LONG BEACH, Calif. – The city of Long Beach kicked off its Pride week and month activities Tuesday with a ceremonial flag raising in the Civic Center Plaza in downtown. With City Manager Tom Modica, Fifth District Councilwoman Megan Kerr, Parks and Recreation Director Brent Dennis and Ninth District Councilwoman Dr. Joni Ricks-Oddie looking on, Mayor Rex Richardson hoisted a Progress Pride flag on a city-owned flag pole.

“Long Beach is a city of acceptance, and we proudly celebrate diversity and inclusivity across our entire community,” said Mayor Richardson. “It is our duty to take a moment of pause to celebrate the raising of the Progress Pride flag to reflect the visibility, contributions, and resilience Long Beach’s vibrant LGBTQ+ community.

In June 2023, the Long Beach City Council adopted a resolution recognizing the week of Long Beach’s annual Pride Festival and Pride Parade, taking place this year over the weekend of May 18-19, as Long Beach LGBTQ+ Pride Week and directing to annually raise the LGBTQ+ Progress Pride Flag at Long Beach Civic Center Plaza and light City assets during that time. The resolution additionally recognizes May 22 annually as “Harvey Milk Day” in honor of his birthday and recognizes the month of June as LGBTQ+ Pride Month. The recommendation to adopt a resolution was brought forward by Fifth District Councilwoman Megan Kerr and approved by the City Council.

“This symbolic gesture demonstrates the City’s commitment to supporting and uplifting the LGBTQ+ community now and into the future,” said Fifth District Councilwoman Megan Kerr. “I commend our City Council, City leadership and City staff for their dedication to equality and diversity.”

Today we held our flag 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ raising ceremony to celebrate the start of #LongBeachPride! Learn more about our flag raising ceremony here 🔗 https://t.co/PwRUntFJQI pic.twitter.com/G6Vx1LzUd4

— City of Long Beach (@LongBeachCity) May 14, 2024

We are LIVE at our flag raising ceremony to celebrate the start of #LongBeachPride! https://t.co/MR7gkxA3YY

— City of Long Beach (@LongBeachCity) May 14, 2024

Long Beach Pride is kicking off Pride season this weekend, May 18-19, 2024

The 41st Annual Long Beach Pride Parade is kicking off on Sunday, at 10 a.m. Audiences can tune-in to special coverage on parade day on nbcla.com, telemundo52.com, on the free NBCLA and Telemundo 52 mobile apps and on the stations’ free 24/7 local news streaming channels NBC Los Angeles News, Telemundo Noticias California.

Led by an esteemed lineup of grand marshals, the 2024 Long Beach Pride Parade will feature over 130 participating organizations, businesses and stakeholder groups showcasing a variety of vibrant and engaging floats and displays. The parade will commence at Ocean Boulevard and Lindero Avenue then travel along iconic stretches of Ocean Boulevard to Alamitos Avenue in Downtown.

IVY Queen, the Queen of Reggaeton, will headline the Sunday lineup of the 41st annual Long Beach Pride Festival, scheduled for May 19th, 2024.

Tickets Now Available: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/41st-annual-long-beach-pride-festival-tickets-816143115027

General tickets for the Long Beach Pride Festival are now on sale, starting at $40. These tickets grant festival-goers access to a weekend of exuberant celebration, stellar performances, and a welcoming community environment.

Earlier this year, the City of Long Beach announced it will serve as the official host and funder for the 2024 Long Beach Pride Parade while Long Beach Pride, the nonprofit that traditionally produces the parade, restructures its organization. This year’s parade will coincide with the Long Beach Pride Festival, taking place Saturday, May 18 and Sunday, May 19 along the Downtown waterfront. The festival is a separate event organized by the Long Beach Pride organization. More information about the festival will be available at longbeachpride.com/festival.

More information about the 2024 Long Beach Pride Parade is available at longbeach.gov/prideparade.

The City of Long Beach

Long Beach is nestled along the Southern California coast and home to approximately 466,000 people. As an award-winning full-service charter city, Long Beach offers the amenities of a metropolitan city while maintaining a strong sense of individual and diverse neighborhoods, culture and community. With a bustling downtown and over six miles of scenic beaches, Long Beach is a renowned tourist and business destination and home to the iconic Queen Mary, nationally recognized Aquarium of the Pacific and Long Beach Airport, award-winning Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center and world-class Port of Long Beach.

By Jemma Stephenson  | MONTGOMERY, Ala. – A bill that would have expanded Alabama’s “Don’t Say Gay” law died on the final day of the 2024 regular session.

HB 130, sponsored by Rep. Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City, would have extended Alabama’s prohibition on discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten to fifth grade to kindergarten to eighth grade. It also would have banned  flags or other insignia indicating gender identity or sexual orientation.

Butler said in a Friday phone interview that he didn’t know what the issues were in the final days of the session but said there was a filibuster in the Senate “which is not uncommon.” 

The legislation was the latest in a years-long attempt by Alabama Republicans to push LGBTQ+ Alabamians out of public life and in some cases restrict their health care. In 2021, the Legislature passed a ban on transgender students playing high school sports and the original “Don’t Say Gay” law, tacked into a bill restricting bathroom use by transgender youth.  

The following year, the Legislature banned puberty blockers and hormones for use in gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The Legislature last year expanded the transgender sports ban to college athletics. 

Katie Glenn, a policy associate with Southern Poverty Law Center, which opposed the bill, said in a phone interview Friday that it could have had a chilling effect which, she said, was emerging in some areas of the state.

“That chilling effect is absolutely what is intended by bills like HB 130,” she said. “it’s not actually to punish people, although it can be used to do that. It’s to scare people, to scare administrators, staff, teachers and students into hiding who they are while they’re at school.”

Butler also said he was not sure why the bill began moving again near the end of the session but said that bills “deemed a little controversial” are sometimes pushed back due to the amount they can take to pass.

“They shut down the House and the Senate,” he said.

But Butler said he would bring the bill back next year. He said that he has not met any parents who want the topics discussed in schools and claimed that “there is a move across this nation to sexualize our children.”

“Our schools in Alabama aren’t performing well enough to be going away from academics,” he said.

Legislative questions

The bill passed the House in late April and was in position for a final vote in the Senate. But Democrats repeatedly criticized the measure, and even some conservative Republicans had questions about its scope.

As originally filed, the bill would have extended the ban up to 12th grade. Butler described it in a House committee meeting as a measure to “purify” public schools, a statement he walked back after criticism from Rep. Barbara Drummond, D-Mobile. Drummond later amended the bill on the House floor to limit the grades to eighth grade.

In the Senate committee, senators had questions about the extent of the bill and potential constitutional violations, especially around the flag and insignia. One speaker suggested the bill was broad enough that it would ban rainbow stickers in parking lots. Sen. Larry Stutts, R-Tuscumbia, said he was “confused” after Butler said that parking lots were not part of school property. “The property is not the parking lot?” he asked.

“Well, we’re talking about the actual building,” said Butler.

The bill passed out of committee 5-2-2.

Butler said Friday that that concern is “ridiculous” and one of the committee members might have been having fun. He compared it to teachers being allowed to have political bumper stickers but not political signs in classrooms.

Glenn said the confusion could have contributed to the bill’s demise.

“There were lots of questions from legislators on both sides of the aisle,” she said.  

She said the vague language bill does make it unclear what the impact of the bill would ultimately be.

Glenn said the bill eventually suffered from organizing from people in the state, as well as the work of Democratic lawmakers, especially in filibustering.

Carmarion D. Anderson-Harvey, Human Rights Campaign’s Alabama state director, said in a statement Friday that Alabama lawmakers should spend their time on other issues, saying that LGBTQ+ Alabamians would continue fighting “despite years of dehumanizing rhetoric and relentless attacks on our community’s existence.”

“Most Americans, in addition to Alabamians, see these bills for what they really are – disgraceful, MAGA-led attempts to recycle false and outdated tropes about LGBTQ+ identities,” the statement said. “Alabama has real issues facing education, voting rights, and criminal justice reform, and now it’s time that lawmakers turn their attention to those issues instead of wasting taxpayers’ money to demonize an entire community.”

“Don’t Say Gay” laws had spread around conservative states, though they have also brought litigation Florida, which passed a version of the bill in 2022, settled a lawsuit over it in March, according to the Associated Press.

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

Jemma Stephenson covers education as a reporter for the Alabama Reflector. She previously worked at the Montgomery Advertiser and graduated from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

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

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.

By John Cole | HARRISBURG, Penn. – Later this month, Pennsylvania will mark 10 years since a judge struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. But lawmakers and advocates say there’s still work to be done, and that it’s time to codify marriage equality protections into law. 

“Too often we have seen long held rights and freedoms vanish in the blink of an eye,” state Sen. Carolyn Comitta (D-Chester) said at a press conference last Tuesday at the Capitol in Harrisburg, alongside fellow members of the Pennsylvania LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus. “The fact is, we cannot rely solely on the courts to fix the failings of our laws. There is just too much at stake.”

“We have the power to affirm this right,” she added. “And we must continue to advance equality for same sex couples, and all LGBTQ+ individuals in Pennsylvania.”

In May 2014, a federal judge ruled that Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ended same-sex marriage bans nationwide.

Comitta and state Reps. Jessica Benham (D-Allegheny) and Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia) have legislation currently before the House Judiciary Committee that would update current laws to remove “outdated, unconstitutional, and unnecessary sections of law,” in regards to marriage equality. They argue that this language still  present in Pennsylvania’s laws would ban same-sex marriage if both the state and national court decisions were overturned.

Ryan Matthews, Pennsylvania State Director of the Human Rights Campaign, cited a Public Religion Research Institute poll that found 66% of Pennsylvanians support codifying marriage equality into law. He said it was time for Pennsylvania’s legislature to follow the lead of President Joe Biden, who signed the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022.

“So when our allies stand up and introduce important legislation like this, we are here to thank them, but we’re also here to say to all of the other legislators that ask why is this an important step, to show that it is because of basic respect for us and our community that we need to be recognized and protected in law,” Matthews said.

Benham, who was the first openly queer woman elected to the Pennsylvania General Assembly, said legislation needs to go further in protecting marriage equality rights. 

“But I do think it is important, too, when we talk about marriage equality being the law of the land to recognize that there is a group of people who still do not have full access to marriage rights,” Benham said. “Until individuals with disabilities can get married without losing their Social Security, disability or health care benefits, marriage equality is not a law of the land for all.”

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

John Cole is a journalist based in Philadelphia. He’s worked for various outlets such as The Northeast Times, PoliticsPA, and PCN. In these previous roles, he covered a wide range of topics from local civic association meetings to races across the commonwealth. He earned a degree in journalism from Temple University.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Pennsylvania Capital-Star and is republished with permission.

The Pennsylvania Capital-Star is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news site dedicated to honest and aggressive coverage of state government, politics and policy.

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

By Erin Reed | ATLANTA, Ga. – On Monday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that transgender health insurance exclusions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The case was brought by a transgender employee of the Houston County Sheriff’s Office in Georgia who was denied coverage for gender-affirming surgery.

The employee sued in 2019, and after a protracted lawsuit, won at the district court level. Now, with this 11th Circuit Court ruling in favor of transgender employees, a significant precedent is building to protect transgender employees against health insurance restrictions that deny them the ability to get gender-affirming care.

The employee in question first transitioned in 2017. After informing Sheriff Cullen Talton at the Houston County Sheriff’s Office of her decision to transition, she was told that he “does not believe in” being transgender, but that she would be allowed to keep her job.

However, when it came time to obtain gender-affirming surgery, significant controversy erupted: her claims were denied. When she filed a lawsuit to have her surgery covered, the sheriff’s office and county fought against her right to equitable health care coverage.

Since then, the county has spent incredible amounts of money denying the plaintiff her care. As of 2023, Houston County, Georgia, had spent $1,188,701 fighting against providing health care coverage for the transgender plaintiff.

This is significant: ProPublica reports that it is over three times the county’s annual physical and mental health budget. Importantly, no other employee has requested coverage for gender-affirming surgery, so fighting against coverage has significantly cost the county far more than it would have gained by simply providing the employee with that coverage.

Ultimately, a lower court ruled in her favor, stating that such exclusions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In the decision, the judge stated, “the implication of Bostock is clear… discrimination on the basis of transgender status is discrimination on the basis of sex and is a violation of Title VII.”

The judge then ruled that the exclusion was facially discriminatory and violates Title VII. In doing so, he ordered that the county must drop such exclusions. The plaintiff was also awarded $60,000 following the ruling.

The county appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which seemed primed to potentially reverse it. Recently, the 11th Circuit has issued harsh rulings toward transgender individuals, such as a ruling that gender-affirming care bans for transgender youth do not violate Equal Protection and Due Process rights.

In this particular case, though, the court considered a different argument: whether such exclusions on transgender insurance coverage violate employment law under the Civil Rights Act. The 11th Circuit concluded that they did: “The exclusion is a blanket denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery… because transgender persons are the only plan participants who qualify for gender-affirming surgery, the plan denies health care coverage based on transgender status.”

In making its decision, the court referenced two recent developments that may change the legal landscape for transgender people.

In one footnote, the court mentioned Kadel v. Folwell, a case just decided in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the court ruling that discrimination against transgender health care violates the Equal Protection Clause. Though it does not reference the case elsewhere, the 11th Circuit used similar legal arguments: that you cannot circumvent discrimination cases by discriminating by proxy. In this case, like in the Kadel case, the judge ruled that discriminating against transgender health care is also discriminating against transgender status.

The judge ruled that the defendant’s “sex is inextricably tied to the denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery,” and thus, one cannot circumvent discrimination statutes by claiming they are only discriminating against a procedure and not a category of people.

Federal court rules employer cannot deny Trans healthcare coverage

The court also referenced new Title VII guidance from the Biden administration in a footnote when making its decision that exclusions violate those regulations. On April 29, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated guidance stating that Title VII protections include protections on gender identity.

Although the guidance does not have the force of law, “numerous courts, including the Supreme Court, have said: Because these guidelines are based on the expertise and careful reasoning of the agency that’s charged with enforcing anti-discrimination laws, they’re to be given deference by the courts,” Christopher Ho, the director of the National Origin and Immigrants’ Rights Program at Legal Aid at Work, stated in an interview with the Washington Post at the time of the guidelines’ release. Now, it appears that a major court, which has ruled against transgender rights in the past, has indeed given those guidelines some credit in their ruling.

The ruling is significant and will likely be one of the many rulings referenced whenever such cases eventually reach the Supreme Court. Multiple courts have ruled in favor of transgender people and their health care, but some significant courts, including in a recent decision by the 11th Circuit Court on health care for transgender youth, have ruled against such legal protections. It is likely that this decision will be cited favorably in many other court cases in the coming months.

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

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.

MINEOLA, N.Y. –  A judge from the Nassau County Supreme Court has struck down Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman’s February 22, 2024 executive order banning transgender girls and women from participating in girls’ and women’s sports at county-run facilities.  

In March, the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging Blakeman’s executive order on behalf of the Long Island Roller Rebels, a Nassau County recreational women’s flat track roller derby league. Under the executive order, the league, which welcomes trans women, was barred from using Nassau County’s facilities. 

The lawsuit argues that the policy violates New York’s Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law, which explicitly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity following passage of New York’s Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA).  

This past Friday, Nassau County Supreme Court Judge Francis Ricigliano ruled that Blakeman did not have the authority to issue such an order. “In doing so, this Court finds the County Executive acted beyond the scope of his authority as the Chief Executive Officer of Nassau County,” Ricigliano wrote.

Judge Ricigliano also noted that Blakeman could not act without corresponding action by the Nassau County Legislature. It includes representatives from each of the county’s 19 districts.

Reacting Blakeman responded in a statement, saying, “Lack of courage from a Judge who didn’t want to decide the case on its merits. Unfortunately, girls and women are hurt by the Court.”

“We are gratified the court has struck down a harmful policy that belongs in the dustbin of history,” said Gabriella Larios, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “The ruling deals a serious blow to County Executive Blakeman’s attempt to score cheap political points by peddling harmful stereotypes about transgender women and girls. We will continue to ensure that the attacks against LGBTQ+ rights that are sweeping the nation will not stand in New York.”  

“Today’s decision is a victory for those who believe that transgender people have the right to participate in sports just like everyone else. It sends a strong message that transphobic discrimination cannot stand,” said Curly Fry, president of Long Island Roller Rebels. “As a league welcoming trans women and committed to providing a safe space for everyone to be their full selves, County Executive Blakeman’s order tried to punish us just because we believe in inclusion and stand against transphobia. Trans people belong everywhere including in sports, and they will not be erased.” 

In early April, U.S. District Court Judge Nusrat Choudhury, who is on the bench of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, denied Blakeman’s request for a temporary restraining order against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

On March 1st, the New York State Attorney General sent a order of cease and desist to Blakeman demanding that the Republican Nassau County Executive rescind his February 22 directive within five days or else face additional legal actions. 

“The law is perfectly clear: you cannot discriminate against a person because of their gender identity or expression. We have no room for hate or bigotry in New York,” the Attorney General wrote. “This executive order is transphobic and blatantly illegal. Nassau County must immediately rescind the order, or we will not hesitate to take decisive legal action.” 

The Nassau County Executive then announced he was filing a lawsuit over the Attorney General’s actions.

WASHINGTON – Citing the rising numbers of violent threats primarily across the digital landscape online including emailed bomb and death threats, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Homeland Security Investigations have issued warnings that foreign terrorist organizations (FTOS) or their supporters are targeting the LGBTQ+ community during Pride Month.

In a notice released on May 10, the FBI and HSI warn that efforts to commit or inspire violence against LGBTQ+ celebrations, including Pride celebrations or other LGBTQ+-related venues, are compounded by the current heightened threat environment in the United States and other western countries. 

The FBI and HSI noted that June 12, 2024 marks the eighth anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub Orlando shooting, during which the attacker killed 49 and wounded 53 people. After the Pulse shooting, pro-ISIS messaging praised this attack as one of the high-profile attacks in Western countries, and FTO supporters celebrated it. There are concerns that instances like the Pulse anniversary could spark a violent attack.

In addition to the threats posed by off-shore groups, increased threat levels domestically including recently documented instances of homophobic and transphobic threats exemplified recently from reporting by multiple media outlets regarding Libs of TikTok’s creator Chaya Raichik, who had initiated an ongoing campaign against Planet Fitness, demanding a boycott in retaliation for the gym’s trans-inclusive locker room policy.

At least 53 locations of Planet Fitness have reported hoax bomb threats in recent weeks, the threats were primarily reported through emails, and in some cases, phone calls. continuing what has become a trend of violent threats against institutions targeted by Raichik. 

Raichik has a long documented history of fostering anti-LGBTQ+ animus through her posts which in turn has led to what NBC News, Media Matters, the SPLC, the Blade, and others documenting Raichik’s anti-LGBTQ+ acts of arguably stochastic terrorism.

In February, NBC News technology reporter David Ingram, detailed bomb threats and violent threats inspired by Raichik’s social media posts. NBC News identified 33 instances, starting in November 2020, when people or institutions singled out by Libs of TikTok later reported bomb threats or other violent intimidation. 

During his April 11 testimony on Capitol Hill, FBI Director Christopher Wray issued a warning to lawmakers telling a House subcommittee that there is a growing fear among law enforcement officials of possible “coordinated attack” inside the U.S. telling committee members that a “lone-wolf” attack promulgated by events in Middle East are the agency’s overarching worry.

Speaking with the Blade on background, a senior FBI official noted that Pride events in locales other than major urban settings, particularly the largest Pride gatherings in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. which have a traditionally large police presence, smaller cities and towns are at elevated risk.

In an emailed statement, the FBI said it has, in general, observed an increase in threats of violence targeting institutions like hospitals and schools.

“As a country and organization, we have seen an increase in threats of violence targeting government officials and institutions, houses of worship, schools, and medical facilities, just to name a few. The FBI and our partners take all threats of violence seriously and responding to these threats ties up law enforcement resources.

“When the threats are made as a hoax, it puts innocent people at risk, is a waste of law enforcement’s limited resources, and costs taxpayers. The FBI and our state and local partners will continue to aggressively pursue perpetrators of these threats — real or false — and hold them accountable,” the FBI statement said.”

Reacting to the elevated threat levels in a statement, GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis said:

“A fringe few extremists, domestically and overseas, are irrationally threatened by the rising tide of acceptance for LGBTQ people. It is important to keep Prides safe for all attendees, and for people to keep showing up during Pride and throughout the year to speak up for the equality and safety of their communities and all marginalized people.”

The FBI is asking that Pride event planners, organizers, and others be aware of possible indicators of potential threat activity:

• Violent threats made online, in person, or via mail.
• Unusual or prolonged testing or probing of security measures at events or venues.
• Photography of security related equipment, personnel, or access points consistent with pre-operational surveillance without a reasonable alternative explanation.
• Unusual surveillance or interest in buildings, gatherings, or events.
• Attempts to gain access to restricted areas, bypass security, or impersonate law enforcement officials.
• Observation of or questions about facility security measures, including barriers, restricted areas, cameras, and intrusion detection systems without a reasonable alternative explanation.
• Eliciting information from facility personnel regarding the nature of upcoming events, crowd sizes, busiest times of day, etc. without a reasonable alternative explanation.
• Attempts to enter a restricted area, bypass security, or impersonate law enforcement officials.

ENTEBBE, Uganda — Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni on May 10 met with U.S. Ambassador to Uganda William Popp.

Museveni in a post to his X account described the meeting, which took place at his official residence in Entebbe, as “productive.”

“We discussed key issues, such as the upcoming Census, regional peace, and socio-economic development. I emphasized the need for an inclusive census for informed decision-making,” said Museveni. “I also shared my views on fostering peace and security in the region. Additionally, we discussed opportunities in transitioning our population from a rural-based pre-capitalist society to industry and services.”

I had a productive meeting with the US Ambassador to Uganda, H.E William Popp, at State House Entebbe. We discussed key issues such as the upcoming census, regional peace, and socio-economic development. I emphasized the need for an inclusive census for informed decision-making.… pic.twitter.com/yHRZPHEltZ

— Yoweri K Museveni (@KagutaMuseveni) May 9, 2024

A statement the Ugandan Foreign Affairs Ministry released noted Popp “conveyed his appreciation for the president’s valuable time and wise counsel.” 

“He also acknowledged President Museveni’s extensive knowledge and experience, underscoring the importance of their continued dialogue in fostering a strong and mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and Uganda,” said the statement.

The statement further notes Foreign Affairs Minister Jele Odongo; Defense and Veterans Affairs Minister Jacob Oboth-Oboth; Rosette Byengoma of the Defense Ministry; and Lt. Gen. Samuel Okiding, who is deputy chief of the Ugandan defense forces, attended the meeting.

The meeting took place nearly a year after Museveni signed the Anti-Homosexuality Act that, among other things, contains a death penalty provision for “aggravated homosexuality.”

The U.S. has sanctioned Ugandan officials and removed the country from a duty-free trade program. The World Bank Group also suspended new loans to Uganda in response to the Anti-Homosexuality Act.

The Ugandan Constitutional Court last month refused to “nullify the Anti-Homosexuality Act in its totality.” A group of Ugandan LGBTQ+ activists have appealed the ruling.

It is not clear whether Popp raised the Anti-Homosexuality Act with Museveni during their meeting.

The State Department referred the Washington Blade to the U.S. Embassy in Kampala, the Ugandan capital, for comment. The embassy did not respond to a request for comment.

By Ethan Dewitt | CONCORD, N.H. – In early May, Democrats in the House defeated the “Honesty in Education Act.” The bill was the latest effort to require public school teachers to answer parents when they ask about changes to their child’s gender identity. 

But another bill is moving forward that supporters say would give parents more control over their children’s instruction in schools – and opponents say would intrude on classroom instruction.

House Bill 1312 would allow parents to opt their children out of any “instruction or program of” sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or gender expression. 

Currently, state law allows parents to withdraw their children from classes related to human sexual education. HB 1312 would expand that ability to apply to the additional topics. 

Under the existing process, parents must notify the school district in writing that they object to the class material. And the parents must propose alternative instruction that is agreed upon by the school district, and pay for it themselves if there is a cost.

HB 1312 would expand the withdrawal and require school district staff to notify parents at least two weeks in advance of any material that might fall into the category. 

Separately, the bill would prevent school districts from requiring that teachers withhold information from parents about their child’s well-being – including information about their sexuality. Individual teachers could still choose not to answer questions from parents about their child’s sexuality, but school districts could not make it a blanket policy under the bill.

The legislation, which passed the House 186-185, appears likely to clear the Republican-led Senate, too; the Senate Education Committee voted to recommend that it pass, in a 3-1, party-line vote. 

Supporters say the bill would give parents a greater say in how their children learn about sensitive topics. But opponents said the bill would empower discriminatory views against LGBTQ+ people, and that the notification process would be disruptive to teachers.

“The bill seems to be targeting, and I think stigmatizing, any instruction concerning LGBTQ+ people, and I think that this language really sends the message to LGBTQ+ students that their feelings and identities are something to be shunned, feared, potentially even censored, or not even acknowledged,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire. 

To Sen. Tim Lang, a Sanbornton Republican, the bill would encourage parents to communicate with their children about the topics – knowing that they were coming up in the curriculum – which he said could foster better connections between parents and children.

“Parents should have these discussions with their own children and not have teachers do this. This bill is the prompt for parents to have those conversations.”

Lang said the notification requirements would not prevent school districts from teaching the topics, but would rather allow parents to choose whether to participate in them. And he argued that the bill is not intended to allow parents to withdraw their child from materials that relate to LGBTQ+ people or movements in history.

“It’s just informative to parents,” he said. “Nothing stops the school from doing those classes. The class is allowed. That just says that if you do it though, because this is a sensitive topic, you need to notify parents.”

A class about Harvey Milk, the openly gay San Francisco politician who was assassinated in 1978, would not fall under the definition of instruction of sexual orientation, Lang said, because Milk was a historical figure. But any instruction directed at students themselves that delved into their own sexual orientations or gender identity – such as that in a sex education class – would need to be disclosed, he said. 

But representatives of teachers unions said the bill as written does not make those distinctions clear. Teachers might interpret the law to mean that any class that discussed the history of LGBTQ+ rights would need to be noticed ahead of time, opponents said. And English teachers might feel compelled to disclose any book that featured LGBTQ+ characters, and to empower parents to prevent their children from reading those books.

“If you pass this bill that expands the areas that a parent is required notification of and can opt a child out of, where will it stop?” said Deb Howes, president of the American Federation of Teachers of New Hampshire. “… Can you study the pay gap between men and women in the same jobs in an economics class, which has to do with policies around gender discrimination?”

Lang disagreed with that characterization; books that happen to include transgender or non-heterosexual characters would not automatically invoke the disclosure requirement, he said. Only instruction that was specifically intended to teach students about sexual orientation or gender identity would need advanced notice, he said.

Brian Hawkins, director of government relations for the National Education Association of New Hampshire, argued that the topics the bill would add to the parental notification law were so broad that teachers would find the law difficult to follow. 

“We think that 1312 is another piece of legislation that would significantly limit educators’ ability to teach, and provides far too many instances of vague language and framework to determine when certain actions violate the statute,” Hawkins said. 

New Hampshire lawmakers first passed the law allowing parental opt-out from sex ed in 2017. In recent years, Republicans have pushed to allow more parental control over school library books, and have pressed for legislation to require teachers to answer any questions from parents about their child’s preferred pronouns or gender identity in school. 

The latest parental notification bill effort, Senate Bill 341, was “indefinitely postponed” earlier this month, on a voting day when House Democrats had a majority over Republicans in the near-evenly divided chamber. That motion means that the bill is dead and that it cannot return as an amendment to another bill this legislative session.

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

Ethan DeWitt is the New Hampshire Bulletin’s education reporter. Previously, he worked as the New Hampshire State House reporter for the Concord Monitor, covering the state, the Legislature, and the New Hampshire presidential primary. A Westmoreland native, Ethan started his career as the politics and health care reporter at the Keene Sentinel. Email: [email protected]

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

The preceding article was previously published by the New Hampshire Bulletin and is republished with permission.

The independent, nonprofit New Hampshire Bulletin is guided by these words from our state constitution: “Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive.” We will work tirelessly every day to make sure elected officials and state agencies are held to that standard.

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

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – Over the past few weeks, Dr. Hillary Cass has begun giving interviews in the United States to defend her report targeting transgender care. The Cass Review has faced criticism for its alleged anti-trans political ties, biased findings, promotion of conversion therapists, and poor treatment of evidence regarding transgender care.

In an interview with NPR, Dr. Cass claimed that transgender individuals’ care should be judged by their “employment,” rather than their satisfaction with the care received. Later, during an interview with The New York Times, Cass misleadingly stated that she had not been contacted by any lawmakers or U.S. health bodies, despite having met with political appointees of Gov. Ron DeSantis to discuss banning trans care before her report was published.

In response, both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society have categorically rejected the review as a justification for bans on care and have challenged many of its alleged findings.

In a statement released by the Endocrine Society, they reiterated that they stand by their guidelines around the provision of gender affirming care for transgender youth: “We stand firm in our support of gender-affirming care. Transgender and gender-diverse people deserve access to needed and often life-saving medical care. NHS England’s recent report, the Cass Review, does not contain any new research that would contradict the recommendations made in our Clinical Practice Guideline on gender-affirming care… Medical evidence, not politics, should inform treatment decisions.”

The Endocrine Society defended its guidelines, highlighting that they cite over 260 research studies to support their recommendations on transgender care. Moreover, the guidelines were developed with input from more than 18,000 members who had the opportunity to comment.

This process is notably more transparent than the Cass Review, whose advisory members have been kept secret. Investigations have revealed that several members are part of an anti-trans lobbying organization, SEGM, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has described as “the hub” of an “anti-LGBTQ pseudoscience network.”

“Although the scientific landscape has not changed significantly, misinformation about gender-affirming care is being politicized. In the United States, 24 states have enacted laws or policies barring adolescents’ access to gender-affirming care, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In seven states, the policies also include provisions that would prevent at least some adults over age 18 from accessing gender-affirming care,” the Endocrine Society Letter reads, “Transgender and gender-diverse teenagers, their parents, and physicians should be able to determine the appropriate course of treatment. Banning evidence-based medical care based on misinformation takes away the ability of parents and patients to make informed decisions..”

You can see the Endocrine Society’s release here:

Similar sentiments were shared by Dr. Ben Hoffman, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who responded to the Cass Review, “What we’re seeing more and more is that the politically infused public discourse is getting this wrong and it’s impacting the way that doctors care for their patients. Physicians must be able to practice medicine that is informed by their medical education, training, experience, and the available evidence, freely and without the threat of punishment. Instead, state legislatures have passed bills to ban and restrict gender-affirming care, which means that right now, for far too many families, their zip code determines their ability to seek the health care they need. Politicians have inserted themselves into the exam room, and this is dangerous for both physicians and for families.”

Transgender care saves lives. A Cornell review of more than 51 studies determined that trans care significantly improves the mental health of transgender people. One major study even noted a 73% lower suicidality among trans youth who began care.

In a recent article published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in April of 2024, puberty blockers were found to significantly reduce depression and anxiety. In Germany, a recent review by over 27 medical organizations has judged that “not providing treatment can do harm” to transgender youth.

The evidence around transgender care led to a historic policy resolution condemning bans on gender affirming care by the American Psychological Association, the largest psychological association in the world, which was voted on by representatives of its 157,000 members.

Interestingly, Cass herself advocated against care bans in her most recent New York Times interview released today, where she stated, “There are young people who absolutely benefit from a medical pathway, and we need to make sure that those young people have access,” although she added a caveat that those young people should be forced to consent to research in order to access care, leaving many to question the ethics of such an approach.

Transition should be measured by “employment,” not satisfaction

Regardless of Cass’s statements, her review is being used to justify bans in the United States and worldwide. In the United Kingdom, her report has led to bans on puberty blockers in England and even inquiries into adult care.

In the United States, Senators in South Carolina used it to pass a total care ban for trans youth in the state. Now, major medical organizations have responded firmly against the idea that evidence around gender affirming care is weak, challenging states who use such misleading claims to ban transgender care as practicing politics, not medicine.

You can find the statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society here:

Endocrine Society Cass Statement:

Download

AAP Cass Statement:

Download

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

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 James Brooks | JUNEAU, Alaska – The Alaska House of Representatives voted 22-18 late Sunday to ban transgender girls from girls’ school sports teams by limiting access to girls whose original birth certificates identify them as girls.

The decision followed hours of filibustering by a coalition of opponents, but supporters mustered enough votes to defeat dozens of amendments offered by those opponents and advanced House Bill 183 to the state Senate, where the proposal is expected to die without becoming law.

Though the Senate has said it will not hear the bill and there are no known transgender athletes in Alaska school sports, it was nonetheless a top priority for most of the House’s Republicans, who said they were responding to their constituents.

Rep. Jamie Allard, R-Anchorage, said she believes transgender girls are boys, and that the House Republicans were standing in support of other Alaskans who feel the same.

“I want you to know Alaska stands with you. I stand with you. I know my majority members stand with them too. To the parents of the children of Alaska, know we will fight. We will fight for your children. We will fight for your girls in sports,” she said.

Opponents of the bill said that if the proposal ever were to become law, it would immediately draw legal challenges for being discriminatory.

“Trans girls are girls. Our gender identity is determined in our brains, it is coded, it is fixed,” said Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, who opposed the bill. “99.5% of us have a gender identity in our brains that matches our physical bodies, half a percent does not.”

Rep. CJ McCormick, D-Bethel, has suffered from a spinal condition since he was young. Speaking on the House floor, he said he was bullied and teased in school for being different. 

“I am a Bethel kid. I grew up in rural Alaska. I grew up with a rare spinal condition. Kids used to beat me up, just made fun of my neck,” he said.

He became friends with some of those bullies because of a shared love of sports, and he vehemently opposed the bill because it puts barriers in sports for children, he said.

“All of this debate is — we’re talking about kids! We’re talking about kids. We are attacking children!” he said.

Rep. Alyse Galvin, I-Anchorage, is the mother of a transgender daughter, and said she finds it hard to believe that Alaskans place this issue as a top priority. She said she believes “outside agitators” and social media have spun people up on the issue, but that can be overcome.

“I think we look within. We tune out the outside voices of hate, and discord. And we focus on our inside voice of love, empathy, compassion, understanding all the things that we were taught. The only way we are going to change the direction of the harmful discourse is to leave it from our hearts,” she said.

The final vote saw all 20 Republicans in the House’s majority caucus vote in favor of the bill, as did Reps. David Eastman, R-Wasilla, and Dan Ortiz, I-Ketchikan.

All of the House’s Democrats voted against the bill, as did all of its independents, with the exception of Ortiz. Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak and a minority-caucus member, was the lone Republican to vote against it.

After the bill’s passage, Rep. Zack Fields, D-Anchorage, requested a re-vote, which may take place Tuesday. The bill is still expected to pass on that re-vote, though the vote total may change.

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

James Brooks is a longtime Alaska reporter, having previously worked at the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, Kodiak Mirror and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. A graduate of Virginia Tech, he is married to Caitlyn Ellis, owns a house in Juneau and has a small sled dog named Barley. He can be contacted at [email protected].

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Alaska Beacon and is republished with permission.

The Alaska Beacon is an independent, nonpartisan news organization focused on connecting Alaskans to their state government. Our journalists fairly and fearlessly report on the people and interests that determine state policy.

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