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vulnerable populations under Section 1557, also known as the health care nondiscrimination law, that were previously rescinded by the Trump administration.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)

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Anti-LGBTQ measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional reporting by Chase Woodruff, the Colorado Newsline.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. – Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty today announced that her office has charged a now-18 year old with murder in the August 2023 mass shooting at a Minneapolis backyard concert venue known as “Nudieland” that was attended by many members of the LGBTQ+ community.

The charged individual was 17 years old at the time of the shooting, in which one person was killed and at least seven others were injured by gunfire. The document charging Dominic James Burris and another man says the shooting was motivated by bias against the victims’ gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

The office charged the individual by sealed warrant on Friday, April 12. The complaint was sealed because the individual was not in custody at the time of charging. Police arrested the individual, currently age 18, last night, and he made his first appearance in juvenile court today. The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office will decide whether to pursue adult certification of the case or keep it in juvenile court after certification studies are completed. 

“Gun violence will not be tolerated in our communities,” Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said. “This shooting, at what should have been a joyous event, rocked our LBGTQIA+ community, and increased fear among a community that is too often already under attack. We are committed to holding those who caused this harm accountable, and to offering, as we already have, our office’s resources to those who have been impacted by this senseless violence.”

The charges revealed today come after an investigation by the Minneapolis Police Department and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. The two offices collaborated since this tragic shooting to review evidence and prepare the cases for charging.

“The identification of those believed to be responsible for the terrible events of August 11th is the culmination of the careful, steadfast, and meticulous collaboration between MPD investigators, forensic scientists, federal partners, and prosecutors,” said Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara. “The violence inflicted in this mass shooting angers me, and I am moved to compassion for those who were impacted by this terrible murder and attempted murders. I am proud of the dedicated members of the MPD who continue to serve above and beyond for the victims of crime.”

The allegations detailed in the criminal complaint include:

Two males interacted with multiple people at the concert in the minutes before the shooting. Witnesses stated that the two males approached them and then made insensitive comments during an interaction characterized as “hostile” where the two men brandished firearms.

Other witnesses reported they overheard the respondents utter derogatory epithets about the sexual orientation of concert attendees.

Both suspects remained at the concert following the interaction before leaving together.

According to witnesses, the shooting began less than a minute after they left, coming from a yard next door. Both the location and number of bullet casings corroborated descriptions of where the victims and witnesses observed the suspects.

Upon arriving at the scene, officers encountered at least seven victims who had suffered gunshot wounds. One victim suffered a gunshot wound to his back and died shortly after law enforcement arrived.

Forensic examiners developed a DNA profile from a cigarette butt at the scene, which matched a known DNA profile of one of the suspects.

Investigators located surveillance videos from around the time and location of the shooting, confirming that two males matching the physical appearance of the suspects walked toward the direction of the party shortly before the shooting took place. A witness later identified the second suspect in the surveillance video.