By Erin Reed | JEFFERSON CITY. Mo. – A new bill in Missouri could significantly curtail the ability of companies in the state to pull business with other companies over anti-trans, anti-abortion, or other policies.

The bill, Senate Bill 1061, would ban companies doing business with the state from engaging in “economic boycotts” over a large list of issues, including transgender care and abortion. The boycott ban includes “refusing to deal with” or “terminating business with” other companies over these policies.

This recent move comes after recent high-profile cases of companies pulling business with X, formerly Twitter, over rising hate speech on the platform.

The bill stipulates that companies doing business with the state of Missouri cannot engage in economic boycotts targeted at other companies over issues traditionally supported by conservative politicians. Notably, the ban applies not only to companies doing business with the state of Missouri but also to companies doing business with any political subdivision of the state.

Typically, this includes counties, city governments, public schools, public libraries, and more. This would affect the nearly 700 businesses that have direct contracts with the state, and countless more that have contracts with school boards and local governments.

Under this law, companies that enter into contracts with any of the aforementioned entities would be barred from “refusing to deal with,” “terminating business with,” or otherwise engaging in economic activities designed to penalize a company over that company’s views relating to “not facilitating sex or gender change” or not facilitating “access to abortion.” It also includes other topics, such as boycotts over environmental policies and firearms.

You can see the provisions targeting economic boycotts of other companies, including the abortion and trans provision, here:

The issue of economic boycotts over anti-LGBTQ+ policies has gained rising attention in recent months. Companies have “terminated business activities with” X, formerly Twitter, over its support for hate speech, which, for some, has included anti-LGBTQ+ hate speech. New policies on X include ending a previous policy that protected transgender people from harassment on the platform, including targeted misgendering.

It is unclear if this policy would bar businesses from terminating business with X – companies boycotting the social media platform over Elon Musk’s declaration that he would lobby to criminalize gender affirming care, for instance, might violate the law if they have contracts with Missouri or any city government, school, or library. For example, IBM pulled advertising on X and currently has an open contract with the state.

This bill is not the only one like it in the United States. Over the last year, several others have been proposed with the same language, although all of them have failed to pass. Bills with similar wording have been proposed in Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Ohio, and Iowa.

This approach could, in part, stem from an earlier law targeting a different boycott target: last year, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a law requiring companies that do business with public entities in Arkansas to not engage in boycotts of Israel could be enforced.

This approach to targeting companies over their commitment to rejecting hate speech is likely to be repeated in several states this year. Increasingly, Republicans are mobilizing state law and enforcement efforts against corporate activism when it does not agree with the Republican platform.

Despite claiming to be in favor of “absolute free speech” and “less regulations,” these supposed values do not clearly apply when companies choose to protect LGBTQ+ people.

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

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

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

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

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

BOSTON, Mass. – This past Friday, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell’s office filed suit against a neo-Nazi white nationalist/supremacist group the Nationalist Social Club a.k.a. NSC-131, alleging conduct that violated state civil rights laws and unlawfully interfered with public safety.

The lawsuit filed in Suffolk County Superior Court names two NSC-131 leaders, Christopher Hood and Liam McNeil, noting that the pair were responsible for fomenting an escalating series of unlawful and discriminatory incidents.

These incidents include situations where NSC-131 members repeatedly attempted to disrupt and shut down events organized by LGBTQ+ community groups, and targeted hotels providing emergency shelter to recently arrived immigrants through the Commonwealth’s Emergency Assistance program.

The Attorney General’s Office alleges that, in connection with these incidents and others, NSC-131 members engaged in violent, threatening, and intimidating conduct that violated state civil rights laws and unlawfully interfered with public safety. The complaint asserts claims for public nuisance, trespass, civil conspiracy and violations of the Civil Rights Act and Public Accommodations Law. 

“NSC-131 has engaged in a concerted campaign to target and terrorize people across Massachusetts and interfere with their rights. Our complaint is the first step in holding this neo-Nazi group and its leaders accountable for their unlawful actions against members of our community,” said AG Campbell. “My office will continue to do all it can to protect our residents’ and visitors’ civil rights and public safety.” 

The complaint alleges that between July 2022 and January 2023, NSC-131 repeatedly targeted Drag Queen Story Hours, which are children-oriented events commonly hosted by the LGBTQ+ community and others to promote inclusivity of LGBTQ+ individuals.

In late 2021, NSC-131 announced that its members would “SHUT DOWN DRAG QUEEN STORY HOURS IN THE NEW ENGLAND AREA UNTIL ALL RELATED EVENTS CEASE.” NSC-131 subsequently targeted four events in Massachusetts, during which NSC-131 members allegedly attacked members of the public; engaged in other threatening, intimidating and coercive behavior; and unlawfully interfered with access to event spaces in public libraries.

The events targeted by NSC-131 took place in July 2022 and August 2022 in Boston, December 2022 in Fall River, and January 2023 in Taunton.  

The complaint further alleges that on at least five separate occasions between October 2022 and October 2023, NSC-131 targeted hotels providing emergency shelter to recently arrived immigrants.

On social media, NSC-131 has stated that it targeted the hotels because they were providing housing to “invaders” from “Haiti,” “Central America,” and “Africa,” while espousing conspiracy theories promoting the idea that the shelters were part of a plot to implement “White replacement.” 

During the incidents, NSC-131 members trespassed on hotel property and engaged in other unlawful conduct to intimidate and threaten employees and guests and interfere with the operation of the hotels.

The group’s targeting of the migrant hotel shelters, trespassing on their property and intimidating and harassing their residents and employees, occurred in an October 2022 incident in Kingston, on three occasions in August 2023 in Woburn, and a September 2023 incident in Marlborough.  

Additionally, the complaint alleges that since at least 2020, NSC-131 has regularly conducted “patrols” of various residential neighborhoods and public spaces across the state. During such “patrols,” NSC-131 regularly trespassed on, vandalized, and damaged both public and private property.

Moreover, while publicizing the “patrols” on social media, NSC-131 revealed that members carried weapons, including knives and batons, while engaged in the “patrols.”  

Through filing this complaint, the AG’s Office seeks injunctive relief against the defendants in relation to each of the alleged claims, along with monetary awards related to civil penalties, damages, and other costs, amongst other forms of potential relief.

Related:

By Bryan Luhn | HOUSTON, Texas – Researchers at the University of Houston say major, state-level shifts in social and legal rights available to women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBTQ) individuals are affecting interstate migration attitudes and may have negative impacts on states’ economies and workforces.

In a study published in Population Research and Policy Review, researchers surveyed more than 1,000 people from varying backgrounds after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year that ended the constitutional right to an abortion and assessed their views on the desirability of moving to a state with restrictions on access to abortions, gender-affirming medical care, participation in team sports for transgender individuals, teaching about gender and sexuality in schools, same-sex marriage and protections from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“The majority of people who responded to our survey, regardless of their political orientation, indicated they would be less willing to move to states with these policies or that the policies wouldn’t affect their decision to do so,” said Amanda Baumle, lead author and sociology professor at UH. “These policies are much more of a deterrent to migration than an incentive.”

The study found that women, and their partners, gay men, lesbians and those with LGBT family members may choose to avoid states with policies suggesting an unfriendly political environment. The findings also suggest that those in higher-earning occupations, or those who are invested in work or education opportunities, could be discouraged from moving to states with these policies.

“Migration attitudes provide an important benchmark for understanding how abortion and LGBTQ laws and policies influence opinions about the desirability of states as potential destinations,” Baumle said. “If the policies are deterring people from moving to a certain state, there could be negative economic and workforce impacts.”

According to The New York Times, 21 states now ban or restrict abortions. In several other states, there is an ongoing legal battle over abortion access. And the American Civil Liberties Union says state legislatures advanced more than 500 anti-LGBTQ bills this year, more than double the number of similar bills introduced last year.

The UH study found most people are averse to moving to states that enacted highly restrictive abortion laws, such as bans on traveling to other states for abortions or policies allowing people to report abortion seekers to authorities. They were the least averse to moving to states with restrictions related to gender-affirming care for children, transgender children playing on sports teams different than their assigned sex at birth and education-related restrictions such as “don’t say gay” laws.

“I think that fits in with a lot of prior research that people perceive children as in need of being sheltered from anything that falls outside of the gender binary or heterosexuality,” said study co-author Elizabeth Gregory, professor of English and director of Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies at UH. “Something that was somewhat surprising was that restrictions on participation in sports for transgender youth was viewed less negatively for migration and more as a potential draw than any of the other policies.”

One of the key takeaways of the study, Baumle says, is that states continuing to enact these laws and policies may do so at considerable risk of diminishing their state’s attractiveness, or pull, as a potential migration destination.

“Our findings suggest these restrictive laws and policies have implications for migration attitudes beyond women and LGBTQ individuals,” Gregory said. “States, including legislators and business owners, should consider potential social and economic effects of these actions as an important part of their policy deliberations.”

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

Bryan Luhn is the Interim Director of Media Relations at the University of Houston. Luhn is an award-winning storyteller and content creator.

The preceding piece was previously published by the University of Houston and is republished with permission.

By  Philip van Slooten | TAKOMA PARK, Md. – Police cordoned off a popular strip in Takoma Park, Maryland on Saturday after a bomb threat shut down businesses, including a holiday performance by drag artist Tara Hoot.

MotorKat General Manager Mike Rothman told the Washington Blade that Takoma Park police notified them of a bomb threat to their business around noon.

Tara Hoot was delivering a holiday brunch performance at the MotorKat when the evacuation order came in. Rothman said they were notified “five minutes into her final performance.” Tara Hoot herself told the audience to leave for their safety.

Police proceeded to tape off the area and evacuated all businesses between Eastern and South Carroll Avenues, including TakomaBevCo, which is co-owned by MotorKat Wine Director Seth Cook.

Cook told the Blade that police brought in “bomb-sniffing dogs” to clear the area before allowing businesses to reopen around 2 p.m. “The timing is unfortunate as this is one of the busiest weekends before the holidays,” Cook said.

Rothman was also disappointed by the lost revenue due to what ultimately was a false threat, but he was firm that the Takoma Park LGBTQ community is resilient and would continue to thrive despite this setback.

“Takoma Park is a pretty proud and resilient community,” he said. “I don’t expect people to lay down and be scared by this.”

MotorKat and TakomaBevCo reopened for business around 3 p.m.

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

Philip van Slooten is a frequent contributor to the Washington Blade and the Los Angeles Blade.

Van Slooten’s work has been featured at WJZ-TV (Baltimore, MD), Yahoo News, U.S. News & World Report, the Baltimore Sun, the Capital Gazette, Pride Source, Capital News Service, among other media outlets.

By Eleanor Klibanoff | AUSTIN, Texas – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has asked the state Supreme Court to intervene and stop a Dallas woman from having an abortion.

Paxton’s office petitioned the high court just before midnight Thursday, after a Travis County district judge granted a temporary restraining order allowing Kate Cox, 31, to terminate her nonviable pregnancy. Paxton also sent a letter to three hospitals, threatening legal action if they allowed the abortion to be performed at their facility.

On Friday evening, the state Supreme Court temporarily halted the lower court’s order but did not rule on the merits of the case. The court said it would rule on the temporary restraining order, but did not specify when.

“While we still hope that the Court ultimately rejects the state’s request and does so quickly, in this case we fear that justice delayed will be justice denied,” said Cox’s lawyer, Molly Duane, in a Friday evening statement.

This is the first time an actively pregnant adult woman has gone to court to get an abortion since before Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. A similar case was filed in Kentucky on Friday.

In the petition, Paxton asked the Texas Supreme Court to rule quickly, saying that “each hour [the temporary restraining order] remains in place is an hour that Plaintiffs believe themselves free to perform and procure an elective abortion.”

“Nothing can restore the unborn child’s life that will be lost as a result,” the filing said. “Post hoc enforcement is no substitute, so time is of the essence.”

The Texas Supreme Court is currently also considering a similar case, Zurawski v. Texas, in which 20 women claim they were denied medically necessary abortions for their complicated pregnancies due to the state’s new laws. The state has argued those women do not have standing to sue because, unlike Cox, they are not currently seeking abortions.

In the initial lawsuit, Cox’s attorneys with the Center for Reproductive Rights argued she cannot wait the weeks or months it might take the Texas Supreme Court to rule.

Now, the high court must consider many of the same arguments as those in Zurawski v. Texas, but on a much tighter timeline.

The central question is whether a lethal fetal anomaly qualifies a pregnant patient for an abortion under the narrow medical exception to the state’s near-total abortion ban. Cox’s lawyers argue that continuing this nonviable pregnancy poses a threat to her life and future fertility, thus necessitating an abortion.

Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble agreed, saying it would be a “miscarriage of justice” to force Cox to continue the pregnancy. The state disagreed, telling the Supreme Court that Guerra Gamble’s ruling “opens the floodgates to pregnant mothers procuring an abortion” beyond the scope of the medical exception.

Separately, Duane sent a letter to Guerra Gamble, asking her to bring Paxton in for a hearing on his letter threatening legal action against hospitals that allow Cox to have an abortion.

“The repeated misrepresentations of the Court’s [order], coupled with explicit threats of criminal and civil enforcement and penalties, serve only to cow the hospitals from providing Ms. Cox with the healthcare that she desperately needs,” Duane wrote. “Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court hold a hearing so Defendant Paxton can explain to Your Honor why he should not be sanctioned.”

Texas Congresswoman Veronica Escobar, on behalf of President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign, condemned Paxton’s comments Friday.

“A Texas woman was just forced to beg for life-saving health care in court and now any doctor who provides her the care she urgently needs is being threatened with punishment including a lifetime prison sentence,” Escobar said in a statement. “This story is shocking, it’s horrifying, and it’s heartbreaking.”

William Melhado contributed to this story.

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

Eleanor Klibanoff is the women’s health reporter, based in Austin, where she covers abortion, maternal health care, gender-based violence and LGBTQ issues, among other topics. She started with the Tribune in 2021, and was previously with the Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting in Louisville, where she reported, produced and hosted the Peabody-nominated podcast, “Dig.”

Eleanor has worked at public radio stations in Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Missouri, as well as NPR, and her work has aired on “All Things Considered,” “Morning Edition” and “Here & Now.” She is conversational in Spanish. Eleanor was born in Philadelphia and raised in Atlanta, and attended The George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

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

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

Quality journalism doesn’t come free

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

Donation Link Here: (Link)

LOS ANGELES – Researchers at The Williams Institute of The University of California, Los Angeles School of Law recently released their findings from the data contained in the 2020-2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

In the study they discovered Kentucky has the second highest percentage of adults that identify as LGBTQ+ in the nation, 10.5%, with the highest percentage reported in the District of Columbia,14.3%.

The Williams Institute, which conducts independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, found that in terms of the number of adults identifying as LGBTQ — 359,500 in Kentucky — the commonwealth ranks No. 13.

“Combining 2020-2021 BRFSS data, we estimate that 5.6% of U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ,” according to the study. “Further, we estimate that there are almost 14.1 million (14,090,400) LGBTQ adults in the U.S.”

The study identified estimates of percentages and numbers of adults who identify as LGBTQ by age group in the country.

• 18 to 24-year-olds: 15.4% (4,707,800)
• 25 to 34-year-olds: 9.2% (4,130,900)
• 35 to 49-year-olds: 4.2% (2,567,400)
• 50 to 64-year-olds: 2.8% (1,752,800)
• 65 years and older: 1.8% (931,400)

The study also divided the country by region and gave an estimate of percentages and numbers of adults in the group of states in each one — Kentucky is in the South region.

• Northeast: 18.3% (2,574,900)
• Midwest: 20.6% (2,902,700)
• South: 36.9% (5,203,200)
• West: 24.2% (3,406,600)

STATES	PERCENT OF LGBTQ ADULTS	NUMBER OF LGBTQ ADULTS
United States	5.60%	14,090,400
Alabama	4.6%	173,000
Alaska	5.9%	32,600
Arizona	5.9%	317,200
Arkansas	5.3%	121,900
California	5.1%	1,549,600
Colorado	6.8%	294,500
Connecticut	6.0%	170,500
Delaware	7.5%	56,600
District of Columbia	14.3%	81,400
Florida	5.4%	898,000
Georgia	5.1%	402,900
Hawaii	5.1%	56,900
Idaho	5.3%	68,100
Illinois	4.5%	446,600
Indiana	5.4%	277,100
Iowa	4.7%	113,600
Kansas	5.9%	129,800
Kentucky	10.5%	359,500
Louisiana	5.7%	202,600
Maine	6.5%	69,900
Maryland	5.4%	252,700
Massachusetts	6.5%	356,200
Michigan	5.5%	428,400
Minnesota	6.3%	267,600
Mississippi	4.1%	93,300
Missouri	6.0%	282,000
Montana	5.1%	41,800
Nebraska	5.5%	78,700
Nevada	6.6%	150,100
New Hampshire	7.2%	78,400
New Jersey	5.3%	367,300
New Mexico	5.5%	87,600
New York	5.5%	853,600
North Carolina	4.4%	353,100
North Dakota	4.9%	28,400
Ohio	6.2%	557,600
Oklahoma	5.5%	164,600
Oregon	7.8%	253,300
Pennsylvania	5.8%	586,500
Rhode Island	6.5%	54,800
South Carolina	4.9%	192,800
South Dakota	5.3%	34,500
Tennessee	6.3%	328,900
Texas	5.1%	1,071,300
Utah	6.1%	133,000
Vermont	7.4%	37,600
Virginia	5.9%	390,700
Washington	6.9%	398,700
West Virginia	4.1%	60,000
Wisconsin	5.7%	258,400
Wyoming	5.9%	26,300

The top 10 states plus the District of Columbia by percent of LGBTQ adults

RANK	STATE	PERCENT OF LGBT ADULTS
1	D.C.	14.3%
2	Kentucky	10.5%
3	Oregon	7.8%
4	Delaware	7.5%
5	Vermont	7.4%
6	New Hampshire	7.2%
7	Washington	6.9%
8	Colorado	6.8%
9	Nevada	6.6%
10	Massachusetts	6.5%
10	Maine	6.5%
10	Rhode Island	6.5%

Read the full study here: (Link)

WASHINGTON – Anti-LGBTQ provisions submitted by House Republicans to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) have been removed from the defense spending bill, triggering outrage from conservative lawmakers and praise from LGBTQ groups.

The conference version of the bill was released on Thursday.

This week saw the revocation of two measures targeting gender affirming care along with the book ban and drag ban. Language stipulating the list of approved flags that can be flown at military bases was amended such that more flags can be added on a discretionary basis.

“MAGA members of Congress tried to hijack the National Defense Authorization Act to advance their anti-LGBTQ+ agenda, attempting to riddle it with discriminatory riders,” Human Rights Campaign National Press Secretary Brandon Wolf said in a statement to the Washington Blade.

His statement continued, “They failed and equality won. Anti-LGBTQ+ provisions, including efforts to restrict access to gender affirming care, were rejected. The anti-LGBTQ+ agenda continues to be deeply unpopular across the country and a failing political strategy.”

Wolf thanked U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and U.S. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) for “defending equality and defeating attacks on the community.”

Pledging to vote “no” on the bill, Republican U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) said in a post on X, “I was appointed to the NDAA conference committee but NEVER got to work on the final version of the NDAA bc they made the deal behind closed doors and here are the horrible results.”

I was appointed to the NDAA conference committee but NEVER got to work on the final version of the NDAA bc they made the deal behind closed doors and here are the horrible results 👇

I’m voting NO!!! pic.twitter.com/jnmTHCgzNG

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) December 8, 2023

WASHINGTON – A bicameral bill introduced on Wednesday by U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), along with U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), would require financial institutions to collect data on access to credit and capital by LGBTQ+ owned businesses.

The legislation would thereby allow regulators to better identify and potentially remedy instances of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in these areas.

CNBC reported in June that a study by the Movement Advancement Project found LGBTQ+-owned businesses encountered more rejections than non-LGBTQ+-owned businesses that applied for funding, amid a tightening of lending standards across the board.

Specifically, the bill would “clarify that Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) requires financial institutions to collect the self-identified sexual orientation and gender identity of the principal owners of small businesses, in addition to their sex, race, and ethnicity,” according to a press release by Padilla’s office.

The California senator said “With anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and hate crimes on the rise, LGBTQ+ business owners continue to face persistent and unjust barriers to financial success,” adding that “LGBTQ+-owned small businesses are a cornerstone of local economies, and they deserve equitable resources to help them grow and thrive.”

Padilla’s press release notes the legislation “would also add a definition for businesses owned by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex individuals to the ECOA statute.”

Additionally, “The legislation also includes a Sense of Congress confirming that sexual orientation and gender identity are already covered under the ECOA (including the current data collection requirements)” while clarifying “that the sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity of the principal owners of a business should be collected as three separate forms of information.”

The Congressional Equality Caucus, Ali Forney Center, Center for American Progress, Destination Tomorrow, Drag Out The Vote, Human Rights Campaign, Immigration Equality Action Fund, InterAct, and New Pride Agenda have backed the bill.

By Erin Reed | COLUMBUS, Ohio – Yesterday, Ohio held a hearing for House Bill 68, a bill that would ban gender-affirming care for trans youth and force those already on care to medically detransition.

The hearing was primarily for opponents of the bill—a prior proponent hearing had already happened a week earlier. Testimony stretched on for nearly eight hours, with those submitting testimony against the bill outnumbering supporters 7:1. Testimony came from a wide variety of professionals and those with lived experience, including transgender kids, their doctors, parents, educators, social workers, and more.

Perhaps the strongest testimony of the afternoon, though, came when presidents and leaders representing some of the top hospitals in the United States stepped forward and unequivocally condemned the bill, stating that it would have drastic negative health consequences for trans youth in their care.

At the beginning of the hearing, three leaders in US medical care testified together: Nick Lashutka, President of the Ohio Children’s Hospitals Association serving over 2,600,000 children in the region; Dr. Steve Davis, President of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, the US News #1 ranked children’s hospital in the United States; and Dr. Shefali Mahesh, who represented Akron Children’s Hospital.

All of them delivered extremely strong testimony, dispelling myths about trans care. They testified that bans on care would harm an already extremely vulnerable population and that gender-affirming care was the best option for the few trans youth who do ultimately get cleared for medical transition.

Perhaps the strongest moment of the night was when Dr. Davis looked at the committee and pleaded, “You trust us on every other condition. Please, trust us on this one.”

Watch their incredible testimony here:

When Lashutka spoke, he testified that trans care at Ohio Children’s Hospitals is cautious and measured. He stated that in Ohio Children’s Hospitals, patients see multidisciplinary teams and often have long waiting periods before they obtain gender-affirming care.

He also noted that the percentage of youth obtaining gender-affirming care in Ohio is only 0.0003%, a tiny fraction not just of youth in Ohio, but also of trans youth in Ohio. He likewise dispelled the idea that teens are getting care without their parents’ knowing: “All treatment requires parental consent.”

Lashutka, addressing the idea that trans youth are too easily given medical treatments, stated that care is only given to patients meeting rigorous requirements: “Individuals diagnosed with this condition are insistent, consistent, and persistent for a lengthy period of time. The notion that kids declare a feeling and are immediately prescribed at one of our clinics is not true.”

Speaking next was Dr. Davis, who testified not just as the president of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, but as a pediatric critical care physician with 35 years of clinical care experience. He stated, when discussing the gender-affirming care ban and its potential profound negative mental health effects on trans youth, “the most harrowing part of my job is informing parents that their child died, especially when their death was from a preventable suicide.”

He then stated that the gender-affirming care provided by his hospital is done only after “comprehensive assessments, rigorous mental health evaluations, and screening for comorbidities.” He rebuked the idea that hormone therapy in trans youth is done without thorough evaluation, stating that the average time of the evaluation period is “10-12 months.”

Lastly, he stated that there is no financial incentive to providing this care and that they do not make money on it – a reasonable claim given that hormone therapy tends to be relatively inexpensive, and that trans youth are not provided surgery in the Ohio Children’s Hospital system. He closed, stating, “You trust us on every other condition. Please, trust us on this one.”

Dr. Mahesh testified to another aspect of the bill. She stated that increasingly, doctors are having to provide care for patients who have been purchasing hormones off the internet. She indicated that, should a bill like this pass, black and gray market medication might become more common, and that patients would be driven to taking care into their own hands rather than trusting their doctors to administer their care.

Though opposing the bill in its entirety, Lashutka recommended four amendments should the bill pass. First, those already receiving care should be grandfathered in. Second, the “aiding and abetting” clause barring mental health doctors from referrals should be stricken. Third, allowing physicians to provide all information around care, which the bill bars.

Lastly, adding an exception for trans youth who show extreme dysphoria to get care. This last exception was passed in West Virginia’s ban on care.

Though hospital administrators have testified in other hearings in the past, this particular panel of healthcare leaders is perhaps one of the strongest seen in any hearing across the United States. The hospitals they represent and the number of patients they serve could give pause even to the most ardent supporters of the bill.

They are also enormously respected voices for all pediatric care in Ohio and even nationwide – many of the legislators in Ohio likely have children who went to these hospitals, and many of the legislators themselves likely did when they were younger. Their presence, along with the massive showing in opposition to the bill, may have made an impact; while some thought the bill would receive a vote immediately after the hearing, those plans appeared to be scrapped.

The hearing adjourned without a vote, and advocates for trans youth care left knowing they had given their all.

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

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

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

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

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

By Phoebe Petrovic / Wisconsin Watch | MADISON, Wi. – Transgender youth will continue to have access to gender-affirming care in Wisconsin after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, as promised, vetoed a Republican bill that would have banned medical transition for those under 18.

“This was obviously a bill that was begging for a veto … (and) messing with people’s lives,” he said at a closed ceremony on Wednesday morning, surrounded by 80 opponents of the bill including trans youth, health care providers and LGBTQ+ advocates — the “biggest veto” crowd he said he’d ever seen.

Afterward, Evers handed his veto pen to a young trans person with a hat crocheted in the blue, pink and white of the trans flag.

“This type of legislation, and the rhetoric beget by pursuing it, harms LGBTQ people and kids’ mental health, emboldens anti-LGBTQ hate and violence and threatens the safety and dignity of LGBTQ Wisconsinites,” read his veto message.

Evers joins five other governors in the nation who have rejected bills banning gender-affirming care for trans youth. Legislatures overrode those vetoes in all but one, Kansas. Wisconsin Republicans, just two Assembly members short of a supermajority, could override the veto later this session if even three Assembly Democrats are absent.

In an exclusive interview, Evers told Wisconsin Watch while he was confident the veto would survive, “we’re not gonna take anything for granted.” He said the bill shows the “real high” stakes of elections, made more so by gerrymandered political maps that have given Republicans an outsized advantage in the Legislature. The maps are being challenged before a newly liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court.

“At the end of the day we’ll be in a better position there,” Evers said. “In the meantime, we’ll keep fighting.”

Gender-affirming care is best-practice, doctor-prescribed treatment endorsed by every major medical association in the United States. Peer-reviewed research has shown that social transition and medical care, such as puberty blockers and hormones targeted by the bill, improve the lives of those with gender dysphoria.

About 0.5% of adults and 1.4% of youth ages 13 to 17 in the United States are transgender, according to The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a leading researcher for LGBTQ+ people.

In Wisconsin transgender care for children is prescribed with the involvement of medical professionals and parents. It does not involve the use of medication until puberty and does not involve surgery in most cases until adulthood.

Yet 22 states have outlawed medical or surgical transition care for transgender youth, with 19 states passing bills this year alone during a historic and unprecedented period of anti-transgender policymaking. Some take effect next year; others have been temporarily or permanently blocked by courts.

A coordinated conservative and Christian nationalist movement has fueled the deluge. Wisconsin’s ban, introduced by Rep. Scott Allen, R-Waukesha, mirrored model legislation from the right-wing Family Policy Alliance, which strives to conform all levels of government to a “biblical worldview.”

Wisconsin Watch documented the importance of  gender-affirming care for transgender youth in October, finding bans loom large for trans youth and their families.

“Rarely an appointment goes by where a family doesn’t ask about this: ‘If we started this care, will we be able to continue it?’ ” a UW Health doctor previously told Wisconsin Watch. The doctor’s name is being withheld because a colleague suffered sustained harassment and death threats after publicly discussing gender-affirming care. “I have seen firsthand that it has really impacted mental health.”

Evers sided with doctors in his veto message.

“I object to restricting physicians from providing evidence-based and medically appropriate care to their patients, restricting parents from making decisions with physicians to ensure their kids receive the health care they need and preventing patients from receiving that basic, lifesaving care,” Evers said.

A shared disinformation playbook has eased the passage of these bans across the country. In Wisconsin misinformation swirled around the bill, from an hours-long public hearing to debate on the Assembly floor.

For now, transgender youth will be able to access the care they need at the state’s two clinics, where social support is provided in early childhood and puberty blockers and hormones may be prescribed in adolescence.

“Especially important to me personally,” Evers added, “I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to the Legislature’s ongoing efforts to manufacture and perpetuate false, hateful and discriminatory anti-LGBTQ policies and rhetoric in our state.”

The nonprofit Wisconsin Watch (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with WPR, PBS Wisconsin, other news media and the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication. All works created, published, posted or disseminated by Wisconsin Watch do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

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

Phoebe Petrovic is an investigative reporter covering disinformation at Wisconsin Watch and a 2022-2023 Law & Justice Journalism Project fellow. As a Report for America corps member from 2019-2022, Petrovic reported, produced, and hosted “Open and Shut,” a podcast series co-published with Wisconsin Public Radio examining the power of prosecutors.

Petrovic previously worked at WPR as a Lee Ester News Fellow, “Reveal” from the Center for Investigative Reporting as an editorial intern and NPR’s “Here & Now” as a temporary producer. Her work has aired nationally on all of NPR’s flagship news magazines. She holds a bachelor’s degree in American Studies from Yale University.

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

The previous article was previously published by the Wisconsin Watch and is republished with permission.

Wisconsin Watch is a project of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (WCIJ Inc.) — a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

Wisconsin Watch is in the middle of its most important fundraiser of the year: NewsMatch. This year our goal is to raise $100,000. Meeting this ambitious goal will fuel our statehouse and political coverage in 2024.

Thank you for reading this article and building a more informed Wisconsin. Can we count on your support during this season of giving?

When you give today, your gift will be matched, doubling your impact on our nonprofit newsroom and the state of Wisconsin.

Link: Give + Get Matched