By Paulo Murillo | LOS ANGELES – Ricky Martin is headlining LA Pride 2024 at Los Angeles State Historic Park. Christopher Street West Association (CSW) – the 501(c)3 nonprofit that has produced the iconic LA Pride celebration for more than 50 years – announced this week.

In a press release CSW stated that global icon Ricky Martin will headline LA Pride in the Park, with additional artists to be unveiled. As the first openly gay Latin artist to take center stage at the highly-anticipated Pride event of the year, this marks Martin’s first-ever headliner Pride performance.

LA Pride in the Park will return to the Los Angeles State Historic Park on Saturday, June 8. Across 20 acres and with a capacity for 25,000, LA Pride in the Park is one of the most sought-after and largest Official Pride concerts in the country. Additionally, the official theme for this year’s Pride season is “Power in Pride,” which celebrates the LGBTQIA+ community’s ability to live authentically.

General Admission and VIP Passes are now available to purchase at lapride.org.

“I am thrilled to be headlining LA Pride in the Park because it’s an incredible opportunity to celebrate love, diversity, and equality,” said Martin. “LA Pride is a testament to the power of community, the power of visibility, and the power of standing up for our rights. Being part of this vibrant community fills me with pride and purpose.”

“With his electrifying stage presence and chart-topping hits, Ricky Martin has long been an inspiration to millions around the world,” said Gerald Garth, board president of CSW/LA Pride. “His participation in LA Pride in the Park goes beyond mere entertainment; it symbolizes a powerful affirmation of queer Latin identity and a celebration of diversity within the LGBTQ+ community. We cannot wait to be ‘Livin’ La Vida Loca’ while beaming with Pride!”

Ricky Martin, a global music icon, is a multi-talented artist known for his accomplishments as a singer, songwriter, actor and author. He has won multiple GRAMMY® Awards and is considered one of the most influential superstars in history, often referred to as the “King of Latin Pop.” Throughout his nearly four-decade career, Martin brought Latin music and culture to the mainstream, paving the way for crossover talent.

Born in Puerto Rico, Martin gained fame as a member of the popular Latin American band Menudo before embarking on a successful solo career. Notably, he became the first Latin American male to star in a MAC Viva Glam Campaign, raising significant funds for HIV/AIDS research. With over 180 awards, including two GRAMMY® and four Latin GRAMMY® Awards, Martin made history and has been recognized as the youngest-ever “Person of the Year” by the Latin Recording Academy.

He is also an accomplished actor, earning an EMMY® nomination for his role in FX’s “The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story” and displaying his talent on Broadway. He starred in “Jingle Jangle” for Netflix, opposite Forest Whitaker, Anika Noni Rose and Hugh Bonneville and can now be seen in the highly lauded Apple TV series “Palm Royale” alongside Laura Dern, Kristen Wiig, Allison Janney and Carol Burnett.

Beyond his artistic achievements, Martin is a dedicated philanthropist. He established the Ricky Martin Foundation, which actively fights against human trafficking and modern-day slavery. As a Global Ambassador for UNICEF, he has provided significant support to communities affected by natural disasters.

Martin has received numerous humanitarian awards, including the Hispanic Federation’s “Humanitarian Award” and the Human Rights Campaign’s “National Visibility Award.” In recognition of his contributions, the City of New York declared “Ricky Martin Day” to honor his artistic legacy and philanthropic work.

Information about parking, transportation, safety, security, medical support, participating vendors, and further programming will be available soon.

For sponsorship and other talent inquiries, contact LA Pride at [email protected]. For more information, follow @lapride on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter.

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

Paulo Murillo is Editor in Chief and Publisher of WEHO TIMES. He brings over 20 years of experience as a columnist, reporter, and photo journalist. Murillo began his professional writing career as the author of “Love Ya, Mean It,” an irreverent and sometimes controversial West Hollywood lifestyle column for FAB! newspaper. His work has appeared in numerous print and online publications, which include the “Hot Topic” column in Frontiers magazine, where he covered breaking news and local events in West Hollywood. He can be reached at [email protected]

The preceding article was previously published at WeHo Times and is republished with permission.

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – In recent years, anti-transgender activists have used fear of “regret” as justification to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth and restrict it for many adults. Now, a new systematic review published in The American Journal of Surgery has concluded that the rate of regret for transgender surgeries is “remarkably low.”

The review encompasses more than 55 individual studies on regret to support its conclusions and will likely be a powerful tool in challenging transgender bans in the coming weeks.

The study, conducted by experts from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, examines reported regret rates for dozens of surgeries as well as major life decisions and compares them to the regret rates for transgender surgeries.

It finds that “there is lower regret after [gender-affirming surgery], which is less than 1%, than after many other decisions, both surgical and otherwise.” It notes that surgeries such as tubal sterilization, assisted prostatectomy, body contouring, facial rejuvenation, and more all have regret rates more than 10 times as high as gender-affirming surgery.

You can see regret rates for many of the surgeries they examined in the review here:

The review also finds that regret rates for gender-affirming surgeries are lower than those for many life decisions. For instance, the survey found that marriage has a regret rate of 31%, having children has a regret rate of 13%, and at least 72% of sexually active students report regret after engaging in sexual activity at least once. All of these are notably magnitudes higher than gender affirming surgery.

Regret is commonly weaponized against transgender care. The recently released Cass Review, currently being used in an attempt to ban transgender care in England, mentions “regret” 20 times in the document. Pamela Paul’s story in The New York Times features stories of regret heavily and objects to reports of low regret rates. Legislators use the myth of high levels of regret to justify harsh crackdowns on transgender care.

Recently, though, anti-trans activists who have pushed the idea that regret may be high appear to be retreating from their claims. In the WPATH Files, a highly editorialized and error-filled document targeting the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the authors state that the low levels of regret for transgender people obtaining surgery are actually cause for alarm, and that transgender people are “suspiciously” happy.

The idea that transgender people cannot be trusted to report their own happiness and regret has also been echoed by anti-transgender activists and influencers like Matt Walsh and Jesse Singal.

The review has sharp critiques for those who use claims of “regret” to justify bans on gender affirming care: “Unfortunately, some people seek to limit access to gender-affirming services, most vehemently gender-affirming surgery, and use postoperative regret as reason that care should be denied to all patients. This over-reaching approach erases patient autonomy and does not honor the careful consideration and multidisciplinary approach that goes into making the decision to pursue gender-affirming surgery… [other] operations, while associated with higher rates of post-operative regret, are not as restricted and policed like gender-affirming surgery.”

The review is in line with recent data supporting very low regret rates for transgender people. The 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey, the world’s largest survey of transgender individuals, which surveyed over 90,000 transgender people, found that for those receiving hormone therapy, regret rates are incredibly low: less than 1% report being a little or a lot less satisfied after beginning hormone therapy.

You can view a chart from the 2022 US Transgender Survey showing low rates of regret for hormone therapy here:

There is no evidence that transgender people experience high rates of regret for any transgender care, including transgender surgery. On the contrary, gender-affirming care saves lives.

A Cornell review of more than 51 studies found that gender-affirming care significantly improves the well-being of transgender individuals and also concluded that regret is rare. Low rates of regret for transgender people are not “suspicious.” Rather, they are evidence that the care transgender people seek is important, carefully provided, and helps them live more fulfilled lives.

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

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.

By Alander Rocha | MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The Alabama House of Representatives Thursday passed a bill that could lead to the arrest of librarians if a person accuses them of distributing obscene or harmful materials to minors or exposes them to people dressed in revealing clothing.

HB 385, sponsored by Rep. Arnold Mooney, R-Indian Springs, also expands the term “sexual conduct” in state law to include conduct that “knowingly exposes minors to persons who are dressed in sexually revealing, exaggerated, or provocative clothing or costumes, or are stripping, or engaged in lewd and lascivious dancing, presentations, or activities in K-12 public schools, public libraries, and other public places where minors are expected and are known to be present without parental consent.”

“The thing that I would like to point out is, this is an effort to protect children,” Mooney said. “It is not a Democrat bill. It’s not a Republican bill. It’s a people bill to try to protect children.”

The bill passed 72-28 along party line votes. A message seeking comment was left with the Alabama Library Association.

The legislation comes amid right-wing attacks on the content and leadership of libraries in Alabama and around the country, mostly around books with LGBTQ+ characters or themes. Mooney introduced a similar bill last year that explicitly banned drag show performances where children were present. The bill did not become law.

The bill as filed could have subjected librarians to a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, on a second or subsequent violation. A first offense would have been a misdemeanor, with a fine up to $10,000 and county jail or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than one year.

Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook, offered an substitute to the bill he said was to “tighten up” the original bill and downgraded the criminal charges to a Class C misdemeanor, up to three months in jail or a $500 fine, for the first offense; a second offense would warrant a Class B misdemeanors, punishable by up to six months in jail; and a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail, for the third and subsequent offense.

The substitute also provided notice requirements for those accused of misdemeanor, allowing up to seven days for materials to be removed. It also replaced the term “material” for “conduct” in the “sexual conduct” definition. The bill previously defined sexual conduct as any “sexual or gender oriented material that knowingly exposes minors.”

“We wanted to make sure that people were protected, our librarians were protected, that our K through 12 officials were protected, and that’s what we’ve tried to do in the sub, is strengthen that protection,” Faulkner said.

Democrats, however, said that the changes actually made it easier to subject librarians to criminal prosecution. Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, said that lawmakers need to have “an actual class on what criminal law does, what intent is and the process.”

By reducing the felony charges to misdemeanors, England said, the bill would make it easier for librarians to be arrested via a warrant. A warrant clerk can sign a warrant “on the spot right there” without proper due process.

“In a situation where you have to have a warrant — that’s for felonies — it actually has to be investigated,” England said.

He said that the bill only requires district attorneys get notice, and there is no standard for what the notice is supposed to say, or requirement that the district attorney acknowledge the notice.

“This basically gives one person the ability to have a librarian arrested, as long as they can convince a warrant clerk that they’ve given notice and material is obscene. Does that make you comfortable?” England asked.

Rep. Neil Rafferty, D-Birmingham, said he was concerned that people will abuse the definitions provided in the bill and asked if there would be an appeals process in case a person is harassed based on the bill’s language.

“I’m talking about people abusing this definition that we have in here in order to target and harass people, who might be dressed up for a Halloween costume, or dressed up, like I said, in just the warmer months, wearing a sundress,” Rafferty said.

Faulkner maintained that there would still be seven days for the person to remove or change material or conduct in question. Rafferty questioned whether it is a good idea to bring people into the criminal justice system to resolve civil matters.

“I do still have some serious problems with this because I feel like this is a violation of First Amendment, I feel like is easily going to be abused, and we will be dealing with unintended consequences of it,” Rafferty said.

Rep. Danny Garrett, R-Trussville, said the bill was needed because “we woke up one day and things changed.”

Garrett cited the American Library Association adopting a user privacy policy stating children and young adults have the “right to receive information through the library in print, sound, images, data, social media, online applications, games, technologies, programming, and other formats.”

“I haven’t talked to anybody and anybody who believes that, but that was the national policy, and that began to drive a lot of things that just popped up that people didn’t understand. I don’t think the local libraries necessarily embraced that, but it just happens,” Garrett said.

Rep. A.J. McCampbell, D-Linden, said that while they may not want children to be exposed to the material in question, the “real world is full of a whole lot of stuff that we don’t want our children exposed to.” He said that he was exposed to a lot growing up, and the things he learned that was “lewd and not right” were not learned in a library.

“When we are trying to dictate by precluding what a person may learn about, then we limit their ability to operate in a society they actually live in,” McCampbell said.

Read Freely Alabama, an volunteer group opposing censorship in local libraries, said in a statement that even with the changes, the bill still “criminalizes normal library practices and subverts already established reconsideration procedures,” even after changes. The group said the bill would allow anyone to make a claim based on subjective personal beliefs.

“This would open librarians and their staff in our most vulnerable libraries to criminal prosecution for books housed in the adult section, giving them 7 days to ban these books from their libraries or be charged,” the statement read.

Craig Scott, president of the Alabama Library Association, said in a statement that despite the changes, librarians could still be penalized or arrested by “prosecutors eager to follow the demands of Alabama Republican Chair John Wahl, an Alabama Public Library Service Board member, who’s willing to jail librarians for having books he considers unacceptable.”

“This bill is government overreach, robs parents of their rights, and would have a chilling effect on free speech by potentially incarcerating librarians because particular books are available, including even the Bible,” Scott wrote.

The bill moves to the Senate for consideration.

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

Alander Rocha is a journalist based in Montgomery, and he reports on government, policy and healthcare. He previously worked for KFF Health News and the Red & Black, Georgia’s student newspaper. He is a Tulane and Georgia alumnus with a two-year stint in the U.S. Peace Corps.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Alabama Reflector and is republished with permission.

The Alabama Reflector is an independent, nonprofit news outlet dedicated to covering state government and politics in the state of Alabama. Through daily coverage and investigative journalism, The Reflector covers decision makers in Montgomery; the issues affecting Alabamians, and potential ways to move our state forward.

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

MEXICO CITY — The Mexican Senate on Thursday approved a bill that would ban so-called conversion therapy in the country.

Yaaj México, a Mexican LGBTQ+ rights group, on X noted the measure passed by a 77-4 vote margin with 15 abstentions.  The Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Mexico’s congress, approved the bill last month that, among other things, would subject conversion therapy practitioners to between two and six years in prison and fines.

The Senate on its X account described conversion therapy as “practices that have incentivized the violation of human rights of the LGBTTTIQ+ community.”

“The Senate moved (to) sanction therapies that impede or annul a person’s orientation or gender identity,” it said. “There are aggravating factors when the practices are done to minors, older adults and people with disabilities.”

Mexico City and the states of Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Jalisco and Sonora are among the Mexican jurisdictions that have banned the discredited practice. 

The Senate in 2022 passed a conversion therapy ban bill, but the House of Deputies did not approve it. It is not immediately clear whether President Andrés Manuel López Obrador supports the ban.

Canada, Brazil, Belgium, Germany, France, and New Zealand are among the countries that ban conversion therapy. Virginia, California, and D.C. are among the U.S. jurisdictions that prohibit the practice for minors.  

DENVER, Colo. – A conservative group that bills itself as defending parental rights has received approval to collect signatures for a ballot initiative that would forcibly out transgender students in the state’s schools.

“We believe this measure is so supportive of our kiddos that do identify as LGBT,” Lori Gimelshteyn, executive director of the Colorado Parent Advocacy Network, told Denver’s NBC News affiliate KUSA 9 news. Gimelshteyn helped write the ballot initiative. 

“We very strongly believe that parents are the ones that know best and help them,” she said. 

According to KUSA, the measure was approved by the Colorado Title Board, but opponents including LGBTQ advocacy group One Colorado and Out Boulder County, challenged the decision with the Colorado Supreme Court. Late last week, the court affirmed the initiative, giving it the go-ahead to begin collecting signatures. 

The exact text of the ballot measure states, “Any public school representative who obtains information that a child enrolled in their public school is experiencing gender incongruence shall notify the child’s parents within 48 hours of receiving such information.”

In a statement to the Blade Thursday, the executive director of Out Boulder County, Mardi Moore reacted noting that the Colorado Supreme Court decision “to allow the collection of signatures to place a measure on our November 2024 ballots that is an attack on our teachers, students, and families.”

“Today is a sad day in Colorado. Despite our state’s long history of honoring individual rights and freedoms, the Supreme Court has ruled that a vocal minority can begin collecting signatures from Coloradans to codify government overreach in our schools, communities, and lives. If successful, their efforts will place an additional administrative burden on our already-overworked teachers and school administrators and expose them to frivolous and costly lawsuits.

“The proponents of this measure do not understand Colorado’s values. And they do not care about the other consequences this ballot measure will have on teachers, kids, and families. You will hear several things about the measure they are gathering signatures for to put on our election ballot – that they want to protect kids, that it will only affect one part of the LGBTQ+ community – but they are lying to you.

“Out Boulder County will do everything in our power to ensure our teachers, kids, and families can be who they are and feel safe in schools.”

KUSA 9 News also reported that the Colorado Parent Advocacy Network has until August to collect about 125,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot.

“You can be ensured that our volunteers, our staff and our large community will do everything possible to ensure this is not passed in the state of Colorado,” Out Boulder County‘s Moore told KUSA. “We’ve had big wins. I don’t think Colorado will be any different.” 

Colorado Parent Advocacy Network’s Gimelshteyn hopes to start collecting signatures on this measure by the end of this week. She told KUSA every local school district will have the ability to write a policy around how this measure will be implemented, if it does get on the ballot and pass.

Other Anti-LGBTQ measures

The Colorado Parent Advocacy Network effort is only one of several ballot initiatives targeting Colorado’s LGBTQ+ community. The Colorado Newsline reported two measures sponsored by Erin Lee, a Fort Collins anti-LGBTQ activist who since 2022 has made a string of appearances in conservative media crusading against what she calls the “indoctrination” of children by “predators” at public schools, have been approved by the Title Board. One would require Colorado public schools to notify parents when their child shows signs of “experiencing gender incongruence” at school, and another would codify a parent’s “legal right to review their child’s school records.”

Lee, her husband and two other parents sued the Poudre School District in federal court last year, alleging that her daughter’s experience with an after-school Genders and Sexualities Alliance club, which “introduced concepts of gender fluidity and various types of sexual attraction,” violated their constitutional rights as parents. Their characterization of some of the club’s discussions and materials has been disputed, and their lawsuit was dismissed.

Another set of ballot measures targeting transgender Coloradans has attracted high-profile support from prominent Republican politicians. One would prohibit transgender athletes from competing in “a sport or athletic event designated as being for females, women or girls.” The other proposes a sweeping ban on medical procedures and hormone treatments for transgender people under the age of 18.

The Title Board, however, ruled that both measures violate the single-subject rule, and upheld their decisions again last week, prompting criticism from Greg Lopez, the GOP’s nominee for a 4th Congressional District special election in June, and former state Sen. Kevin Lundberg.

“I believe it is doing a great disservice to we the people in Colorado, who reserve the right to make law independent of the General Assembly,” Lundberg said. “I’m saying this to you very directly, because I guarantee I’m going to say this publicly — you need to know that if … you’re going to say this is not a single subject, that’s a violation of our Constitution.”

Hearings on the anti-transgender initiatives have been marked by unusually tense scenes at the normally tranquil Title Board, including a session last month during which supporters of the initiatives shouted at board members while filming the hearing with their phones. Conley, the board chair, told Lundberg that his comments about speaking “publicly” were part of a pattern she found “unnerving.”

“We have put in a tremendous amount of effort, we are doing our best, we are seeking to be consistent. I am constantly concerned about being doxxed online,” Conley said. “People can always comment on public processes. It is in the news all the time. But to be reminded and directed at it, I can’t help but think that there’s a little bit of a hidden message there that is not appreciated and won’t be tolerated.”

Additional reporting by Chase Woodruff, the Colorado Newsline.

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.

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – Last Friday, the Biden administration released its final Title IX rules, which include protections for LGBTQ+ students by clarifying that Title IX forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The rule change could have a significant impact as it would supersede bathroom bans and other discriminatory policies that have become increasingly common in Republican states within the United States.

As of Thursday morning, however, officials in at least four states — Oklahoma, Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina — have directed schools to ignore the regulations, potentially setting up a federal showdown that may ultimately end up in a protracted court battle in the lead-up to the 2024 elections.

Louisiana State Superintendent of Education Cade Brumley was the first to respond, decrying the fact that the new Title IX regulations could block teachers and other students from exercising what has been dubbed by some a “right to bully” transgender students by using their old names and pronouns intentionally.

Asserting that Title IX law does not protect trans and queer students, Brumley states that schools “should not alter policies or procedures at this time.” Critically, several courts have ruled that trans and queer students are protected by Title IX, including the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a recent case in West Virginia.

In South Carolina, Schools Superintendent Ellen Weaver wrote in a letter that providing protections for transgender and LGBTQ+ students under Title IX “would rescind 50 years of progress & equality of opportunity by putting girls and women at a disadvantage in the educational arena,” apparently leaving transgender kids out of her definition of those who deserve progress and equality of opportunity.

She then directed schools to ignore the new directive while waiting for court challenges. While South Carolina does not have a bathroom ban or statewide Don’t Say Gay or Trans law, such bills continue to be proposed in the state.

Responding to the South Carolina letter, Chase Glenn of Alliance For Full Acceptance stated, “While Superintendent Weaver may not personally support the rights of LGBTQ+ students, she has the responsibility as the top school leader in our state to ensure that all students have equal rights and protections, and a safe place to learn and be themselves. The flagrant disregard shown for the Title IX rule tells me that our superintendent unfortunately does not have the best interests of all students in mind.”

Florida Commissioner of Education Manny Diaz also joined in in instructing schools not to implement Title IX regulations. In a letter issued to area schools, Diaz stated that the new Title IX regulations were tantamount to “gaslighting the country into believing that biological sex no longer has any meaning.”

Governor Ron DeSantis approved of the letter and stated that Florida “will not comply.” Florida has notably been the site of some of the most viciously anti-queer and anti-trans legislation in recent history, including a Don’t Say Gay or Trans law that was used to force a trans female teacher to go by “Mr.”

State Education Superintendent Ryan Walters of Oklahoma was the latest to echo similar sentiments. Walters has recently appointed the right-wing media figure Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok to an advisory role “to improve school safety,” and notably, Chaya Raichik has posed proudly with papers accusing her of instigating bomb threats with her incendiary posts about LGBTQ+ people in classrooms.

The Title IX policies have been universally applauded by large LGBTQ+ rights organizations in the United States. Lambda Legal, a key figure in fighting anti-LGBTQ+ legislation nationwide, said that the regulations “clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.” The Human Rights Campaign also praised the rule, stating, “rule will be life-changing for so many LGBTQ+ youth and help ensure LGBTQ+ students can receive the same educational experience as their peers: going to dances, safely using the restroom, and writing stories that tell the truth about their own lives.”

The rule is slated to go into effect August 1st, pending any legal challenges.

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

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.

By Paulo Murillo | WEST HOLLYWOOD – When news broke that the Abbey Food & Bar and its sister location the Chapel at The Abbey sold to hotel entrepreneur Tristan Schukraft this past November, the big question on everyone’s mind was, for how much? According to a report by Commercial Observer, the 14,200-square-foot properties at 686 and 692 North Robertson Boulevard traded hands for $27 million.

The listing of both spaces was described as “a generational purchase opportunity to acquire one of the world’s most iconic nightclubs and restaurants, The Abbey and The Chapel at the Abbey, including its tangible and intangible assets with all branding and branding rights to the businesses, and trophy West Hollywood real estate. ‘The Abbey’ business, a fee simple interest of 686 N Robertson Blvd, and ‘The Chapel at The Abbey’ business with its interest in the lease at 694 N Robertson Blvd.”

In other words, David Cooley owned the Abbey property, but he was leasing The Chapel. Rumors alleged Cooley was asking for $60M for the entire package and he settled for $40M. Other sources say the $27M is a closer ballpark for The Abbey property with the final price tag for the bulk of the business after fees at $35M. These numbers have have not yet been confirmed.

According to Commercial Observer, Tristan also bought the business assets. it is not yet known how much he paid for the entire Abbey assets. Real Estate brokers Matthew Luchs and Brandon Micheals of Marcus & Millichap handled the transaction.

David Cooley makes emotional exit as owner of The Abbey WeHo

David Cooley sold a majority of his stake of The Abbey to hospitality and entertainment company SBE Group in 2006. According to reports SBE paid close to $10 million for a 75 percent stake. Cooley stayed on as President. SBE Group planned to open additional Abbey bars in popular gay destinations across the country, but those plans never panned out. Cooley bought the Abbey back in 2015, a year shy of the Abbey’s 25-year-anniversary. The Abbey recently celebrated 33 years.

Cooley also listed his home for sale in L.A.’s historic Hancock Park neighborhood back in March. Cooley purchased the brick structure designed by architect Henry F Withey for $1.9 million in 2001. The home sold for $6,786,400. His asking price was $7,695,000. The home is widely known for hosting several fundraisers throughout the past four decades.

Cooley made a tearful exit on his last day as owner of two of West Hollywood’s most iconic nightclubs on Thursday, April 11. He officially turned over the reins to new owner Schukraft.

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

Paulo Murillo is Editor in Chief and Publisher of WEHO TIMES. He brings over 20 years of experience as a columnist, reporter, and photo journalist. Murillo began his professional writing career as the author of “Love Ya, Mean It,” an irreverent and sometimes controversial West Hollywood lifestyle column for FAB! newspaper. His work has appeared in numerous print and online publications, which include the “Hot Topic” column in Frontiers magazine, where he covered breaking news and local events in West Hollywood. He can be reached at [email protected]

The preceding article was previously published at WeHo Times and is republished with permission.

By John Ferrannini, Assistant Editor | SACRAMENTO – A judge has sided with the state of California in the matter of a conservative group that sued over the title and summary Attorney General Rob Bonta assigned to its ballot measure that would strip rights from transgender minors.

As the Bay Area Reporter previously reported, Protect Kids California is gathering signatures for a ballot measure that would ban trans minors from receiving gender-affirming care; ban trans girls from female competitive sports, locker rooms and bathrooms; and require public schools to disclose students’ gender identities to parents if they say they are different than their sex at birth.

Protect Kids California has until May 28 to collect some 550,000 valid signatures in order to place the measure before state voters on the November 5 ballot. Most LGBTQ leaders doubt it will be successful in reaching that threshold.

In preparing a ballot title and summary for the measure, Bonta titled it “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth.” It prompted the Liberty Justice Center to file a lawsuit February 13 in Sacramento County Superior Court on behalf of Protect Kids California that alleged Bonta’s personal beliefs led to a biased title and summary. Therefore, the center contended the ballot measure proponents should be given 180 additional days for signature gathering without discounting signatures already collected.

“Respondent [Bonta] has demonstrated that he personally, and in his official capacity, is opposed to any kind of notification by a public school to a parent or guardian that his or her child is exhibiting signs of gender dysphoria when the child asks the school to publicly treat him or her as the opposite sex with a new name or pronouns, and to allow the child to use the sex-segregated facilities of the opposite sex,” claimed the groups in their lawsuit.

But a Sacramento Superior Court judge sided with Bonta in a ruling that was first issued tentatively April 19 and was made final April 22. Judge Stephen Acquisto ruled that Bonta’s title and summary are accurate.

“Under current law, minor students have express statutory rights with respect to their gender identity,” Acquisto stated. “A substantial portion of the proposed measure is dedicated to eliminating or restricting these statutory rights. … The proposed measure would eliminate express statutory rights and place a condition of parental consent on accommodations that are currently available without such condition.

“The proposed measure objectively ‘restricts rights’ of transgender youth by preventing the exercise of their existing rights. ‘Restricts rights of transgender youth’ is an accurate and impartial description of the proposed measure,” Acquisto added.

The attorney general’s office has some leeway when it comes to determining ballot titles, the judge noted.

Bonta is “afforded ‘considerable latitude’ in preparing a title and summary,” Acquisto ruled.

He found, “The court’s task is not to decide what language best captures the essence of the proposed measure, but to decide whether the language chosen by the Attorney General is ‘untrue, misleading, or argumentative.’ The Court finds that the Attorney General’s use of the term ‘restricts rights’ does not render the title and summary untrue, misleading, or argumentative.”

A spokesperson for Bonta stated April 23, “We are pleased with the court’s decision to uphold the Attorney General’s fair and accurate title and summary for this measure.”

In an April 19 statement posted to its Facebook page, the Liberty Justice Center said it was “evaluating next steps” in light of the judge’s decision.

“While we are disappointed that the court precluded evidence establishing AG Bonta’s bias, we appreciate that the matter has been taken under submission by the judge,” stated center officials.

In a statement provided to the B.A.R. on April 24, after news that the decision had been made permanent, Protect Kids California attorney Nicole Pearson stated, “The mental gymnastics used to justify this prejudicial title and summary are not only an egregious abuse of discretion that entitles our clients to an appeal, but a chilling interpretation of law that jeopardizes the very foundation of our constitutional republic. We are reviewing our options for an appeal of these clear errors and will announce a decision shortly.”

Tony Hoang, a gay man who is the executive director of statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization Equality California, stated to the B.A.R. that “we are pleased with the judge’s ruling.”

“California should be a safe and welcoming place for everyone, which is why we have longstanding laws in effect that protect and preserve the rights of LGBTQ+ youth and their families,” Hoang stated. “This proposed initiative seeks to undo these critical protections and make our schools and communities less safe for all youth.”

Politico’s California Playbook newsletter reported last month that the Protect Kids California measure is struggling. “The campaign has so far collected less than a fifth of what it would need to qualify for the ballot,” Politico reported. “It does not appear on track to meet a May 28 deadline.”

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Bay Area Reporter and is republished with permission.

By Lynne Terry | SALEM, Ore. – With hate crimes rising in Oregon, the Department of Justice has launched a campaign to support minority communities and spread awareness of the state’s nonemergency hotline for reporting bias and hate crimes.

The campaign, dubbed “You belong,” will run for three months and include six public service announcements and ads in English, Spanish, Korean, Mandarin, Arabic, Russian, Vietnamese and Tagalog, the national language of the Philippines. They’ll be aired on the radio and television, streamed on YouTube, painted across buses and posted on Facebook, while an influencer will get word out on TikTok and Instagram.

The campaign also will include billboards in English, Spanish and Vietnamese in Portland, Gresham, Salem and Eugene.

“Every Oregonian should feel like they belong here, but acts of bias and hatred rob people of that sense of belonging,” Ellen Rosenblum, Oregon’s attorney general, said in a release. “To anyone who has experienced acts of hatred and bias, you are not alone. You belong.” 

The hotline, the first of its kind nationwide, is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific time, Monday through Friday. It was launched in 2020, following the passage of Senate Bill 577 in 2019. That law defined a hate or bias crime as intimidation or harm of another person or their property motivated by the person’s actual or perceived protected class, including race, color, disability, religion, national origin, sexual orientation and gender identity. Punishment for bias crimes vary: Depending on the situation, they can be a misdemeanor or a felony, and state data shows that cases are fairly evenly divided between the two.

The confidential line was set up, in part, to help victims get services. Advocates, with services in more than 240 languages, are trained in trauma care, and sometimes callers just want to talk. They also direct callers to government and community services that range from counseling to help filing a police report. Operators also collect reports on the crimes for The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. 

According to the commission’s dashboard, reported hate crimes in Oregon have more than tripled from about 1,100 in 2020 to 3,600 reports last year. The crimes are most prevalent in the populous Portland area, with about 2,300 reports filed over the past four years in Multnomah County and more than 700 each in Clackamas and Washington counties. More than 1,000 reports also have been filed in Lane County, and more than 800 in Marion County.

Report a bias crime:

To report a nonemergency event, call 844-924-BIAS (2427) on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The service has interpreters in more than 240 languages. You can also file a written report here.

Most bias crimes involve harassment, the data shows, and a majority of crimes are prompted by race, with Black people being the biggest racial target. Fay Stetz-Waters, the Department of Justice’s director of civil rights and social justice, said that one reason is likely Oregon’s racist past. The state’s early Black exclusion laws tried to keep Black people from residing in the state, and later they suffered widespread discrimination, especially in housing.

“It’s part of our history,” Stetz-Waters said. “It’s perpetuated throughout our communities and throughout our culture. It’s in our schools. It’s in our work. It’s in our places of business.”

Hispanics are the second biggest target, with LGBTQ+ people suffering about as many attacks.

Stetz-Waters said the crimes are somewhat predictable: She expects an uptick in May during Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month and then in June, which is Pride Month.

“As we hit the summer when more people are out, when we have more public events where people like to show up and show off, I expect these numbers to rise,” Stetz-Waters said.

The line itself is also attacked.

“We’ve been getting more than 100 robocalls a day,” Stetz-Waters said. “We’re getting people reporting nonsense, nothing related to hate or bias (and) asking questions that don’t have anything to do with our work. And I think it’s just to tie up the line so that someone who has need cannot use the line.”

The department also takes reports online, and the website has a chat feature.

The unit began small: At the beginning, Stetz-Waters, who’s a lawyer with a law enforcement background, answered the phones. Now, it has a staff of 11, including a prosecutor who helps officials in smaller counties understand the law and prosecute cases. Another staff member is an investigator with law enforcement experience who helps smaller communities with investigations.

The unit also has a $100,000 victims’ fund allocated by the Legislature for the current two-year budget to help with various needs. 

The hotline awareness campaign is the department’s second. Stetz-Waters said the first one in 2020 to let people know about the service did not reach a wide audience. It came during the pandemic, when people were often socially isolated and focused on COVID.

She hopes this campaign increases awareness of the service and fosters a sense of inclusiveness.

“We want to build connections so people stay,” Stetz-Waters said. “We want people to recognize (they’re) not alone. You belong.”

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

Lynne Terry, who has more than 30 years of journalism experience, is Oregon Capital Chronicle’s editor-in-chief. She previously was editor of The Lund Report, a highly regarded health news site; reported on health in her 18 years at The Oregonian, was a senior producer at Oregon Public Broadcasting and Paris correspondent for National Public Radio.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Oregon Capital Chronicle and is republished with permission.

Oregon Capital Chronicle focuses on deep and useful reporting on Oregon state government, politics and policy. We help readers understand how those in government are using their power, what’s happening to taxpayer dollars, and how citizens can stake a bigger role in big decisions.

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