candidates. We can’t win races if you don’t have the candidates, and that is the Victory Institute.

But we all understand we can turn this negative tide that’s coming out of Washington, we can firmly secure our rights here in America and we have to realize that agenda that I outlined, that still has to be won in all of these other countries around the world, and that we have a responsibility from our positions of relative privilege to make sure to support people who are doing the seminal work in those countries. It’s not about America; it’s about the LGBT community.

And some of the most horrific problems are going on in other places. When I was mayor of Houston, Houston has a huge international focus and I did a lot of trade missions. And everywhere I went, I made a practice of meeting with local LGBT leaders and women’s organizations, so I have met with lesbians in South Africa and transgender women in Indonesia, India and Brazil.

The tip of the spear right now is transgender issues. Their courage particularly in countries where it’s not — they’re not worried about walking down the street and having someone say something rude to them, they’re worried about walking down the street and having someone kill them. And we have to make sure that we stand together with them.

 

Blade: The anti-LGBT policies of the Trump administration are ongoing. To what extent will the Victory Fund and the Institute tackle that?

Parker: As an organization, our focus is on supporting candidates, but we are advocates for LGBT rights and issues, so with the other organizations in this space, we’ll stand up whenever we feel it’s necessary, but we also believe that the best way to blunt that — because it’s clear that simply standing up and speaking out against President Trump doesn’t have any impact, the best way to blunt his ability to hurt us is to put people in office who can vote against his anti-gay policies.

What I’ve seen over the last year, I actually did some extensive polling in Houston for other purposes, people in an odd way, they see Trump as a one-off. Trump is not the embodiment of the Republican Party for a lot of people. I know we like to think that that’s the case, those of us who are Democrats probably think that’s the case and we’re going to use that to demonize him, which doesn’t take much work, and use that to run. It’s not enough.

He’s Donald Trump, and there’s a core following that he has, but for most Americans, whether they love him or hate him, he’s over there, he’s a one-off, and it doesn’t translate into other down-ballot races.

 

Blade: That’s kind of what I wanted to get at with your vision for the Victory Fund and Institute. Would you say that they’re progressive organizations, or do they seek to advance LGBT people, LGBT rights regardless of political affiliation or ideology?

Parker: So that’s a really interesting question.

It’s clear that Aisha Moodie-Mills is very much a part of the progressive movement. I like to consider myself there as well, but as an organization our focus is completely bipartisan and it is about finding capable, qualified LGBT candidates, helping them get elected.

Now, capable and qualified, someone who’s LGBT but is ashamed of it, someone who’s LGBT and actively supports anti-gay legislative initiatives, we would not support that kind of candidate. So does that make us a progressive organization?

We also build alliances. Many of our candidates are pro-choice, they have progressive political agendas and they build coalitions in order to get elected. It’s not as if there’s any place in America — well, maybe West Hollywood, who knows — where we are a majority, so it requires us to build coalitions.

And our LGBT candidates are masters of putting together strong coalitions across racial and ethnic lines, with labor, with environmental organizations and voters in order to put a winning package together, so by that definition, we are absolutely a progressive organization, but that’s not our focus.

 

Blade: Would you say you’d have a different approach than Aisha going forward, or is it building off what she did?

Parker: I think we have to reflect what’s happening in the world around us as an organization. I’m a generation of activists older than she. I have children older than she is — adopted children, children nonetheless — and I bring a different mindset.

I was an activist in the 70s and I have seen the changes and sort of the arc of our history. I bring a different energy, I bring a different focus. My focus is on the candidate, but that doesn’t mean that anything we’ve done has been wrong or misplaced or inappropriate. We just bring different styles and interests, and as I said, we have to have coalitions to get elected. Maybe someday the right will offer us opportunities for coalition building, but today all of our coalitions are going to be on the left and in progressive communities because the right has become so virulently anti-gay.

There are gay elected officials here who are Republicans and so stand up proudly within their party and never waver on our issues, and we need more of that.

Annise Parker, gay news, Washington Blade

Annise Parker (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Blade: In the past, the Victory Institute has sought to appoint LGBT people to the U.S. government. Will the Victory Institute continue that within the Trump administration? I’m aware of four Trump appointees who are LGBT. Would the Victory Institute support them?

Parker: Our goal is to put people into office where they can make a difference. It’s not very fertile ground to plow, but that doesn’t mean we’re not going to try to plow it.

Blade: And will you continue to support Republican candidates who are LGBT?

Parker: Yes. But they have to, obviously, support, as I have outlined, the LGBT agenda.

It’s not about political party, it’s about making sure we have candidates who can advocate, or just being present. There are times when I was in office in the 18 years that I was in office that I had to stand up and articulate LGBT issues, but I think I was just as effective those times when I was simply there with my wife and making sure that they had to deal with me on human basis.

And if you talk to the office holders in the room, you’ll find out that they all have those kinds of stories where they’ve managed to change the trajectory of a bill or made inroads in some way simply because they were there and fully present in all aspects of their life.

Blade: Let’s talk about the approach to the candidates Victory Fund endorses. I think one big issue, and you talked about this in your speech, is religious freedom and the tension that has with LGBT rights, rightly or wrongly.

Parker: No one has a right to discriminate against me. I mean, that’s what RFRA bills are. The right to discriminate. If you are given the right to discriminate against me because I’m gay or because I’m transgender, why is that any different from you having to discriminate against someone who happens to be black or who happens to be a religion you don’t agree with. We have to fight against these bills.

Blade: But what would be your advice to candidates who are confronted with this? I remember when you were mayor of Houston, this became an issue with the subpoena of the sermons and there was this big argument that was infringing upon these pastors’ religious liberty.

Parker: There was a big argument. It happened without me knowing about it. I didn’t think it was wrong, but I rescinded it simply because it created too much of a peripheral issue. But that had to do with litigation around HERO. It wasn’t anything to do with RFRA or the ability to discriminate. That actually was around the litigation.

Blade: But what would be your advice to candidates who are confronted by those who say your views are an assault on religious liberty?

Parker: We are all Americans, and one of the bedrock values of America is that we treat each other fairly and decently and that everyone should be afforded the full rights of being an American.

We have fought wars against people who targeted minority populations. In World War II, millions of Americans died to fight an enemy that was specifically targeting Jews, Gypsies and LGBT people. It is fundamentally un-American. It took us a long time to get it right. We had to go through segregation, but it is fundamentally un-American to say I don’t like you, I’m not going to serve you. Once you allow someone to do that, it’s impossible to draw the line again.

Blade: One other thing I wanted to ask you about, we mentioned the Trump administration, I’m very curious as to what your take is on the massive hurricanes we had in recent months and Houston was devastated by Hurricane Harvey. How would you evaluate the administration’s handling of the response?

Parker: And I had a great deal of fun with Ann Coulter and my hurricane weather control abilities.

His response to the hurricane?

Blade: How would you evaluate that?

Parker: Inadequate across the board, but mediocre in Texas and in Florida and absolutely embarrassing in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Blade: Why do you think there’s that discrepancy?

Parker: I think it’s all about his voting base. In Texas we’re also fighting against an incompetent state government that is not fully funding the recovery.

And this is my opinion. I’m not going to speak for the Victory Fund here because this is far afield of that. But having been an elected official at the local level, the Bush 43 administration learned after Katrina, and the Obama administration absolutely, Texas, Republican leadership, Rick Perry — I had a great working relationship with Rick Perry — they understood what was needed to recover from those kinds of storms, and you saw that in Sandy.

Now I think we have an administration that fundamentally doesn’t understand the role of the federal government in disaster recovery, doesn’t want to spend money on people who aren’t part of the president’s voting base and have had a tremendous amount of turnover in those positions, so actually have lost the expertise to know what to do, so it’s a three-fer, and it’s causing tremendous problems.

Texas voted for Trump.

Blade: Houston did not, though.

Parker: Houston did not. The big cities across Texas are all Democratic islands in a big, red sea, but Texas voted for Trump. 20 percent of the refining capacity is in Houston or just on the border of the city of Houston. You would think from a strategic standpoint that he’d be focusing on making sure that there’s a complete recovery across the energy industry base down there, but it’s not happening.

And Puerto Rico? They don’t vote. It’s an afterthought.

Blade: I want to go back to Texas and talk about Pigeon v. Turner. [A case in which the Texas Supreme Court questioned whether the Obergefell ruling guarantees same-sex spousal to city employees. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the decision of the Texas Supreme Court, which remanded its findings to lower state court.]

Parker: Actually, it was Piegon v. Parker. It’s referred to both ways, but yeah.

Blade: You mentioned that in your speech. How concerned are you about that litigation?

Parker: When you track what happened, the state Supreme Court refused to intervene, and then the lieutenant governor of the state of Texas, the governor and the right-wing leaders across the state put pressure on the elected state Supreme Court, and they re-evaluated and then sent it back down to the appellate court.

It’s transparent to everybody in the state that they bowed to political pressure. That said, the argument being made by the right is that the Supreme Court says you can have marriage, but you can’t have benefits. There’s no right to benefits. Well, that’s absurd. Ultimately, if we get all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, they’ll straighten it out.

But from a practical standpoint, even if we lose Pigeon v. Parker, Pigeon v. Turner, even if the city of Houston loses, there’s no impact because the mayor of Houston is going to continue to offer benefits. They possibly have a pyrrhic victory which says no you don’t have to offer benefits, and well say, no, we don’t have to offer them but we’re going to. Mayor Turner’s clear on that and we’ll go forward.

But I have no faith in the Texas Supreme Court. In fact, we have several really great candidates running statewide. One of our LGBT candidates is a local elected judge who’s running for the state Supreme Court for precisely this reason, that they are making these kinds of political decisions. But there’ll be no practical impact from it.

Blade: My last question is as someone how has been part of the movement for so many years, how would you evaluate the LGBT movement now? Is it stronger than it was, or is it more anemic?

Parker: Yes and no.

It’s stronger in the sense there’s so many more people, it’s broader and deeper and it’s really reflective of the vast diversity of our community across America, but it’s weaker in only one sense. And that is that we have made gains and there a lot of folks who felt we can lay our burden down, no, we got this, it’s going to go in the right direction, I can go do other things, I don’t have to show up and vote every time, I don’t have to send money to all these organizations, I don’t have to protest or write letters or do this. Yes you do.

So on the whole it is much stronger, but it’s different and the issues evolve, and how we have to address those issues evolved. And I’ll just close with we had a vote on Houston’s non-discrimination ordinance.

And to be clear, because the media gets this wrong all the time, we had no non-discrimination ordinance. We didn’t decide to add gender identity and sexual orientation. We had zero ordinance. So we wrote a comprehensive ordinance that included everybody, and when the citizens of Houston voted it down, we don’t have an ordinance that protects black people in Houston.

Everything about the anti-HERO vote was about men in women’s bathrooms, but what was interesting is the average age of voters was 68 years old. If the average age of voter in the city of Houston election had been 50, we would have won. If the average age of voter had been 35, they would have laughed it off the ballot.

I think we’re going to win the war. In fact, we’ve already won the war, but we lose a lot of battles between now and then, and we can’t take our foot off the pedal. All of the things we’ve been doing for the last 45 years since Stonewall basically throwing ourselves into the political process, showing up, voting, protesting when necessary, we still have to keep doing it.

It’s extremely frustrating, the HERO vote because of the low turnout. And young people, you absolutely got it, but they have to vote.

Note: This interview has been edited for length.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

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”

Published

on

Rep. Arnold Mooney, R-Indian Springs, speaks to a colleague on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on April 25, 2024 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)

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.

A man in a suit gesturing
 Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook, speaks on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on April 25, 2024 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)

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.

A man gesturing during a debate.
 Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, speaks during a debate in the Alabama House of Representatives on April 25, 2024 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)

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

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.

Continue Reading

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

Published

on

Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center home to the state's highest court is located at 2 E 14th Ave, in Denver. (Photo Credit: State of Colorado)

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.

 Greg Lopez speaks during the Republican special nomination convention for Colorado’s 4th Congressional District in Hugo on March 28, 2024. (Sara Wilson/Colorado Newsline)

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.

Continue Reading

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

Published

on

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty. (Screenshot/YouTube KARE 11)

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.

Continue Reading

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

Published

on

The Oregon Department of Justice building in Salem. (Ron Cooper/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

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

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.

Continue Reading

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

Published

on

Rep. Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City, speaks during a debate over his bill expanding Alabama’s “Don’t Say Gay” law in the Alabama House of Representatives on April 23, 2024 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. The bill would expand the current prohibitions on discussions of gender or sexuality from fifth grade to eighth grade. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)

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

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.

Continue Reading

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

Published

on

Jace Wilder, education manager of the Tennessee Equality Project, says the new law “puts kids at risk of being abused, neglected and harmed again.” (Photo: John Partipilo)

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

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.

Continue Reading

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

Published

on

President Joe Biden speaks with reporters following an Earth Day event on April 22, 2024 (Screen capture: Forbes/YouTube)

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.

Continue Reading

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

Published

on

Maine Governor Janet T. Mills congratulates members of Maine Women's Basketball. In March the team won the America East championship. (Photo Credit: Office of the Governor)

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.” 

Related

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.

Continue Reading

State Department

State Department releases 2023 human rights report

Antony Blinken reiterates criticism of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act

Published

on

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 Hungarian Parliament on April 4, 2024. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his right-wing Fidesz party in 2023 continued their anti-LGBTQ+ crackdown. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

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.

Continue Reading

Florida

Gov. DeSantis denounces ‘weaponization’ of book challenges

‘They’re going to be holding many teachers accountable,’ he said signing a bill restricting nonparents to 1 book challenge per month

Published

on

“Gender Queer,” a graphic memoir by Maia Kobabe, was the most challenged book in America in 2022, according to the American Library Association. (Photo by New Jersey Monitor)

By Michael Moline | TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – The DeSantis administration plans to punish teachers and principals deemed to be exploiting public school book challenges to, in the governor’s view, “weaponize” Florida’s parental rights laws.

DeSantis leveled that charge Monday during a news conference in Pensacola. On Tuesday, he raised it again during a second news conference in Jacksonville, where he signed legislation restricting nonparents to one book challenge per month.

The challenges come under state law allowing anyone to complain about the content of classroom materials they deem objectionable or pornographic. The laws require removal of challenged books pending reviews that can take considerable time. DeSantis began trying to tone down the situation in February, in advance of the 2024 legislative session.

 Gov. Ron DeSantis addresses a news conference on April 16, 2024, in Jacksonville. Source: Screenshot/DeSantis Facebook

“Manny, in the Department of Education, they’re going to be holding many principals or teachers accountable who are weaponizing this,” DeSantis said Tuesday, referring to Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr.

DeSantis cited Sarasota County teachers who “papered over every book in the classroom, saying, ‘Oh! You can’t have books! The state’s not letting me show you books! That’s a lie. That’s not true. That’s performative.

“And so, that’s somebody who’s entrusted to teach kids putting their political agenda over the best interests of the students’ education and their access to learning. That’s wrong; that’s not going to stand in the state of Florida. So, we don’t have time for your activism; we don’t have time for your nonsense. We have a process in place to empower parents,” the governor said.

Teachers told the Sarasota Herald Tribune in January 2023 that they feared prosecution if they put students in contact with unvetted books.

The Phoenix asked the administration for an explanation of any investigations launched or punishment inflicted on school employees but hasn’t heard back yet.

Rebuttal

Florida Education Association President Andrew Spar issued a rebuttal in the form of a written statement.

“It’s important to remember that Gov. DeSantis’ full throated support is the reason why fringe groups who do not represent the majority of Floridians and often do not have students in the classroom have felt so comfortable removing books off shelves and making Florida the leader in the nation on book banning,” Spar said.

 Andrew Spar, president, Florida Education Association. Credit: FEA

“This rule does nothing to fix the vague language that caused the issue in the first place, no matter how much the Governor and Commissioner Manny Diaz try to shift blame. Schools, teachers, and media specialists have long been asking for guidance on this issue and once again, instead of providing students what they need, Florida’s elected and appointed officials decide to play the blame game instead of taking responsibility,” Spar continued.

The American Library Association has reported that the bulk of the book challenges nationally come from conservatives.

“Recent censorship data are evidence of a growing, well-organized, conservative political movement, the goals of which include removing books about race, history, gender identity, sexuality, and reproductive health from America’s public and school libraries that do not meet their approval,” the association says in a written statement on its website.

“Using social media and other channels, these groups distribute book lists to their local chapters and individual adherents, who then utilize the lists to initiate a mass challenge that can empty the shelves of a library,” the association continues.

Florida saw 2,672 titles challenged during 2023, it says.

Meanwhile, PEN America recorded 1,406 book ban cases in Florida during the 2022-2023 school year, which accounted for 40% of the national total.

One challenge per customer

The new law (HB 1285) restricts challenges by people without children in a school district to one per month, while parents and guardians remain free to issue unlimited challenges.

 Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. Credit: Florida Department of Education

That would still allow 12 challenges by nonparents per year, Diaz observed during Tuesday’s news conference. However, “Anyone who creates a cottage industry of going around the state and just creating challenges just to gunk up the system and put schools in arrears as far as reviewing these books, that person won’t be able to do it anymore,” Diaz said.

DeSantis complained that the news media have inflated challenges against classic books and biographies of important Americans while playing down other materials, including LGBTQ content, that he considers unsuitable for young kids or even pornographic.

“They’ve said, ‘Oh, you know, you’re not having Rosa Parks’ — and yet that’s on the summer reading list. Things about Hank Aaron, a book of the month from the Department of Education. So that’s clearly a bad-faith challenge, just trying to create a narrative,” DeSantis said.

“Some of those bad-faith actions have been done from people within the school system who are doing that to try to create a narrative. So, Manny will be able to hold those folks accountable because clearly there’s nothing in Florida law that would tell you to do that,” he continued.

Spar observed: “What Gov. DeSantis and Commissioner Manny Diaz always seem to forget when they attack public schools is that they have failed public schools through their punitive policies that have worsened the teacher and staff shortage and kept teacher and staff pay low. It is clear their political agenda is more important than the needs of Florida’s students.”

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

Michael Moline

Michael Moline has covered politics and the legal system for more than 30 years. He is a former managing editor of the San Francisco Daily Journal and former assistant managing editor of The National Law Journal.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Florida Phoenix and is republished with permission.

The Phoenix is a nonprofit news site that’s free of advertising and free to readers. We cover state government and politics with a staff of five journalists located at the Florida Press Center in downtown Tallahassee.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Continue Reading

Popular