By Erin Reed | RICHMOND, Va. – The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on transgender care are unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent transgender people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.

In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that transgender exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the U.S. Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, transgender state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.

In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.

Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.

Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.

See this portion of the court analysis here:

Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting transgender people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.

Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on transgender status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.

The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.

Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.

The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:

Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ+ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”

Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on transgender care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end transgender care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.

The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for transgender rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of transgender people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying transgender people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of transgender individuals.

Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against transgender people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for transgender youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.

The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.

The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning transgender people. Earlier this month, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects transgender student athletes. However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for transgender healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.

Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.

Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful…We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.” 

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

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

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

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

By Sneha Dey | AUSTIN, Texas – Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the Texas Education Agency on Monday to ignore a Biden administration rule that expanded federal sex discrimination protections to include LGBTQ+ students.

The Biden administration recently revised the rules for Title IX, the sweeping civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at federally funded colleges and K-12 schools. The new rules, which are set to go into effect in August, redefined sex discrimination and sex-based harassment to prevent misconduct based on sex stereotypes, pregnancy, gender identity and sexual orientation. It codifies initial guidance documents that prompted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue the Biden administration last year.

“Congress wrote Title IX to protect women. Biden, with no authority to do so, rewrote Title IX to protect men who identify as women,” Abbott wrote Monday on social media platform X.

Abbott’s order came the same day Paxton announced he had sued the Biden administration Monday to block the Title IX changes. Texas joins a growing number of Republican-led states that have berated the new rules, setting the stage for a legal fight over LGBTQ+ student protections. They say the Biden administration misinterpreted the intent of Title IX.

In its final interpretation of Title IX, the Biden administration sought to extend a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case decision related to workplace discrimination to students. The high court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII, a civil rights law that bars employment discrimination on the basis of sex, applied to gay and transgender workers.

The Title IX changes also walk back rules set during the Trump administration that required “live hearings” in which students accused of sexual misconduct could question accusers in a courtroom-like setting. The Biden administration kept Trump-era provisions that allow informal resolutions and prohibit penalties against students until an investigation is complete.

The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.

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

Sneha Dey is an education reporter for The Texas Tribune. She covers pathways from education to employment and the accessibility of postsecondary education in Texas, with an eye on college readiness, community colleges and career and technical training. Prior to joining the Tribune, she had stints at NPR’s Education Desk and Chalkbeat. Sneha is a graduate of Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. She grew up in New York and is based in Austin.

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

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

Texans need truth. Help us report it.

Independent Texas reporting needs your support. The Texas Tribune delivers fact-based journalism for Texans, by Texans — and our community of members, the readers who donate, make our work possible. Help us bring you and millions of others in-depth news and information. Will you support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation of any amount?

YES, I’LL DONATE TODAY

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights  has issued a final rule on Friday under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) advancing protections against discrimination in health care prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics), in covered health programs or activities. 

The updated rule does not force medical professionals to provide certain types of health care, but rather ensures nondiscrimination protections so that providers cannot turn away patients based on individual characteristics such as being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or pregnant.

“This rule ensures that people nationwide can access health care free from discrimination,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “Standing with communities in need is critical, particularly given increased attacks on women, trans youth, and health care providers. Health care should be a right not dependent on looks, location, love, language, or the type of care someone needs.”

The new rule restores and clarifies important regulatory protections for LGBTQ+ people and other vulnerable populations under Section 1557, also known as the health care nondiscrimination law, that were previously rescinded by the Trump administration.

“Healthcare is a fundamental human right. The rule released today restores critical regulatory nondiscrimination protections for those who need them most and ensures a legally proper reading of the Affordable Care Act’s healthcare nondiscrimination law,” said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Counsel and Health Care Strategist for Lambda Legal.

“The Biden administration today reversed the harmful, discriminatory, and unlawful effort by the previous administration to eliminate critical regulatory protections for LGBTQ+ people and other vulnerable populations, such as people with limited English proficiency, by carving them out from the rule and limiting the scope of entities to which the rule applied,” Gonzalez-Pagan added. “The rule released today has reinstated many of these important protections, as well as clarifying the broad, intended scope of the rule to cover all health programs and activities and health insurers receiving federal funds. While we evaluate the new rule in detail, it is important to highlight that this rule will help members of the LGBTQ+ community — especially transgender people, non-English speakers, immigrants, people of color, and people living with disabilities — to access the care they need and deserve, saving lives and making sure healthcare professionals serve patients with essential care no matter who they are.”

In addition to rescinding critical regulatory protections for LGBTQ+ people, the Trump administration’s rule also limited the remedies available to people who face health disparities, limited access to health care for people with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and dramatically reduced the number of healthcare entities and health plans subject to the rule.

Lambda Legal, along with a broad coalition of LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration rule, Whitman-Walker Clinic v. HHS,  and secured a preliminary injunction preventing key aspects of the Trump rule from taking effect.

These included the elimination of regulatory protections for LGBTQ+ people and the unlawful expansion of religious exemptions, which the new rule corrects.  The preliminary injunction in Whitman-Walker Clinic v. HHS remains in place.  Any next steps in the case will be determined at a later time, after a fulsome review of the new rule.

Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO and President of GLAAD, released the following statement in response to the news:

“The Biden administration’s updates to rules regarding Section 1557 of the ACA will ensure that no one who is LGBTQI or pregnant can face discrimination in accessing essential health care. This reversal of Trump-era discriminatory rules that sought to single out Americans based on who they are and make it difficult or impossible for them to access necessary medical care will have a direct, positive impact on the day to day lives of millions of people. Today’s move marks the 334th action from the Biden-Harris White House in support of LGBTQ people. Health care is a human right that should be accessible to all Americans equally without unfair and discriminatory restrictions. LGBTQ Americans are grateful for this step forward to combat discrimination in health care so no one is barred from lifesaving treatment.”

By Skylar Laird | COLUMBIA, S.C. — Students in South Carolina’s K-12 schools would need to use bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their biological sex at birth under a rule senators inserted into their state budget package.

The proposal approved by senators 30-7 on party lines late Wednesday applies to multi-stalled school restrooms and places where students undress, to include locker rooms and gym showers. It also specifies that during overnight school trips, students of different genders can’t sleep in the same room or use the same multi-occupancy bathroom — unless they’re siblings.

All 30 of the Senate’s Republicans voted for it. Some Democrats didn’t vote.

The vote came a day after state Superintendent Ellen Weaver sent a letter to district superintendents and school board members statewide recommending that they disregard new federal regulations expanding sex discrimination protections in Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The federal rules are supposed to take effect Aug. 1.

Sen. Wes Climer, R-Rock Hill, acknowledged taking “a bit of a U-turn” in offering completely different state rules for public schools.

“I don’t have any particular delight in standing here discussing this. In fact, I find it baffling, insane that we’re even having this conversation,” he said after taking the podium to explain his proposal.

This “stipulates in school settings that a boy will use the boys’ bathroom, the boys’ locker room, the boys’ changing room, and a girl will use the girls’ bathroom, the girls’ locker room, the girls’ changing room,” he said.

The proposal, he said, is in response to an 18-year-old senior at Rock Hill High who’s daily using the women’s locker room. Climer didn’t elaborate, and a spokesperson for the school district did not immediately respond to requests from the SC Daily Gazette for comment.

Under his proposal, districts that violate the rule risk up to 25% of their state funding.

Technically, the budget clause is not an all-out ban. Rather, it bars school districts from using any state taxes to maintain facilities or pay for trips in violation of the rule. However, since revenue sources for school operations generally all go into the same pot of money, it’s effectively a ban, as Republicans intend it to be. It’s written that way because state budget clauses must pertain to budget allocations.

A court fight?

Sen. Tameika Isaac Devine, D-Columbia, tried unsuccessfully to get Climer’s amendment thrown out as not germane to the budget. She also argued it incorrectly attempts to change state law that declares it illegal to discriminate based on sex or in ways “degrading to human dignity.” But she was overruled.

“We know that this amendment will be a violation of constitutional law, and we could be sued. The state could be sued,” Devine said. “I think we are willfully ignoring that to play to people’s fears.”

She pointed to a 2015 federal lawsuit in which a transgender student in Virginia successfully sued the local school board for not allowing him to use the men’s bathroom or locker room.

A federal appeals court agreed with the lower court’s ruling requiring the school board to allow him to use the facilities of his choice. And the Supreme Court in 2021 decided not to hear the case, allowing that decision to stand.

Climer acknowledged a lawsuit is likely, and the same district court that ruled on Virginia’s case may rule the same way.

But he thinks the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case this time, especially since more states are adopting similar rules, so justices could be settling multiple cases.

Regardless, “it was the right thing to do,” he told the Gazette.

“It’s unconscionable that an 18-year-old man is in locker rooms with 14-year-old girls,” he said.

Sen. Deon Tedder, D-Charleston, said if the transgender female student Climer’s referring to has undergone hormone replacement therapy to have more feminine attributes, using the men’s room might be inappropriate.

“If that person was born a male and has physically transitioned and is no longer a male, by voting for this we’d be sending a female into the male’s locker room now,” Tedder said.

His arguments will likely come back next week.

Before adjourning Thursday, senators voted to put a bill banning gender-transitioning surgeries and hormones for transgender youth under 18 on priority debate status. Opponents have repeatedly said no such surgeries are happening in South Carolina.

Ten states require students to use the bathroom of the sex they were assigned at birth, according to Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group.

That points to a changing climate from the days when North Carolina adopted a similar law, known as the bathroom bill, in 2016, causing nationwide uproar and losing the state major business deals. State lawmakers ultimately undid that law in 2017.

Back then, South Carolina lawmakers rejected a similar proposal from a GOP senator, with then-Gov. Nikki Haley calling it unnecessary.

“That ship has sailed,” Climer said.

Jace Woodrum, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, called Wednesday’s late-night approval of a budget clause a way to “sneak an unpopular policy” into state law.

“Right now, in South Carolina, it isn’t easy to be a transgender kid,” Woodrum said in a statement to the SC Daily Gazette. “Transgender kids are often bullied, called incorrect names, left out of sports and activities, and made to use restrooms and locker rooms that put their safety at risk.

“Instead of trying to make schools safer and fairer for all students, South Carolina lawmakers are bullying transgender students,” he continued. “They need to get their priorities in order.”

The bathroom requirement was one of many education-related clauses senators added to the budget before voting late Wednesday to send the amended, $13.8 billion spending plans back to the House.

They included one letting students from small private schools try out for public school sports teams, mirroring a bill advanced by the Senate Education Committee. With just six legislative days left in the regular session, that’s among bills running out of time to make it through the process. Putting it in the state budget makes it a one-year law. The proposal would allow students using state-funded scholarships for private school tuition continue playing on a sports team not offered at their new school.

Spending differences

Senators debated for two full days on the budget advanced by the Senate Finance Committee, mostly on policy. Very little of the floor debate involved dollar figures.

A final budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 is still weeks away. The House will get another chance to tweak its plan before the two versions go to a six-member committee of House and Senate members to hash out the differences.

One major distinction between the two proposals is how to spend $600 million in surplus sales tax collections that have built up since 2020 in an account for property tax relief. Gov. Henry McMaster recommended lawmakers put it toward fixing bridges.

The Senate plan would put $100 million toward accelerating an income tax cut. The rest would go to road and bridge projects, aside from $53 million set aside for the University of South Carolina’s new medical campus.

The House had proposed spending $500 million on a one-time property tax relief, averaging $359 per homeowner.

Senators also agreed upon higher raises for state employees than the House passed in its budget. The Senate budget would give all employees making less than $50,000 a $1,375 raise, with everyone else getting a 2.75% boost.

The House plan had recommended a $1,000 raise to anyone making $66,667 or less and a 1.5% raise to employees making more.

Both chambers agreed on raising first-time teachers’ pay to $47,000 minimum in the coming year, up from $42,500. They also agreed on a minimum salary schedule, giving teachers annual increases for experience through 28 years in the classroom. That’s one part of the budget now guaranteed. With both chambers in agreement, those teacher pay raises are now locked in as final.

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

Skylar Laird covers the South Carolina Legislature and criminal justice issues. Originally from Missouri, she previously worked for The Post and Courier’s Columbia bureau.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the South Carolina Daily Gazette and is republished with permission.

The South Carolina Daily Gazette is a nonprofit news site providing nonpartisan reporting and thoughtful commentary. We strive to shine a light on state government and how political decisions affect people across the Palmetto State. We do that with coverage that’s free to both readers and other news outlets.

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

CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Penn. — In a 5-4 vote this past week, the Cumberland Valley school board reversed its decision to cancel an appearance and event on anti-bullying by openly gay actor and author Maulik Pancholy after an hour-long meeting during which it heard considerable criticism from community members.

Pancholy, best known for his work on NBC Television’s 30 Rock and who authored “The Best at It,” a semi-autobiographical debut novel that explores the queer main character’s journey to self-acceptance and self-love in the 7th grade in a small Indiana town, was set to attend an anti-bullying school assembly scheduled for May 22 at Mountain View Middle School in Mechanicsburg, Pa.

However, anti-LGBTQ+ activists including newly elected board member Kelly Potteiger, who is a member of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s listed extremist group Moms for Liberty along with board member Bud Shaffner and board chair Greg Rausch in an off agenda discussion brought up the event and strongly objected to Pancholy’s presence.

WPMT Fox 43 reported that Rausch asked Shaffner: “My only question is, do we even have any idea what he’s going to be talking about? I know he’s a homosexual activist and what have you and has written books and things like that but do we even know what he’s going to be talking about?”

Potteiger weighed in: “It’s not discriminating against his lifestyle, that’s his choice, but it’s him speaking about it and it did say that’s not the topic, but that’s what his books are about and he will probably talk about his pathway because he talks about anti-bullying and empathy and inclusion so part of that is his journey as an individual,” said Potteiger. “And as a self-proclaimed activist, that’s where it gets concerning I think.”

“If you research this individual, he labels himself as an activist, he is proud of his lifestyle and I don’t think that should be imposed upon our students at any age,” added Shaffner.

The board ended up in a unanimous 8-0 vote a week ago to rescind permission for Pancholy to visit the school. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that in a 5-4 vote Wednesday, the school board reversed its decision after an hour-long meeting during which it heard criticism from community members, including LGBTQ + students impacted by the board’s earlier decision. Some of the speakers reportedly referred to the cancellation of the event as being based in homophobia.

In an Instagram post, the actor and author expressed his thanks to the board reversing course.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Maulik Pancholy (@maulikpancholy)

Moms for Liberty member, others block Maulik Pancholy’s speech

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. – Gregory Fitzgerald Gibert, 53, who was out on probation, is charged with the second-degree murder of 37-year-old Andrea Doria Dos Passos, a Latina trans woman who was found deceased in front of the Miami Ballet company facility by a security guard this past week.

According to a Miami Beach Police spokesperson the security guard thought Dos Passos was sleeping in the entranceway around 6:45 a.m. Tuesday and when he went to wake her he discovered the blood and her injuries and alerted 911.

She was deceased from massive trauma to her face and head. According to Miami Beach police when video surveillance footage was reviewed, it showed Dos Passos lying down in the entranceway apparently asleep. WFOR 4 – CBS News Miami reported: In the early morning hours, a man arrived, looked around, and spotted her. Police said the man was dressed in a black shirt, red shorts, and red shoes.

At one point, he walked away, picked up a metal pipe from the ground, and then returned. After looking around, he sat on a bench near Dos Passos. After a while, he got up and repeatedly hit her in the head and face while she was sleeping, according to police.

“The male is then seen standing over her, striking her, and then manipulating her body. The male then walks away and places the pipe inside a nearby trashcan (the pipe was found and recovered in the same trashcan),” according to the arrest report.

Police noted that in addition to trauma on her face and head, two wooden sticks were lodged in her nostrils and there was a puncture wound in her chest.

Victor Van Gilst, Dos Passos’s stepfather confirmed she was trans and experiencing homelessness.

“She had no chance to defend herself whatsoever. I don’t know if this was a hate crime since she was transgender or if she had some sort of interaction with this person because he might have been homeless as well. The detective could not say if she was attacked because she was transgender,” said Van Gilst.

“She has been struggling with mental health issues for a long time, going back to when she was in her early 20s. We did everything we could to help her. My wife is devasted. For her, this is like a nightmare that turned into reality. Andrea moved around a lot and even lived in California for a while. She was sadly homeless. I feel the system let her down. She was a good person,” he added.

City of Miami Police arrested Gibert, collected his clothing, noting the red shorts were the same type in the video and had blood on them. Blood was also found on his shoes, according to police. He was taken into custody and charged. 

“The suspect has an extensive criminal record and reportedly was recently released from custody on probation for prior criminal charges. Police apprehended the suspect in the City of Miami and the investigation is currently ongoing. This case is further evidence that individuals need to be held accountable for prior violent crimes for the protection of the public. We offer our sincere condolences to the family and friends of the victim,” Miami Beach Mayor Steve Meiner said in a statement. 

Joe Saunders, senior political director with LGBTQ rights group Equality Florida, told the Miami Herald that “whenever a transgender person is murdered, especially when it is with such brutality, the question should be asked about whether or not this was a hate-motivated crime.”

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Maryland Gov. Wes Moore on Thursday signed a bill that seeks to combat efforts to ban books from state libraries.

House Bill 785, also known as the Freedom to Read Act, would establish a state policy “that local school systems operate their school library media programs consistent with certain standards; requiring each local school system to develop a policy and procedures to review objections to materials in a school library media program; prohibiting a county board of education from dismissing, demoting, suspending, disciplining, reassigning, transferring, or otherwise retaliating against certain school library media program personnel for performing their job duties consistent with certain standards.”

Moore on Thursday also signed House Bill 1386, which GLSEN notes will “develop guidelines for an anti-bias training program for school employees.”

By Greta Díaz González Vázquez | AUSTIN, Texas – After Kayden Asher came out as transgender to his family and small Gulf Coast community, their rejection sent him into a spiral of mental health episodes that landed him in the care of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.

During his years in foster care, Asher moved between nearly 10 different placements, including mental hospitals, residential treatment centers and foster homes.

At the same time, Texas politicians intensified efforts to regulate the lives of transgender youth and banned gender-affirming care — such as hormone therapy, which Asher received while in foster care — for trans kids.

Since leaving the state’s care, Asher has pursued a degree in paralegal studies at Austin Community College with the hope of eventually working with queer foster youth who he said are increasingly isolated by state policies. But as the political climate has increased hostilities toward transgender people, Asher fears the hostility in his home state will force him to leave Texas.

Research shows that LGBTQ+ foster kids are more likely to live in group home settings, move between placements and face mistreatment. Yet Texas CPS collects little information about the sexual orientation or gender identity of youth in foster care. Asher discusses how growing up trans in Texas foster care made it more difficult to begin building a life once he aged out of the system.

Watch:

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

Greta Díaz González Vázquez was a two-time Tribune fellow on the multimedia team in 2022 and 2023. She graduated with a master’s degree in journalism from The University of North Texas, where she also earned a certificate in narrative journalism.

Greta worked as a journalist in Mexico for six years, freelancing and doing multimedia journalism for a public radio station. Her reporting is focused on gender violence in Mexico and science. Greta’s work has earned state and national awards in her home country, including the National Award for Science Journalism and the National Faces of Discrimination Award.

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

Texans need truth. Help us report it.

Independent Texas reporting needs your support. The Texas Tribune delivers fact-based journalism for Texans, by Texans — and our community of members, the readers who donate, make our work possible. Help us bring you and millions of others in-depth news and information. Will you support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation of any amount?

YES, I’LL DONATE TODAY

By Jennifer Shutt | WASHINGTON — U.S. House lawmakers will no longer be able to request earmarked funding for some nonprofits under a change in eligibility made by the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee on Thursday.

The alteration is related to an uproar during last year’s annual government funding process, when House Republicans, who are in the majority, included three LGBTQ projects in one of their spending bills and then stripped that funding during a tense public markup.

The change to eligibility in the House affects nonprofits that fall under the Economic Development Initiative account within the Transportation-HUD spending bill, one of the dozen funding bills that are written by congressional appropriators.

The new guidance laid out by Chairman Tom Cole doesn’t apply to House lawmakers seeking funding for nonprofits in the other accounts eligible for earmark requests.

It also doesn’t affect how the earmark process will work on the Senate side. That means there is another avenue for lawmakers to secure funding for LGBTQ projects if they decide to make those requests and the Senate spending panel chooses to include it in its version of the bill.

“Similar to previous reforms made in this Congress, this change aims to ensure projects are consistent with the community development goals of the federal program,” Cole wrote in a “Dear Colleague” letter.

Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, became chairman of the powerful spending panel earlier this month after the former chairwoman, Kay Granger of Texas, decided to leave that leadership post early.

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the committee, released a written statement, saying the change “is a seismic shift, as nearly half of all the 2024 House-funded EDI projects were directed to non-profit recipients.”

“In order to accommodate the extreme Republican wing, Republicans are trying to root out any help for the LGBTQ+ community,” DeLauro wrote. “They are willing to hurt their own religious organizations, seniors, and veterans.”

The eligibility change, she wrote, would exclude House lawmakers from requesting funding for “YMCAs, Boys & Girls Clubs, and other groups vital to our communities.”

Three LGBTQ projects

House Republicans originally included $1.8 million in funding for the William Way LGBT Center in Philadelphia, $970,000 for the LGBT Center of Greater Reading’s Transitional Housing Program in Pennsylvania and $850,000 for affordable senior housing at LGBTQ Senior Housing, Inc. in Massachusetts in their Transportation-HUD spending bill released last summer.

All three projects were requested by House lawmakers, the first step in the earmark process.

The projects were funded under the Economic Development Initiatives account that at the time was eligible for earmarks in the Housing and Urban Development section of the Transportation-HUD spending bill.

Cole, then-chairman of that subcommittee, removed the three projects through a so-called manager’s amendment that made numerous changes to the bill during committee debate.

While manager’s amendments are standard and typically bipartisan, the removal infuriated Democrats on the committee, who urged their GOP colleagues to reconsider during a heated debate last July.

Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan said at the time removing the funding was an insult to LGBTQ Americans as well as their families and allies.

“The fact that you would take away members’ earmarks simply because they refer to the LGBTQI+ community is insane, is bigoted,” Pocan said in July.

The final batch of spending bills Congress approved in March, following House-Senate negotiations, was slated to include $1 million for the William Way LGBT Center in Philadelphia, since the Pennsylvania senators also requested funding. But that was removed from the bill after it had been released, setting off a confusing blame game among lawmakers.

The final Labor-HHS-Education spending bill approved in March included $850,000 for LGBTQ Senior Housing, Inc., MA, for services for older adults within the Administration for Community Living account within the HHS section of the bill.

That funding in Massachusetts had been stripped from the House’s Transportation-HUD bill by GOP lawmakers, but was also requested by the state’s two senators and included in the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill within that chamber.

That final spending bill also included $400,000 for the Garden State Equality Education Fund, Inc., for trauma-informed strategies to support LGBTQ+ youth in New Jersey, within the Innovation and Improvement account for the Department of Education.

That funding was never requested by House lawmakers, but was asked for by the state’s two senators.

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

Jennifer covers the nation’s capital as a senior reporter for States Newsroom. Her coverage areas include congressional policy, politics and legal challenges with a focus on health care, unemployment, housing and aid to families.

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

The preceding article was previously published by The DC Bureau of States Newsroom and is republished with permission.

States Newsroom is the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bill moves to the Senate for consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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