Politics
Vice-President & local leaders discuss reproductive rights & Prop 1
The Vice-President has brought together leaders from across the nation who are fighting to protect reproductive health care & abortion access
LOS ANGELES – Mayor Eric Garcetti opened an event Monday afternoon which was organized as a conversation about protecting reproductive rights and the need for passage of Proposition 1, a California Ballot Proposition and State Constitutional Amendment that, if approved by voters, would establish a Constitutional right to reproductive freedom in California.
The event, facilitated by Vice-President Kamala Harris at the Nate Holden Performing Arts Center in LA, included discussions and remarks from Los Angeles mayoral candidate Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA-37), Celinda Vázquez, Vice President of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA), Director Melanie Fontes Rainer, the Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Human Health & Services
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California’s Senate President pro Tempore State Senator Toni G. Atkins, were also in attendance.
Sen. Padilla highlighted California’s leadership in protecting a woman’s right to choose and Proposition 1, which will appear on the November ballot in California and would codify the right to abortion access in the state constitution.
Padilla also raised the alarm about the increasing number of Republican state legislatures working to claw back women’s reproductive rights and the need to act urgently to stop them by codifying the right to an abortion into federal law.
“Abortion is a fundamental right in America,” said Senator Padilla. “While in California, the right to an abortion is currently safe, the worst thing we could do is grow numb to this crisis. For years, Republicans in Congress and in state legislatures have worked to strip away the reproductive rights of women across the country—and in June they got their wish. That’s why we must continue to grow our Democratic majorities so we can prevent a national abortion ban. We won’t give up the fight to codify Roe, and protect once and for all the right to an abortion.”
Rep. Karen Bass introduced and welcomed Celinda Vázquez, Vice President of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, on stage. Bass then praised Harris’ leadership and welcomed Harris on stage. Bass and Harris hugged. Bass, Vázquez and Harris then sat down to discuss abortion.
The Vice President highlighted the administration’s efforts to preserve access to abortion and reproductive healthcare. HHS contacted pharmacies to describe “their legal requirement to administer medication as prescribed,” Harris said, and that DOJ has a task force to pursue “whatever litigation is appropriate.”
“This is about freedom and liberty,” Harris said. “22 days, there is an election, that is a fact. We need to hold on to what we have, and we need two more senators,” Harris said adding, “We’re going to have to protect these rights by having national legislation,” Harris said. “We need people in Congress to recognize that responsibility.”
The Vice-President has brought together leaders from across the nation who are on the frontlines fighting to protect reproductive health care and abortion access. Earlier this month, she traveled to Connecticut and Texas to participate in conversations with reproductive rights leaders, she chaired the Second Meeting of the Interagency Task Force on Reproductive Healthcare Access, and she convened student leaders at the White House.
Since May, she has held more than 20 convenings and met with 180+ state legislators from 18 states to discuss protecting reproductive rights. The Vice President has also convened health care providers, constitutional law experts, faith leaders, state attorneys general, disability rights leaders, higher education leaders, students, and advocates.
Proposition 1 will appear on the November 8 General Election Ballot for California Voters. It was authored by the President Pro Tempore of the California State Senate, Toni Atkins, D-San Diego and co-authored by the Speaker of the California State Assembly, Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood.
Proposition 1 is a direct response to the June 2022 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, ruling that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion.
Watch the conversation here:
Transcript: Remarks by Vice President Harris in a Conversation on Protecting Reproductive Rights
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: How was that? How was that for a welcome home?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It is good to be home. It’s good to be home.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Well, we love having you in L.A. Absolutely. So, why don’t we get right to it? This is an important moment in the time of our fight for rights. So, tell us what it is like for you to be championing this issue? How has it been? I read off all of the meetings, all of the state legislatures. You’re going around the country. What’s it feel like?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It’s a combination of feelings that I think we all have about this. And when I’m traveling the country, one of the feelings that I hear most is fear. It’s fear.
But I’ll tell you, you know, here’s how I think about it: You know, people have asked me, “Well, what has caused you to focus a large part of your work on…” — as you said — “…the health, safety, and well-being of women and children?”
And, as you know, I was raised by a mother who had two goals in her life: to raise her two children — my sister, Maya, and me — and to end breast cancer. She was a breast cancer researcher, a scientist.
And so, from my earliest days of life, I remember my mother being so passionate about women’s health and access to health, and it was always grounded, so much of her work, in the importance of women having dignity in the healthcare system — in the healthcare delivery system and — and having rights and having power over the decisions that were being made so that it would be theirs to make, whatever it was.
And that’s how I was raised. I mean, you know, I was raised hearing the phrase “mammary gland” all the time. It was — it was just a common word in our household.
And so, when I think about this issue and this fight right now, it’s an extension of that. And so, to your point, I have been traveling the country in so-called red states and so-called blue states, talking with leaders on the ground — in particular a lot of state-elected leaders, legislators — about what we can do collectively to build up support for what we need to do, which is to empower women and restore their rights on this issue.
But it’s — really, it’s — it was unthinkable, I think, for so many of us. We knew it might happen, but let — I mean, let’s just pause for a moment. The highest court in our land, the United States Supreme Court, just took a constitutional right that had been recognized from the people of America, from the women of America.
And if I may, I would like to put it in context to how I feel about this in the context of being Vice President. So, as Vice President, in the last a year and a half, I have, as of now — my staff has counted — I have now met directly or by phone with 100 world leaders, presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, kings. And here’s what I think we all know about what those experiences are like: The United States — we, as Americans — can walk in those rooms with a certain level of authority —
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: That’s right.
THE PRESIDENT: — chin up, shoulders back — to talk in those rooms about the importance of democracy, the importance of rule of law, the importance of human rights. And in that way, we have held ourselves out to be and have been considered a role model on these matters.
But what we, as role models, all know is that when you are role model, people watch what you do to see if it matches what you say.
And the point then is a realization that this issue is not only directly impacting the people of America, but when we think about autocratic governments around the world who can then look to their people and say, “Well, you want to hold up America and rights as an example of what we should do? Well, look at what they just did.” So, by extension, what just happened will invariably impact women around the world.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: That’s right.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: So, there’s a lot of fear. But also, as we all know, we know how to fight.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Oh, yeah.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Because when you know what you stand for, you know what to fight for. (Applause.)
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Celinda.
MS. VÁZQUEZ: We do know how to fight. So, what steps is the administration taking to protect reproductive rights?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: So, well — and, first, can I just say, it’s so good to be with the two of you on this stage? It’s so good to be home.
MS. VÁZQUEZ: So good.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Celinda, you have been such an extraordinary fighter. You and I’ve been in many of these rooms together in these past many, many months. And I cannot thank you enough for being on the ground and the courage that it takes for our frontline folks, like you, to do what you are doing. And to all of those who are here on the frontline, I applaud you. Let us applaud them. (Applause.)
Because around the country and here, it is not without risk that you do what you do.
To Madam Congresswoman — (laughter). It’s not a political event, I know. (Laughs.) You — you and I have worked together for so many years when I was AG and you were at the capitol — at the state capitol, and then in Washington, D.C.
You are a courageous, fearless fighter on so many of these issues. And, in particular, what you have done throughout your career to be a strong voice for women, for children, for all communities, for the coalition: I thank you. And it’s an honor to be on the stage with you as well. (Applause.)
And so, what we are doing as an administration is a number of things. Through the Health and Human Services agency, led by a Californian, Secretary Xavier Becerra — (applause) — we are — we’ve been actually sending out a number of things that are really intended to make sure that there’s clarity in the midst of the confusion.
And one of the things that HHS did that I think is very significant is sent out to pharmacies information about their legal requirement to administer medication as prescribed. And — and I also applaud that agency for also having announced that they will investigate where there are any violations of the rules of conduct on that issue.
The Department of Education has been extraordinary. Secretary Cardona has been doing some important work around making sure that that we protect students and their reproductive rights, including their ability to take leave from school for whatever reproductive healthcare they need, and make sure that there’s no discrimination in that regard.
The Department of Justice has been coordinating with a number of agencies as appropriate but has also set up, for example, a process of eliciting pro bono hours, because there are going to be so many folks who are on the ground doing the work who are not sure of the legal risks that they are taking in these various states.
They’ve also set up a task force, led by Vanita Gupta, who is a great civil rights lawyer, and they are pursuing whatever litigation is appropriate.
Also, through the Department of Justice, they’ve set up a hotline for providers, so there is an ability to report threats and things of that nature.
The FCC and the FTC are doing — the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission — are doing important work to, one, check with the biggest providers to see what their privacy policies are and their data retention policies are. And that’s extremely important.
I think I have a website here, but I’ll tell you that the — that they’ve also set up a number for people to issue complaints and to register complaints around privacy violations, which is a big issue, because, of course, there are an assortment of mobile apps that folks use to monitor their menstruation cycle. There are mobile apps that folks use to just get directions to go to a facility to get their healthcare, and we want to make sure that that information is not being violated.
So, that is the kind of work that’s happening through our administration.
The President has signed two executive orders that relate to making a very clear statement that we intend to protect and defend the right that people have for travel and for access to emergency healthcare.
The VA is doing great work, in terms of the number of women who are veterans, in ensuring that they will be able to have access to all of the care that they require — including the Department of Defense, because — think about it, if you’re a servicemember — and there are at least 300,000 women, I believe, who are in active service right now — you don’t have any choice where you’re deployed and could very well be deployed to a state where it’s been rendered illegal.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Right.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: And so, they’re working through what they can do to ensure that the servicemembers are not subject to — to those kinds of threats to their healthcare and their independence.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Well, you know, Madam Vice President, this is kind of on the same lines of that. I’m wondering what kind of stories you might be hearing from people.
You know, in another life, I worked in healthcare. I’ve worked in the emergency room and also in primary care. Every now and then, you hear a story in the news like a woman — a woman that has an ectopic pregnancy; or the 10-year-old girl; or a woman who is — if she carries the pregnancy to term, might not live. As you’ve gone around the country, are you hearing stories like that?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I am hearing those stories. And those are the stories that are the public stories. But as you and I know, what we’re hearing about only is just a fraction of what’s actually happening. Many of you know: As a former prosecutor, the bulk of my career as a prosecutor, I was focused on violent — crimes of violence against women and children, and, in particular, I specialized in child sexual assault cases.
The vast majority of those cases are not reported. And the idea that laws would be passed, as it relates to people who have endured and survived such violation and violence, and to then say to them, “And you will also not have autonomy over your body on this issue” — it’s immoral. It’s immoral.
As a former prosecutor having handled those cases, I can tell you the vast majority of those cases are not reported for a variety of reasons that have to do with the nature of it all, including it might be about a family member, it might be about someone who otherwise could harm that person or their family.
And what’s happening in these states on that and so many other related issues is abhorent: punishing women, criminalizing healthcare providers. In fact, I’m going to — I don’t know if everybody in the audience can see this.
(The Vice President holds up a map.)
This is a map of the United States. So, you don’t need to see — you don’t need to read the words to see the point that I’m going to make.
So, you see all the different colors. So, one of the colors on this map is — represents the states in which abortion is banned from conception with no exceptions. One color is abortion banned from conception with an exception for rape, but not incest. Another, banned from conception with exceptions for rape and incest. There’s a 6-week ban on here, a 15-week ban, an 18-week ban. You get the point.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Not incest?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Absolute —
MS. VÁZQUEZ: No.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: But absolute confusion —
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Yeah. That’s (inaudible).
THE VICE PRESIDENT: — which also creates an environment that is ripe for misinformation, disinformation, and predatory practices.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Yeah.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: So, in addition to what I’m seeing around the country, there’s fear. There’s also just absolute and utter confusion about what are — for any individual: What are my rights? And that is something that, we as opinion leaders, of which there are so many here, we have to continue to use our voice and our platform in a way that informs people about their rights with an — with a full appreciation that it’s so confusing they may not be aware.
MS. VÁZQUEZ: So, you’ve touched upon this, but how else do you see the fight for reproductive freedom impacting the everyday lives of Americans?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: (The Vice President reaches for the map.)
MS. VÁZQUEZ: Right, so —
THE VICE PRESIDENT: (Laughs.) So, okay.
MS. VÁZQUEZ: — just a little expansion.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I love Venn diagrams. Okay? (Laughs.)
MS. VÁZQUEZ: Just a little expansion.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I really do. I love Venn diagrams — you know, the three circles — sometimes there are more.
So I asked my team, “Do — do me a Venn diagram on — from which states are we seeing attacks on reproductive healthcare, voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights.” You would not be surprised to know that there is a significant overlap. Right?
So that’s what — so when we talk about who’s being impacted, well, you know, if you read the Dobbs decision — or you don’t need to, I’ll just tell you — Clarence Thomas said the quiet part out loud: They’re coming for the right to conception, the right to marry the person you love.
But I do see in, then, this moment, another thing in that Venn diagram, which is the reminder about the importance of coalition building, of bringing together all those folks who have been fighting forever on reproductive healthcare and maternal mortality, something that Karen Bass has been a leader on, bringing together the folks that have been fighting forever on voting rights, bringing together all the folks who — who are responsible for the victory on marriage — but we still have so much more work to do — and building our coalition.
Because here’s the thing: There was a movement that was started generations ago that culminated in Roe v. Wade. We are now the ones that are responsible for picking up that movement. And as with any movement in our country that has been about progress and the expansion of rights, one of the most productive ingredients of those movements has been the coalition and our commitment to building that coalition and growing it, for a number of reasons, one is that we all have so much more in common than what separates us. But the other is, almost everyone should understand what rights of theirs are subject to and now exposed to attack.
And on this point — my final point on this would be, we need to take back the flag on this. Because this is absolutely about freedom and liberty.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Yes.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: This is about freedom and liberty, which are foundational notions for the existence of our country. These are founding principles that we, as Americans, hold dear: freedom and liberty. And that means all of us are susceptible.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: And for freedom and liberty, we need to hold on to the House and the Senate, I’m just saying. (Applause.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: So, it’s not a political event, but that doesn’t mean we don’t speak truth. (Laughter.)
So, in fact, so, 22 days, there’s an election.
REPSENTATIVE BASS: Yes.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That’s a — that’s a fact. It is a fact that there is a bill in Congress that the congressmember was a part of leading — the Women’s Health Protection Act — which would codify, which means put into law, the protections of Roe v. Wade.
The Court took it away; Congress can put it back.
The President of the United States — our President, Joe Biden, has said he will not let this thing called the “filibuster” get in the way of signing that law. All of those are facts.
It is also the fact that, in order for that bill to get to the President’s desk so he can sign it into law, we need two more senators. We need to hold on to what we have, and we need two more senators. That is a fact.
It is also fact, by the way, that in that same context, the President has said he will sign into law the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. (Applause.)
Two more senators.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: I could think of two. (Laughter.)
You know, along with this, in terms of, you know, understanding that the Dobbs decision was about the right to privacy and, Madam Vice President, you know, I’m not a lawyer, but I do wonder, like: How far could they go?
I mean, you know, Jim Crow laws? I mean, could business say, “Well, it’s my right to only allow certain people to come in”? How far — what are the implications?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I mean, I think you should — that everything that you can imagine, you should assume is possible.
It was unimaginable that the court of Thurgood Marshall would do what this court just did.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Right. Right.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: And — and that’s, again, why I think that the point that you made about, you know, who is vulnerable to this moment: Everyone is vulnerable to this moment.
And we just — we have to understand that, I think, in so many ways, we are living in unsettled times.
You think about it on the global stage, there is a war in Europe. You know, for 70 years, there was an assumption that, in spite of the differences among nations, that there was still certain international rules and norms, including the importance of sovereignty and territorial integrity. But with Russia’s unprovoked aggression in Ukraine, we see that we can’t necessarily take that for granted.
Unsettled times. Unsettled times.
The Voting Rights Act, guided by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby v. Holder, a decision they rendered in 2013, and then you look at what happened in 2020, which is historic numbers of people voted in the midst of a pandemic, including an historic number of young voters, and almost immediately thereafter — because that scared people —
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Right. (Laughter.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: — there are children here — they started passing laws making it illegal to give people food and water if they’ve been standing in line for hours to vote; passing laws making it intentionally more difficult for people to vote. Unsettled times.
We thought the issue of voting rights had been settled.
Unsettled times. In this year of our Lord 2022, taking away a woman’s ability to make decisions about her own body.
So, I think we have to listen to the words of Coretta Scott King. You’ve heard me paraphrase her so many times on this. She famously said: The fight for civil rights — which is the fight for justice, it’s the fight for equality, fight for freedom — the fight for civil rights must be fought and won with each generation.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Yes.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Because let’s always remember that these rights will not be permanent if we are not prepared to be vigilant.
And in that way, this is so much about a democracy. I think about democracy in this regard. I think — I think of democracy as there’s a duality to it, in that, when it is intact, it is strong in terms of what it does to create a system that preserves and fights for rights, civil rights, human rights. So, there’s an aspect to it that is about strength in terms of what it can do to lift people up.
On the other hand, it’s very fragile. It’s extremely fragile. It will only be as strong as our willingness to fight for it. And so, fight we will.
MS. VÁZQUEZ: You have touched upon many of these topics, but how are you seeing the intersection of attacks on — well, no, I think we already — we already did that.
But we have an expert here — our congresswoman worked on the floor — a maternal morbidity expert, and all of the things. What — what is the administration doing to address the maternal mortality crisis, which, we know, we you’ve done a lot of work previously?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Celinda. Maternal mortality — and, again, I recognize and thank Karen Bass for her work as a leader on this for so many years.
In America today, Black women are three times more likely to die in connection with childbirth. Native women, twice as likely. Rural women, one and a half times likely. And as it relates to, for example, the experience of Black women, it is unrelated to their educational level or their socioeconomic level. It is very clear it literally has to do with the fact that when she walks into that clinic or that doctor’s office or that emergency room, she is not taken as seriously.
And so, there is a lot of work that needs to happen that also understands and appreciates that, for so many of these women — for example, women in rural America — are living in the midst of healthcare deserts. There’s no hospitals. I — I have somebody that’s very close to me whose relative just died, just weeks ago, in connecti- — during childbirth, and the baby died, in rural America. Because there was nowhere, where she lived, to get her the kind of care that the complication required. Right?
So, this is a big issue. But the idea that in this country, at this time, it is still such an issue of the proportion.
And so, there are a number of things. One, when I was in the Senate, we had a bill that would address the bias in the healthcare delivery system and require training of healthcare providers — of all types of healthcare providers. And I wrote into it, in particular, that the trainers would include doulas, who — (applause) — yes — who provide some of the best care and could teach a few things to others.
We are doing the work as an administration of — you know, I’m very proud of this — we have lifted this issue up to the stage of the White House, actually convened a group of leaders to come to the White House to present on this issue.
We have done the work of also extending in states Medicaid coverage and encouraging, in extension — can you believe? Okay, so Medicaid — (applause) — Medicaid covers, but we’re changing this — only two months of postpartum care. Two months.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: You better not have a problem.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: You just gave birth to a human being.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Right?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: So, there is — so we’re extending it to 12 months — right? —
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Excellent. That’s great.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: — for all that that requires and it requires, you know, the details of pelvic examinations. It requires the details of whatever kind of healthcare that might be, you know, in any level of the body. Healthcare — for mental healthcare, physical.
And so, this is some of the work we are doing, and — and it’s a good start. There’s more work to be done, also recognizing that the disparities exist based on also lack of access to transportation, lack of access to all types of healthcare, in addition to maternal healthcare. Because there is so much of this that also can be attributed to unique stressors, right?
Take, for example, the fact that poverty is trauma inducing. And what that might mean, in terms of the unique stressors that low-income women are facing that can have an impact on their pregnancy.
And so, all of this work is being done by our administration in conjunction with the Congress. We have the “Momnibus” — we called it the “Momnibus.” An omnibus bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Yes. Yes, that’s great.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: And we —
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: That was a great effort. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus that led that effort.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Exactly.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: You know, when you were talking about maternal mortality, especially amongst Black women, when Beyoncé and Serena Williams get into trouble —
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Right?
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: — when they’re in the delivery room, we know this is a huge problem.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That’s exactly right.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: The idea that you have high rates of maternal death in the United States of America is an outrage in and of itself.
How about a few words on contraception, in terms of what the administration has done?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we have done some good work in terms of making clear that there is a right to contraception.
But, you know, I mean, to your point about what’s at risk, they pulled it back, but you saw what happened with the University Idaho — right? — which was — which was the issue was that the university — they pulled it back, so it’s no longer the case — but had essentially said that they would not provide contraception at the university.
And you mentioned earlier that the convenings that I’ve been doing, one of them was with university presidents. And I brought them in because, of course, they’re — the 18- through 24-year-old population is most at risk on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Right. That’s right.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: And I brought them in and asked them, “Well, what’s your plan?”
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: (Laughs.) And they said?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: And it was a good and productive meeting.
MS. VÁZQUEZ: What did they say?
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: (Inaudible.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It was a (inaudible) meeting.
But, you know, for example, “What’s the plan?” And I’ve just recently convened a bunch of extraordinary college student leaders, just in the White House, in my office, last week. Just brilliant. They’re brilliant. They’re so good. Like, the future of our country is so bright if they’re leading. And — and — (applause) — yes.
And so, they — but we were talking about — for example, universities, colleges, community colleges, any, you know, educational institutions for educating after high school — what are they doing about privacy protocols as it relates to their health clinics?
What are they doing as it relates to absenteeism, because they may be in a state where she has to go to another state to receive her abortion care?
What are they doing in terms of — many universities, for example, will have — this might not be the right word — but bereavement funds, right? So if a student has a death in the family and they can’t afford the transportation, that there’ll be assistance with that.
Well — well, maybe we should be considering the fact that there are going to be students who can’t afford to leave the state and pay tuition and pay for books and pay for dorms, right? And how are they thinking about that approach?
And so those issues have come up. In connection also has been the issue of contraception and what are they doing to ensure that they are complying with the law but, at the same time, doing everything they can to fulfill a right that their students have.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Well, Madam Vice President, I know you have so many places to go. We would love to keep you here all day. So we want you to come back again soon.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Of course.
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: But maybe you can share some final thoughts. Final thoughts about today, where you’re going, where you been.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, a few things. You know, one of the — you know, the additional facts — if we don’t have the issue in California, we have an — we have extraordinary members of Congress. Mayor Garcetti is here. Rob Bonta, the Attorney General. Alex Padilla, the senator. Toni Atkins, who convened a bunch of state legislators for a previous meeting that I did in San Francisco.
But elections matter on this one, as with everything else. When I’m traveling the country, I remind folks: Elections matter in terms of who your local prosecutor is. If you’re in a state that has criminalized this, that matters.
Who your governor is matters. Governor Newsom has done an extraordinary job on this. Because it’s going to be about whether, depending on the composition of their legislature, do they need to veto stuff that would be bad and restricting rights, or are they going to sign legislation that is about preserving and expanding rights where they’ve been taken away in particular.
And so, 22 days. And the reality of it is that we’re going to have to protect these rights ultimately by having national legislation.
And there’s only one path to getting there. There’s only so much that the executive branch can do on this. We have three coequal branches of government. The Court has acted, and now we need Congress to act. And so we need people in Congress to recognize that responsibility.
So I’d urge everyone to just remember that and to talk with your friends and your neighbors, in particular in states where these rights are being attacked, and to remind them.
And then my last point would be just to repeat: I think the coalition-building piece on this is so extraordinarily important. You know, this is an intergenerational movement. This is a movement among so many people who are allies, who are — who are in this together for so many reasons.
So let’s just stay committed to it all and know that this moment was meant for those of us who are here to recognize we cannot afford to throw up our hands on this; we got to roll up our sleeves.
Thank you all. (Applause.)
REPRESENTATIVE BASS: Roll up our sleeves! Thank you. Thank you so much. It’s an honor to have you here. Thank you.
MS. VÁZQUEZ: Gracias, Madam Vice President.
White House
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
The Blade’s WH correspondent Joe Reberkenny recounts his night at the WHCD after a shooter attempted to gain entry.
It started as any White House Correspondents’ Dinner is supposed to go—I assume. I’ve never been to one before this, but based on other events I’ve attended at the Hilton, including an HRC gala, it all seemed fairly normal.
There was a lot of traffic. Police had blocked off streets encompassing a large portion of Adams Morgan—particularly around the hotel. The president was making his first appearance after boycotting the event during his first term, so there was a sense of anticipation. It took me about 45 minutes to go just under a mile from my apartment to about three blocks from the hotel in my Uber. I waited until the last possible second before I felt like I was going to be late—6:30—to get out of the car, because it was raining and I was wearing my green tux.
I walked up to a group of people checking tickets at the base of the hotel. They seemed to just be glancing at the tiny, index-card-sized tickets rather than conducting any kind of full security screening outside. As I walked from that first checkpoint to the drive-around drop-off area, I joined what was essentially one long line for the red carpet. It eventually split into people who wanted photos and those who didn’t—but again, there was no real need to show anything beyond that small ticket upon entering, and even that wasn’t being checked closely.
A light went off in my head; I felt that, given the speed at which security was checking tickets, they couldn’t fully see the foil logo and tiny table numbers from that distance. I remember thinking that if I had a similarly sized piece of paper, I could have gotten through up to that point.
I also noticed there was no real security checkpoint or metal detectors upon initially entering the hotel grounds—unlike what I had seen at the HRC gala the year before.
I waited about 35 minutes in line in the car drop-off area—without cars, since it had been repurposed to corral press and their guests before entering the building and heading onto the red carpet. I took my photo, then went up the escalator to meet my date, Jacob Bernard from Democracy Forward. They wouldn’t let him onto the red carpet without his ticket, so I gave him his, which I had been holding. He was already inside the venue despite not having his ticket on him and had been at one of the pre-parties.
That also struck me as odd—that you could access a pre-dinner party without a ticket or going through any visible security.
After I found him, we took a photo together at a step-and-repeat past the main red carpet area around 7:45. Oddly enough, a group of my friends—gays who I regularly see on the dance floors of the gay bars of Washington, who work in various government and media-adjacent fields—found me, and we took pictures together. None were White House correspondents or held a “hard pass” to the White House (security credentials that allow entry into the White House complex).
Another light went off in my head that indicated party crashers probably shouldn’t be getting inside to an event that is supposed to be one of the most secure rooms in the country.
After the photos, I could see groups of people being moved from pre-party spaces in various meeting rooms on other floors and directed toward the main floor where the red carpet had been.
My guest and I went back up to the main floor and walked through a small security checkpoint that included only a handful of metal detectors. From there, I went down the stairs from the lobby into the International Ballroom, where we took our seats at Table 200. I talked to a few people I knew—very traditional pre-event chit-chat. The vibes felt good. It was my first time attending, and I was genuinely excited.
Around 8:15, the Marine Corps Band played and “Commandant’s Four” color guard presented the flags. We were then told to take our seats.
They introduced the head table—the president, first lady, vice president, and members of the White House Correspondents’ Association board. Weijia Jiang, senior White House correspondent for CBS News and president of the WHCA, gave a brief speech, essentially saying we would eat first and then move into the main program, which was supposed to feature mentalist Oz Pearlman.
At this point my table, 200 which included members of the Wall Street Journal, the Blade, and a European outlet all started eating. About 15 minutes later, Washington Hilton staff began clearing plates and preparing to bring out the next course.
As they cleared the plates, I heard four loud bangs.
I saw hotel employees immediately start ducking. They seemed to understand the gravity of the situation much faster than most attendees, including myself. At first, it sounded like a tray might have fallen over (but I later found out that wasn’t the case).
After about 30 seconds of watching some people duck, others look around in confusion, and some continue eating and drinking, I got down. I kneeled with my chair in front of me as a kind of barrier. Being at Table 200, I felt somewhat removed from where the actual incident occurred.
Then I saw the president being whisked away quickly by Secret Service, along with the first lady and others at the head table.
My reporter instincts kicked in. I grabbed my phone and started filming. I saw SWAT team members rush into the ballroom and onto the stage, clearing the area. I captured a video of people looking around, confused about what had just happened.
A few minutes later, the room was told by the WHCA president to hold on—that they would provide more information and guidance on what would happen next. There was some indication that they might try to continue the event despite what had occurred.
Everyone started frantically checking X to see if any major outlets were reporting. I was receiving texts from family, friends, and colleagues about the rapidly unfolding situation.
I walked to the bathroom—twice, technically. I couldn’t find it initially because it was hidden behind black curtains. (Later, those curtains were removed, and the men’s room was in clearer view.)
During the first walk to the bathroom, I called my editor to tell him what was happening. He instructed me to start sending copy to another editor, who would get it online. The ballroom had almost no service—it’s in the basement of a 12-story hotel—so it was a challenge. I utilized SMS fallback (since iMessage wasn’t working) to send updates.
I returned to the table, where people were still hovering—calling editors, scrolling, texting, sending photos and copy. I was already drafting my story and sending it in chunks, adding details as I gathered more information.
I walked my guest toward the bathroom again, which was on the opposite side of the ballroom from our table, so I had to cross what felt like a sea of journalists, PR officials, guests, and others on their phones, talking and scrolling. My guest pointed out that the press pool was being held in an alcove away from the ballroom doors and escalator exit—not in the ballroom with everyone else.
“Alive” by the Bee Gees was playing over the speakers in the bathroom, which felt a little too on the nose.
On my way out, I heard someone speaking over a microphone and rushed to the ballroom entrance. WHCA President Weijia Jiang was speaking. She announced that the event was over and the space was being evacuated.
She also said that President Trump would hold a press conference at the White House in about 25 minutes.
That’s when I knew it was a race against the clock.
I called my editor a second time to update him and asked if I should head to the briefing (knowing the answer would be yes). He confirmed.
Then the crowd began to move. People grabbed purses, bottles—some left belongings behind. Even though it was technically becoming a crime scene, no one was actively forcing us out. It felt more like a collective understanding: It was time to go.
I texted my guest: “OK, I have to go to the White House. I’m so sorry to leave you.”
I made my way with the sea of people toward the one exit we were allowed to use and zipped between women in fancy gowns and men looking like penguins.
I put on my hard press pass, opened the Capital Bikeshare app, reserved the closest e-bike, and headed out.
I walked up Columbia Road to 20th and Wyoming, grabbed the bike, and rode down Wyoming, then 18th, cut over to U Street, and went straight down 16th to the White House. That ride was exhilarating. I also filmed an Instagram Reel updating my followers on what was going on. I could see tourists and D.C. residents alike looking at me from their cars and the sidewalk, obviously confused as to why a man dressed in a tux had hopped on a bike.
I got off the bike where 16th Street meets Lafayette Square and darted toward the first White House security checkpoint, where they were verifying press credentials. Luckily, I had mine. After that, it turned into a mad dash. Everyone who made it through started moving quickly.
The sound of heels on what I think was cobblestone—or maybe brick—sticks with me. My own shoes were clacking as I ran toward the White House alongside other journalists in heels and dress shoes.
At the Secret Service checkpoint, there was a separate line for hard pass holders. Having my hard pass let me skip much of the impeccably dressed line of journalists who didn’t think to bring their hard pass with them.
It was probably the most exquisitely dressed press crowd I’ve ever seen—tuxedos, gowns, full makeup. It felt like something out of “The Hunger Games.”
I went through security, put my belongings through the metal detector, entered my code, grabbed my things, and ran to the briefing room.

State Department
State Department implements anti-trans bathroom policy
Memo notes directive corresponds with White House executive order
The State Department on April 20 announced employees cannot use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.
The Daily Signal, a conservative news website, reported the State Department announced the new policy in a memo titled “Updates Regarding Biological Sex and Intimate Spaces, Including Restrooms.”
The State Department has not responded to the Los Angeles Blade’s request for comment on the directive.
“The administration affirms that there are two sexes — male and female — and that federal facilities should operate on this objective and longstanding basis to ensure consistency, privacy, and safety in shared spaces,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggot told the Daily Signal. “In line with President Trump’s executive order this provides clear, uniform guidance to the department by grounding policy in biological sex as determined at birth.”
President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. The sweeping directive also ordered federal government agencies to “effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.”
The Daily Signal notes the new State Department policy “does not prohibit single-occupancy restrooms.”
Cuba
Trans parent charged with kidnapping, allegedly fled to Cuba with child
Cuban authorities helped locate Rose Inessa-Ethington
Federal authorities have charged a transgender woman with kidnapping after she allegedly fled to Cuba with her 10-year-old child.
An affidavit that Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Jennifer Waterfield filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on April 16 notes the child is a “biological male who identifies as a female” and “splits time living with divorced parents who share custody” in Cache County, Utah.
Waterfield notes the child on March 28 “was supposed to be traveling by car to” Calgary, Alberta, “for a planned camping trip with his transgender mother, Rose Inessa-Ethington, Rose’s partner, Blue Inessa-Ethington, and Blue’s 3-year-old child.”
The affidavit notes the group instead flew from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Mexico City on March 29. Waterfield writes the Inessa-Ethingtons and the two children then flew from Mérida, Mexico, to Havana on April 1.
The 10-year-old child called her biological mother on March 28 after they arrived in Canada. The custody agreement, according to the affidavit, required Rose Inessa-Ethington to return the child to her former spouse on April 3.
“Interviews of MV [Minor Victim] 1’s family members provided significant concerns for MV 1’s well-being, as MV 1 was born a male, however, identifies as a female child, which is largely believed to be due to manipulation by Rose Inessa-Ethington,” reads the affidavit. “Concerns exist that MV 1 was transported to Cuba for gender reassignment surgery prior to puberty.”
The affidavit indicates authorities found a note in the Inessa-Ethingtons’ home with “instruction from a mental health therapist located in Washington, D.C., including instruction to send the therapist the $10,000.00 and instructions on gender-affirming medical care for children.”
The affidavit does not identify the specific “mental health therapist” in D.C.
A Utah judge on April 13 ordered Rose Inessa-Ethington to “immediately” return the child to her former spouse. The former spouse also received sole custody.
“Your affiant believes that due to the extensive planning and preparation exhibited by both Rose Inessa-Ethington and Blue Inessa-Ethington to isolate MV 1 and take MV 1 to Havana, Cuba, without notifying or requesting permission from MV 1’s mother indicates they are likely not planning to return to the United States,” wrote Waterfield.
The affidavit notes Cuban authorities found the Inessa-Ethingtons and the child.
A press release the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah issued notes the Inessa-Ethingtons “were deported from Cuba” on Monday “with the assistance of the FBI.”
The couple has been charged with International Parental Kidnapping. The Inessa-Ethingtons were arraigned in Richmond, Va., on Monday. The press release notes a federal court in Salt Lake City will soon handle the case.
The New York Times reported the child is now back with their biological mother.
“We are grateful to law enforcement for working swiftly to return the child to the biological mother,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Melissa Holyoak of the District of Utah in the press release.
The case is unfolding against the backdrop of increased tensions between Washington and Havana after U.S. forces on Jan. 3 seized now former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. A second White House directive banned federally-funded gender-affirming care for anyone under 19.
The U.S. Supreme Court last year in the Skrmetti decision upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors.
Cuba’s national health care system has offered free sex-reassignment surgeries since 2008.
Activists who are critical of Mariela Castro, the daughter of former President Raúl Castro who spearheads LGBTQ+ issues as director of Cuba’s National Center for Sexual Education, have previously told the Washington Blade that access to these procedures is limited. The Blade on Wednesday asked a contact in Havana to clarify whether Cuban law currently allows minors to undergo sex-reassignment surgery.
White House
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
App’s head of global government affairs a long-time GOP-aligned lobbyist
Gay dating and hookup app Grindr will host its first-ever White House Correspondents’ Weekend party on April 24.
The event is scheduled for the night before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, an annual gathering meant to celebrate the First Amendment, honor journalism, and raise money for scholarships.
The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association, a group of journalists who regularly cover the president and the administration.
An invitation obtained by the Washington Blade’s Joe Reberkenny and Michael K. Lavers reads:
“We’d be thrilled to have you join us at Grindr’s inaugural White House Correspondents’ Dinner Weekend Party, a Friday evening gathering to bring together policymakers, journalists, and LGBTQ community leaders as we toast the First Amendment.”
The Blade requested an interview with Joe Hack, Grindr’s head of global government affairs, but was unable to reach him via phone or Zoom. He did, however, provide a statement shared with other outlets, offering limited explanation for why the company decided 2026 was the year for the app to host this event.
“Grindr represents a global community with real stakes in Washington. The issues being debated here — HIV funding, digital privacy, LGBTQ+ human rights — are daily life for our community. Nobody does connections like Grindr, and WHCD weekend is the most iconic place in the country to make them. We figured it was time to host.”
Hack said the company has been “well received” by lawmakers in both parties and has found “common ground” on issues such as HIV funding and keeping minors off the app. He credited longstanding relationships in Washington and what he described as Grindr’s “respectful” approach to lobbying.
Hack, a longtime Republican-aligned lobbyist, previously worked for several GOP lawmakers, including U.S. Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.).
According to congressional disclosure forms compiled by OpenSecrets, Grindr spent $1.3 million on lobbying in 2025— more than Tinder and Hinge’s parent company Match Group.
“This is going to be elevated Grindr,” Hack told TheWrap when describing the invite-only party that has already generated buzz on social media. “This isn’t going to be a bunch of shirtless men walking around. This is going to be very elevated, elegant, but still us.”
He also pointed to the company’s work on HIV-related initiatives, including efforts to maintain federal funding for healthcare partners that distribute HIV self-testing kits through the app.
The event comes at a particularly notable moment for an LGBTQ-focused connection platform to enter the Washington social circuit at a high-profile political weekend, as LGBTQ rights remain under constant attack from conservative lawmakers, particularly around transgender healthcare, sports participation, and public accommodations.
Federal Government
Inside the LGBTQ+ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
Two men are acting attorney general, DHS secretary
President Donald Trump became famous for his use of the phrase “You’re fired!” while hosting the reality TV show “The Apprentice” in the early 2000s. However, during his time in the Oval Office, he has attempted to distance himself from that image.
Despite those efforts, the phrase once again comes to mind as Trump has fired two high-level female Cabinet members within the past month: Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.
Their replacements — Todd Blanche at the Justice Department and Markwayne Mullin at the Department of Homeland Security — bring records that, while different in depth, both reflect limited support for LGBTQ+ protections and, in some cases, direct opposition.
Todd Blanche
Acting attorney general
Little has been found regarding Todd Blanche’s LGBTQ+ history prior to his role as acting head of the Department of Justice. Unlike those who have worked within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division or served as state attorneys general, he has not developed a public-facing legal ideology on LGBTQ+ issues.
Blanche attended American University for his undergraduate studies — like fellow Trump attorney Michael Cohen — where he met his future wife, Kristin, who was studying at nearby Catholic University in D.C.
He began his legal career as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position. He later worked as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003. He and his wife later married and had two children.
Blanche left the U.S. attorney’s office in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.
In his personal capacity, he represented several figures associated with Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, and attorney Boris Epshteyn.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican, aligning himself with Trump’s political orbit. He later served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York State case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Now the highest-ranking official at the Justice Department, Blanche has played a central role in overseeing the department and has been involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ+ people.
In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population,” if legal action were taken against NYU Langone. The hospital had “permanently” ended a program earlier that month after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”
“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he said.
Blanche also echoed his predecessor’s public stance on limiting LGBTQ+-related protections at the federal level, aligning with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ+ history lessions in schools and limits lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Calling it “another great decision that came down today,” Blanche argued that the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education,” adding: “It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”
In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ+ people from harassment, abuse, and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ+ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.
Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”
Blanche is also described as having a “strong belief in executive authority.”
Markwayne Mullin
Secretary of Homeland Security
While Blanche’s record is defined more by recent actions than a long paper trail, Markwayne Mullin brings a more established history on LGBTQ+ issues from his time in Congress.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security has served in Congress since 2013, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He has been actively engaged in shaping restrictions and aligns with broader cultural rhetoric that frames anti-LGBTQ+ speech as protected expression.
In May 2016, Mullin criticized the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students, arguing that trans girls should not use girls’ restrooms in public schools.
By January 2021, Mullin and then-Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had introduced a bill to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports.
Mullin was not recorded as voting on the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.
In 2023, Mullin received a rating of just 6 percent from the Human Rights Campaign.
While serving in the Senate and as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ+ inclusion in federal programs. He has participated in broader Republican efforts questioning equity-based implementation of the Older Americans Act, including guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity in aging services, arguing such policies could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
He was among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the House on Jan. 6.
Politics
Advocacy meets action: Weho City Council candidate Jonathan Wilson intends to lead with purpose
Jonathan Wilson shares on his decision to run for West Hollywood City Council, highlighting advocacy, representation, and a vision for meaningful change
At a critical moment for West Hollywood and cities across the United States, Jonathan Wilson comes forward with a candidacy for West Hollywood City Council that is grounded in advocacy and a crystal-clear call for change. In our conversation, Wilson reflects on the decision to enter public office as a necessary response to widening divides, shifting political realities, and the urgent necessity for leadership that is both responsive and representative. His perspective is founded on years of navigating spaces where identity and opportunity aren’t always aligned, fueling a commitment to ensure that more voices are not just included, but actually heard and addressed.
Drawing from his experiences as a Black and queer Angeleno, as well as his work across corporate, civic, and community spheres, Wilson speaks to the power of identity as both a lens and a responsibility. He approaches leadership with an emphasis on accountability, innovation, and equity, from addressing public safety to the always-evolving priorities of LGBTQ+ communities. The result is a clear portrait of a candidate focused on practical solutions, intentional inclusion, and structural change that moves beyond rhetoric to deliver real, much-needed impact.
You’ve described your decision to run as a moment where you realized meaningful change requires stepping up. What in particular made this the right time for you to throw your hat in the race?
At this time, when our country is so divided, and there are increasing barriers to support our California residents at a state level, I believe that now is the time for me to help my community and residents in the City of West Hollywood. I can best accomplish that by stepping up and becoming involved as an elected official in my local West Hollywood City Council.
This November election will be pivotal for the future of our residents. While I applaud our City Council on various levels, I believe that there are key perspectives that will be lost when two prominent City Council members term out.
That provides me with an opportunity to help place more focus on the needs of our residents, attract more businesses and workers to our great city, and increase safety. It pains me to see businesses close and drive by an increasing number of empty storefronts. It hurts to hear residents say they feel like they can’t afford to live in the city any longer and to read the headlines about people being attacked on the street.
If elected, you’d become the first Black City Council member and the first Black LGBTQ+ councilmember in Los Angeles County. Can you describe from your perspective the sheer significance of this?
West Hollywood has never had a Black City Council member.
The significance is about the diversity of voices. Having a seat at the table. But this isn’t about race; it’s about the representation of the diverse residents in my community and helping all people within my community. I just happen to be Black.
While I’m not hanging my hat on being the black voice, it does add a bit more flavor to what I can offer as a City Council member. I’m also the only candidate operating a for-profit company, and I’m in the process of building a family through surrogacy. My family journey creates a unique perspective because I’m not just thinking about myself, I’m thinking about what’s right for families with kids who live in this great city.
Studies show that leading organizations perform better when they have diverse perspectives at the top. For the City of West Hollywood, the top of our government is the City Council – and that’s where I believe I can make the most impact.
While it’s unfortunate that a Black City Council member has never existed in a city that is known for its progressive politics, I believe I am the right person at this moment in our history, who happens to be Black.
How have your identities as a Black & queer Los Angelino shaped your understanding of leadership and representation?
This is a tough one because throughout my life, I have been one of a few. This goes all the way back to being one of two or three people in my AP and Honors classes at Palisades High School — Pali High. Even though the school was diverse at the time, I was still the odd man out.
I have also worked with a variety of Fortune 100 and 500 companies on projects as a management consultant for Accenture and Deloitte Consulting. There were very few executives of color at some of these organizations, and rarely any Black LGBTQ executives.
There is a unique experience that many LGBTQ people of color share within mainstream LGBTQ spaces that also seems to parallel that of non-LGBTQ spaces. That is – their voices are muted. Do I think that Los Angeles and WEHO are significantly more accepting of people of color and LGBTQ people than many other parts of our country? Yes! However, there is still work to be done.
What experiences in your personal journey would you say most prepared you to run for public office?
Great question. I’ve always been involved in leadership positions — in high school and college, in business organizations where I worked, and for non-profits where I’ve volunteered. Specific to West Hollywood, I have been part of the Social Justice Advisory Board (originally the Social Justice Task Force) for over five years. I am a current member and past board member of the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. And, I have helped influence/lead key initiatives for the City as it relates to small business initiatives and advocating for residents.
I see a gap in the leadership of our great city, and I really want to serve. I want to help make things better. I also really believe and live by President Obama’s quotes, “We are the change that we seek” and “We are the change that we have been waiting for.” I was waiting to see someone who understood what businesses needed while also addressing the needs of residents. And now I believe that person must be me.
You’ve highlighted public safety as one of your key issues. What does “public safety that works” look like for folks in West Hollywood?
I have developed a lot of respect for our Sheriff’s department, security ambassadors, and our city staff who collectively work to provide our public safety.
For me, “public safety that works” involves a couple of things — one that focuses on continuous process improvement, and another that focuses on technology enablement. We must improve efficiency in our processes and update them with modern technology to support those processes.
How does that pertain the public safety? I’ve seen people walk out of the sheriff’s department without making a report because of the long wait. In addition, the City Council approved a drone system several years ago, and it has not yet been implemented. Why can’t our city launch a simple drone initiative? That boils down to proper planning, processes, and execution.
There are many processes and technology solutions that can be implemented without requiring a significant amount of funds. I’m happy to get more granular, but the bottom line is that we can do better in protecting our city.
We also need more eyes, watching and reporting.
How will you go about fostering stronger trust between the community and law enforcement?
This is an excellent question because it boils down to trust. Transparency and simplified reports for the public can really assist with trust. I review reports regularly that are presented at the Public Safety meetings, and they don’t really inform the public on what they need to know to stay safe. We’re not focused on metrics that matter. As a data person, I think we need a live dashboard with metrics the public can view – and in plain language they can understand. We can also consider developing a Community Task Force that is focused on solutions that help to build trust.
I recognize that law enforcement may feel underappreciated. At the same time, they don’t do themselves any favors by providing inaccurate accounts of the true state of public safety in West Hollywood. My answer is to fix the problem – not mask it.
What creativity will you be taking to revitalize empty storefronts and support local businesses?
West Hollywood primarily focuses on providing reports on the many restaurants, bars, retail shops, and hotels in our City. However, there are so many other industries that can also add value to our City. I believe we need to focus on creating incentives for a variety of industries to come to West Hollywood.
As a native Angeleno, I love our media and entertainment industries. Many of my friends are in the industry as creatives, production support, and/or investors. I would like to find incentives that can work for property owners and their realtors that would permit entertainment companies to film in some of the empty storefronts, to bring in revenue to West Hollywood. I would also like to take a deeper dive on what positive incentives can be made towards encouraging more businesses to migrate to our City, which will ultimately help all businesses.
As of late 2024, according to our City staff, we have never implemented industry-specific incentives for businesses to come to West Hollywood. Most businesses I know would appreciate a good deal.
Bottom line is that I believe incentives will help the local economy thrive by attracting new businesses and increasing tourism. Los Angeles is hosting the 2028 Olympics, so we’ve got to get busy.
Housing remains an ever-present issue across Los Angeles. What new or practical solutions would you advocate to maintain affordability in West Hollywood?
I have been a strong advocate of the West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (WHCHC), and I like the idea of affordable housing. In addition, I believe that with more money coming from taxes based on our potential business growth, our City will eventually produce more money to give back to the residents, which will allow them to stay in their homes in West Hollywood. I look for win-win solutions and am a strong believer that if we do this right, everyone can win in our City.
In a city with a long history of LGBTQ advocacy, what new or evolving priorities do you believe need attention at this moment in time?
While I am concerned about some of our recent advancements with marriage and reproductive rights, my biggest concern lies with our transgender community. I’m saddened every day by the level of vulnerability that exists with our trans family members. Anything we can do to help advance their level of safety, provide adequate health support, and assist with ensuring their human rights are not being violated remains among my top priorities.
How do queer politics today differ from decades past, and how does/will that impact your campaign?
Representation matters. I think it’s time to hear ideas from BIPOC LGBTQ representatives. I would love to be in a position where I could help lift others. Today is similar to and different from past decades regarding queer politics. Today, the federal government is working to dismantle rights that have existed for years now. Whereas, in the past, the LGBTQ community was fighting for those rights. And many organizations, including the private sector, are uncertain on how to provide support without fear of retaliation.
What does inclusive leadership mean to you beyond representation?
Inclusive leadership means that we have diversity of thought – pluralism of ideas — helping to lead our great City. I voted for some of our City Council members — not always because I agreed with all of their policies — but because they had a unique perspective that I believed would benefit our City. It would be an unfathomable scenario if everyone thought alike and agendas were simply rubber-stamped without meaningful questions being raised or serious dialogue being had. Passion for the community, lived experiences, commitment to doing what’s right for the City, ethics and integrity– in addition to educational background and career skills- should all be considered when electing a City Council member. Any City Council bearing those traits will focus on delivering the best solutions for the people of West Hollywood.
What challenges do you foresee as a fresh candidate entering local politics, and how are you preparing yourself and your team to meet them?
As a new candidate, I am learning as I go. I bring a passionate commitment to my community and an ethical approach to politics. I hope my competitors will join me. I am running to support the people in my community. To help make West Hollywood a better place to live and work. I am talking to residents, businesses, law enforcement, industries, trade unions, and most importantly – the people who live here. I am listening to what the people want. I plan to host listening sessions because I want to digest the diverse voices so I can represent ALL OF THE PEOPLE. My team is focused on scheduling me to talk with a variety of groups, and I plan to canvas my local community, door by door, and ask the people for their vote.
Looking into the near future, what would success look like at the end of your first term if (or when) you are elected?
My first term would start in January of 2027 and last through January 2031. At the end of those four years, I would like to see the following:
1) Residents feel like they can afford to live in the City of West Hollywood and that the city adequately supports their basic needs regardless of stage of life, whether it’s starting their career, growing a family, or aging in place as a retired individual.
2) A thriving economy where new industries are emerging in the city and legacy footholds (like media and entertainment) are demonstrating a renewed presence in the City. 3) Simplified government processes, enabled by policy and technology, with people who are working together for the safety and good of the residents in the City of West Hollywood.
For more information about Wilson’s candidate campaign, head to Wilson4Weho.com
Iran
LGBTQ+ groups condemn Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization
Ceasefire announced less than two hours before Tuesday deadline
The Council for Global Equality is among the groups that condemned President Donald Trump on Tuesday over his latest threats against Iran.
Trump in a Truth Social post said “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Tehran did not reach an agreement with the U.S. by 8 p.m. ET (5 p.m. PT) on Tuesday.
Iran is among the handful of countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death.
Israel and the U.S. on Feb. 28 launched airstrikes against Iran.
One of them killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran in response launched missiles and drones against Israel and other countries that include Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus.
Gas prices in the U.S. and around the world continue to increase because the war has essentially closed the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s crude oil passes.
Trump less than 90 minutes before his deadline announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran that Pakistan helped broker.
“We the undersigned human rights, humanitarian, civil liberties, faith-based and environmental organizations, think tanks and experts are deeply alarmed by President Trump’s threat regarding Iran that ‘a whole civilization will die tonight’ if his demands are not met. Such language describes a grave atrocity if carried out,” reads the statement that the Council for Global Equality more than 200 other organizations and human rights experts signed. “A threat to wipe out ‘a whole civilization’ may amount to a threat of genocide. Genocide is a crime defined by the Genocide Convention and by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as committing one or more of several acts ‘with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, racial or religious groups as such.'”
The statement states “the law is clear that civilians must not be targeted, and they must also be protected from indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.”
“Strikes on civilian infrastructure — such as the recent attack on a bridge and the attacks President Trump is repeatedly threatening to carry out to destroy power plants — have devastating consequences for the civilian population and environment,” it reads.
“We urge all parties to respect international law,” adds the statement. “Those responsible for atrocities, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, can and must be held accountable.”
The Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, MADRE, and the Robert and Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center are among the other groups that signed the letter.
President Donald Trump removed Attorney General Pam Bondi from her post Thursday, following growing criticism over how she and the Department of Justice handled a range of issues, including matters related to sex offender and Trump ally Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump announced Bondi’s removal on Truth Social, where he also said Todd Blanche will serve as acting head of the Justice Department.
“Pam Bondi is a great American patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my attorney general over the past year,” Trump wrote on the platform. “Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown on crime across our country, with murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900.”
Trump was seen as recently as Wednesday with the now-former attorney general at a Supreme Court hearing on citizenship.
The decision contrasts with Trump’s previous public praise of Bondi, the 87th U.S. attorney general and former 37th attorney general of Florida, who served in that role from 2011-2019 before joining the Trump-Vance administration. He has frequently lauded her loyalty and said he speaks with her often. Bondi was also one of president’s defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial.
Privately, however, Trump had grown frustrated that Bondi was not “moving quickly enough” to prosecute critics and political adversaries he wanted to face criminal charges, according to multiple sources. The New York Times reported that her inability to charge former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James with any crimes is a large factor in the president’s choice to fire her from the government’s primary law enforcement agency.
The move comes as Trump has sought to minimize public turmoil within his administration, avoiding the perception of a revolving-door Cabinet that defined his first term.
Lee Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York who unsuccessfully ran for governor, has emerged as a leading contender to lead the Justice Department. He has been one of Trump’s most reliable allies.
“He’s our secret weapon,” Trump said of Zeldin in February during a White House event promoting the coal industry, adding, “He’s getting those approvals done in record-setting time.”
Bondi has also growing faced scrutiny from Congress.
The House Oversight Committee recently subpoenaed her to testify about the department’s handling of certain files, where she declined to answer key questions during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing in February.
The Tampa native has a long history of opposing LGBTQ+ rights through her roles in government. As Florida attorney general, she fought against the legalization of same-sex marriage, arguing it would cause “serious public harm,” pushing forward a legal battle that cost taxpayers nearly half a million dollars. She also asked the Florida Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that found the state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.
More recently, Bondi established a “Title IX Special Investigations Team” within the Justice Department focused on restricting transgender women and girls from participating in women’s and girls’ sports teams and accessing facilities aligned with their gender identity. She also told Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia to turn over the medical records of anyone under 19 who received gender-affirming care.
Her removal follows Trump’s decision last month to oust another controversial female Cabinet figure, Kristi Noem.
California Politics
“I’ve always been an ally.” Seven gubernatorial candidates discuss LGBTQ+ rights at recent forum
Read what seven Democratic candidates running for governor said about how they would support queer Californians.
On Monday evening, seven Democratic candidates running for California governor walked into a packed auditorium in front of the county’s most prominent LGBTQ+ communities. In a forum co-presented by civil rights organization Equality California and the local queer nonprofit Los Angeles LGBT Center, each candidate tried to convince the crowd why they are the best choice for LGBTQ+ Californians.
The candidates present were: former California Attorney General and U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, former Congresswoman Katie Porter, Congressman Eric Swalwell, billionaire entrepreneur and environmentalist Tom Steyer, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former L.A. mayor and Speaker of the California State Assembly Antonio Villaraigosa, and former California State Controller Betty Yee.
Swalwell, Steyer, and Porter are top contenders, according to a recent statewide survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California. 30% of the survey’s voters are split between other candidates, including Villaraigosa, Yee, Thurmond, and Becerra.
Political analysts and reporters are stumped; it’s difficult to parse out a clear frontrunner at this moment. As we head towards a primary election in June, community offerings like Monday’s forum allow constituents, including those who are LGBTQ+, decide which candidate is most likely to fulfill their promise of defending queer rights.
The Blade gathered notable quotes from each candidate in regards to LGBTQ+ issues. Passages have been edited for clarity.
How has each candidate stood with LGBTQ+ communities?
Each candidate was individually called up to the stage and given about 13 minutes to answer the same set of questions. A forum rather than a debate, the evening allowed each person to discuss their past work with LGBTQ+ communities as well as their perspectives on transgender health care, LGBTQ+ youth, homelessness, and the war in Iran.
The first question of the evening was definitive. NBC4 anchor Colleen Williams, the forum’s co-moderator, asked candidates to give themselves a letter grade to define their past work with LGBTQ+ communities.
Xavier Becerra
“I have been an ally. Equality California has recognized that twice. But I go further back than that. There was a time in the 1990’s where two individuals who loved each other couldn’t get married if they were the same sex. There was a law that passed in Congress, called the ‘Defense of Marriage Act.’ 67 members out of 435 voted ‘no’ against that discriminatory law. I was one of them.
I will never put a vote down or take an action that would discriminate against someone else. That’s why I’ve taken action year over year, whether it was as Attorney General when I defended the ability of our LGBTQ community to have access to affordable care under the ACA [or] as Secretary of HHS. When it [came] to gender affirming care, it’s not what the politicians in Congress say: it’s what the medical and scientific experts say is the best health for every American.
I have a history that runs longer than anyone who’s running for governor in talking about how I’ve been a true and enduring ally of the LGBTQ+ community.”
Katie Porter
“I’m a professor, and I’m a pretty notoriously tough grader. I don’t really believe in A-pluses, because I think there is always work to be done. But I would give myself an A, and I feel proud of the way that I’ve fought alongside the LGBTQ+ community, the way that I have represented those that I was fortunate enough to represent in Orange County, and to do that in an area that has historically been very, very hostile to the gay community.
I’m so very proud to have flipped the seat and to have been bold in voting for the Equality Act, in calling out Republicans for trying to attack LGBTQ families and limit their ability to adopt, for example. What would I do differently as governor? I think that starts with recognizing that we are not at a place of full equality. It is a journey, and we are not at our destination, and that is particularly true for transgender people. They are still facing discrimination in health care, housing, and employment in so many other areas. So I think that’s something I would really want to focus on, is recognizing that within the coalition, within the LGBTQ+ community, we have real work to do, particularly for those who are facing the most challenges.”
Eric Swalwell
“I’ve been in Congress for 14 years. So, you get as a future governor someone who’s been in the arena and someone who has been on record, and my record with the Human Rights Campaign has been 100%, and I’m proud of that. I’ve always been an ally. I always will be an ally, but there’s a lot more for me to learn. [There’s] always room for improvement, but [I have] a 14-year record of working on these issues and 100% of the time being with the community.”
Tom Steyer
“I don’t think my grade for myself is the way to think about it. I think the LGBTQ community’s grade is the one that counts. And I have worked actually very closely over the years with Equality California. And in fact, the former executive director of Equality California, Rick Zbur has endorsed me. I mean, we’re friends, but we’ve done so much work together through this organization. So for me, my question is going to always be: What are the people in the community think about what I’m trying to do? Does it have real impact in terms of doing a better job as governor? You have an ability to have immense impact on this community and in general.
To me, the question is going to be to make sure that this is a priority that is incredibly high because of what’s at risk. What’s the cost of not coming through for this community? Very, very, very high.”
Tony Thurmond
“As the State Superintendent of Schools, I sponsored the legislation to establish gender neutral bathrooms in our schools in California. I sponsored the legislation to ban any banning of curricula that would block the contributions of LGBTQ Californians to our great state, and I sponsored the legislation that made the law the Safety Act that says we don’t do forced outings in the state of California.
And as governor, I will continue to support our LGBTQ+ community: to support the right for health care, including gender affirming care, to make sure that there are health care resources, [and] that we address discrimination in housing. As we speak right now, I’m sponsoring legislation that would provide subsidized housing to minors who are homeless. In our state, there are 10,000 homeless youth in our state who are on their own under the age of 18. And as many of you know, our young people [who are homeless] are oftentimes disproportionately LGBTQ+.
As [for] a grade, I’ll say I’m a work in progress, because I’m hungry to do more. I think that more needs to be done. I’m not here to rest on laurels. As a governor, I’m going to fight back on the Trump administration in the same way that I’ve done to pass legislation that says ICE has no place in our schools [and] in our hospitals. We are under attack, but we’re going to fight back, and as your governor, I’m going to help lead that attack against Trump in this reckless administration.”
Antonio Villaraigosa
“A+. I started in the beginning. I was doing this. When I was Speaker of the California State Assembly, I was chair of this budget subcommittee that dealt with the AIDS formulary. I took on Pete Wilson, [who] had pushed back constantly on that formulary, and we won. [And the] first anti-discrimination bill in housing and employment. We’d been working on it for 30 years. I authored it. I joined [what was then the] Gay and Lesbian Caucus at the time. I authored, with Carole Migden, the first domestic partnership bill.
Then, when I was mayor, I led Mayors for Equality. When I was chairman of the convention, the first thing they asked me in 2012 was my position on gay marriage. I said: ‘You know it. I’ve been strongly for it since 1994.’ Obama’s people got upset with me because I was the chair of the convention, and I said it should be on the platform. I was the first person in the country to take out transgender females [and] separate them in the men’s jail.
So, what would I do to continue the A+? Continue to be at the forefront of fighting for LGBTQ rights.”
Betty Yee
“I would give myself an A. I’ve been a lifelong ally to this community. Being from San Francisco, I have really seen the emergence of this community to where we are today. I think in terms of any room for improvement, it’s because we are under attack, and so we’re going to have to double down in terms of the advocacy, the ways that we stand up for our communities and the way we protect each other. I know that as the next governor — that is going to be the first order of business. California does not take lightly that our rights and protections are being taken away from all of our communities, so we have to continue to be the beacon of hope for so many.”
Transgender health: how would the candidates protect gender-affirming care as the federal administration tries to shut down these essential services?
Candidates were asked about the current state of gender-affirming care for transgender people and youth, which continues to be threatened and shuttered by the administration. Last year, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles closed its Center for Transyouth Health and Development as well as its Gender Affirming Care surgical program. Amidst rampant protest, federal efforts targeting these programs continue to grow.
The forum’s next question was: How would candidates handle this gap in gender-affirming care? Would they enforce state law that states that gender-affirming care should be offered, on the grounds of anti-discriminatory practices? How would they enforce this if federal funds are withheld?
Xavier Becerra
“First, we would not take a knee to Donald Trump. Secondly, we would enforce and you’re hearing that from the voice of a former enforcer: the former Attorney General for the state of California. Third, I will tell you, as the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, that the medical experts [and] societies that have done the research and have done the work and the studies, are the ones that should guide the care that we provide to all Americans, including our children.
They have said that gender affirming care, including for our children, is not only supportive of good health, it also provides for a good life. As Governor, I will enforce the laws. I will not discriminate, and I will be an ally for those who need access to the kind of care that lets you live a thorough life. Remember, today we have 10 year olds who are contemplating suicide, and too often you find so many of those youth in our LGBTQ community. That’s because they don’t feel like they are heard, and we need to make sure we are there.”
Katie Porter
“I’ve had conversations with some of our largest health care providers in the state about this. It is a really big concern. I’ve heard about it directly from parents and from affected youth. I think we need to be very clear about what’s at stake here. This is a health care issue, and we are fighting for health care.
We have seen women’s health care under attack not very many years ago, and by the way, coming again under the Trump administration. I think the answer to what I would do is: we need to provide state funding for this. I believe that what the legislature is fighting for, which is $26 million in order to provide a state-only medical pathway [to] make sure that we are not putting our institutions in a choice between losing their funding, which provides health care for lots of Californians, and having to provide appropriate medical care for every single kid in California, including gender affirming care.
That $26 million, I want to be very, very clear: it sounds like a big number. It’s less than [what] one of my opponents spent on TV ads in the last couple months. It is a number that we can fund. We are the world’s fourth largest economy. We should be able to provide health care for every single California kid, including gender affirming care.”
Eric Swalwell
“This President has declared war on the health care of our kids, with gender affirming care. Troops are in our streets. Women are being dragged by their hair and thrown into unmarked vans. Advocates of the most vulnerable in our community are publicly being executed. We need a fighter protector in Sacramento, and that’s the experience I offer as the son of a cop, as a prosecutor for seven years in Oakland, who led the hate crimes unit in Alameda County, but also someone for the last 10 years as the worst, cruelest, most incompetent person ever has been President of the United States, I was with Adam Schiff in the Russia investigation. I was a part of both impeachments. I have the only lawsuit that has survived this new presidency. I know you have to go on offense, otherwise the most vulnerable are on defense.
But it’s my job also to find as much revenue as possible to backfill what you just described. There’s a real opportunity not to get it all back, but to leverage being in the majority, being the fourth largest economy in the world and the might that we have in the congressional delegation, adding five more seats with the work we’re going to do for Prop 50 to get back as much as possible on day one.”
Tom Steyer
“I would, and I’ll tell you why. It goes back to my relationship and experience with Rick Zbur, because he made sure that I knew transgender people, that I got a chance to talk to them, and I got information on that community a long time ago. What I learned was how much risk they’re at, especially transgender youth. I think when I first learned about it, the percentage of transgender youth who tried to kill themselves was 50 percent. The last statistic I’ve seen more recently is 39 percent. When I said priorities: what is the risk if you don’t do it? And the answer is, the risk is really, really, really high. To me, that’s a risk that is unbearable as a state. And therefore I would insist on enforcing those laws, and I would insist on that care.”
Tony Thurmond
“I would enforce that law, and as governor, I intend to implement a single payer health care system, and build into that an understanding that we provide gender affirming care and to continue to lift up the principles of gender affirming care in our state. I’ve spoken out already as a UC Regent, because there are some hospitals in the regent system that try not to provide care, and as governor, I’ll continue to make that a priority.”
Antonio Villaraigosa
“Yes, I would enforce state law because it is discrimination, number one. And it’s not just LA Children’s Hospital. I think San Diego just did the same thing. We’ll backfill. The state will backfill that money that the feds have taken out. It is discrimination, pure and simple.”
Betty Yee
“Absolutely. I think that’s what we have to stand on, and we have to strengthen those laws to be sure that they are being enforced. And also look at our regulatory agencies to be sure that our providers are exactly following state law. Look, we are really the leader in all of this. And I am very, very saddened to know that here in California we have providers that feel like they can step away from this requirement. And I certainly want to bring that back full focus to be sure that no one [who needs it] is going without gender affirming care.”
To hear the other topics discussed, exclusive livestream partners NBCLA and Telemundo 52 have uploaded the full forum on their respective channels. Click the hyperlinks to view.
Kristie Song is a California Local News Fellow placed with the Los Angeles Blade. The California Local News Fellowship is a state-funded initiative to support and strengthen local news reporting. Learn more about it at fellowships.journalism.berkeley.edu/cafellows.
Congress
Padilla speaks at ‘ICE Out for Good’ protest in D.C.
ICE agent killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Md.) is among those who spoke at an “ICE Out for Good” protest that took place outside U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s headquarters in D.C. on Tuesday.
The protest took place six days after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis.
Good left behind her wife and three children.
(Video by Michael K. Lavers)
-
West Hollywood4 days agoLesbian cinema, from the archives and beyond, lead this short film festival
-
National2 days agoBREAKING NEWS: Shots fired at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner
-
Commentary4 days agoIs Trump setting a trap for White House journalists at their big dinner?
-
State Department5 days agoState Department implements anti-trans bathroom policy
-
Television2 days agoThe distinct dequeering of ‘Euphoria’
-
National5 days agoI’m telling the scared little girl I once was it’s okay to feel free
-
Commentary4 days agoAdoption under suspicion
-
Movies2 days agoAn acting legend meets his match in ‘The Christophers’
-
Los Angeles15 hours agoLGBTQ+ mayoral candidate wants to revitalize a ‘limitless’ L.A. of the past
-
COMMENTARY14 hours agoIs the Stonewall Generation being screwed by the San Diego LGBT Center?
