National
Would ENDA have a shot as a ‘jobs bill?’
Some see room for movement, others not so sure
LGBT rights supporters see room for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the U.S. Senate during the upcoming Congress — even as Republican control of the House makes final passage of the legislation highly unlikely.
The 2010 elections left the Senate in Democratic control — although by a reduced margin — providing an opportunity for passage in that chamber if certain conditions are met.
A Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said passage of ENDA in the Senate is “possible” provided that President Obama strongly advocates for its passage.
“You would need the kind of push that you had behind ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” the aide said.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said “in theory” the Senate could pass ENDA because Democrats retained control of the chamber, although the conversations haven’t taken place yet about moving the bill forward.
Keisling added that the Senate is in a different position than it was in the previous Congress because it’s no longer trying to pass legislation that is being sent over by the House. With Republican control of the lower chamber, the Senate would be more inclined to vote on its own legislation.
“I don’t think of any us know what the Senate is going to be like this year,” she said. “The Senate wasn’t moving a lot of stuff regularly last Congress, but now that they have a different Democratic caucus, the Senate is now in a different position than they were before.”
Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said the prospects of ENDA passing in the Senate are “unknown” at this stage, but said his organization will continue to pursue all important pieces of legislation in both chambers of the next Congress.
“We think that it is important whether or not there’s Republican or Democrat control of the House that there would be a factual record that those pieces of legislation have been approved with even more co-sponsors in them,” Sainz said.
As it was introduced in the last Congress, ENDA would bar job discrimination against gay and transgender workers in most situations in the public and private workforce. Gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) introduced the legislation in the House and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the bill in the Senate.
The legislation stalled in the last Congress and saw no movement in either the House or the Senate. In the House, there was speculation that opponents would use a maneuver called the motion to recommit on the floor to target the transgender language and derail the legislation. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wouldn’t bring ENDA up for a vote until legislative action was complete on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Entering the early days of the 112th Congress, activists are uncertain about the timeline for moving forward with ENDA the next time around, such as when the bill would be introduced or when hearings might take place. Julie Edwards, a Merkley spokesperson, said the senator plans to reintroduce the legislation, although she said she doesn’t yet “have a sense of timing.”
Whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would bring up the legislation for a vote remains in question. Regan Lachappelle, a Reid spokesperson, said the majority leader supports ENDA, but said “Republican cooperation” will be necessary “to do anything.”
“It’s still early right now, so we’re still working on the schedule for this Congress, but it is something that he supports,” she said.
A Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the possiblity for action on ENDA in the Senate would become more clear following the week on Jan. 24 when Senate leadership makes it decisions on what the legislative priorities will be.
Even if it were passed in the Senate, most observers agree that the new Republican leadership makes passing ENDA highly difficult — if not impossible. Passage in the Senate could be a symbolic vote that would build momentum in a future Congress.
Keisling said the legislation has “zero chance” of making its way to Obama’s desk because of Republican control, citing a recent Washington Blade interview with Frank in which he said there was no chance of passing any pro-LGBT legislation this Congress.
“I never say never, but I can’t imagine the circumstances in which it’ll be signed into law this Congress,” she said.
The Republican aide said just because a clear path to passage doesn’t exist in the House, advocates shouldn’t give up on moving forward in the Senate.
“You have to approach this as kind of putting bricks in the wall,” the aide said. “With hate crimes, we were lobbing it left and right for years … but that also set us up to deal with passing it rather quickly when everything happened because we were able to say it passed the Senate five times.”
Sainz said emphasizing that ENDA is at its core a “jobs” bill could enable it to pick up support in the Republican House.
“From that sense, it should appeal to members of the House — and the Senate for that matter — because it’s really doing nothing more than putting people to work, and if they can’t work, then they’re reliant on government assistance,” Sainz said. “So it should be fairly intuitive to Republicans that this is really a ‘jobs’ measure.”
At the end of the last Congress, ENDA had 45 co-sponsors in the Senate, although former Sens. Roland Burris, Ted Kaufman, Edward Kennedy and Paul Kirk were listed as co-sponsors even though they were no longer in the Senate at the end of last year. Former co-sponsors Arlen Specter, Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold have since left the Senate.
It remains to be seen whether their successors would support ENDA, although new Democrats Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) would be likely to support the legislation. Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and may also support ENDA. The offices of those senators didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment.
Kate Dickens, a spokesperson for Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), said the senator’s positions would be consistent “with his position on it while serving in the House — where he has been a supporter.”
One lingering question is whether a bill that includes protections on the basis of sexual orientation only — excluding the gender identity and expression provisions — would stand a better chance in the Senate or have a shot at passing in the House. In 2007, the U.S. House under Democratic control passed a non-inclusive ENDA that never saw a vote in the Senate.
The Republican aide said discussion about removing the transgender protections is a moot point because activists wouldn’t permit the removal of the legislation.
“They’re not going to, so I don’t even think it’s worth considering,” the aide said. “It’s just not worth saying ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ If it’s going to pass, it’s going to pass with the transgender in it. That’s all there is to it.”
Keisling said she thinks both a trans-inclusive and non-trans inclusive bill would have the same zero chance of making it through the House.
“There’s this weird notion that somehow Congress is fine with gay people,” she said. “It’s just not true. You saw how they tried to lay down in the road over ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ If Congress was so good with gay people, why are 90 percent of the gay congress people closeted?”
U.S. Federal Courts
Judge blocks Trump’s order for prison officials to withhold gender affirming care
ACLU represents plaintiffs in the case
A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order compelling officials with the Bureau of Prisons to stop providing gender-affirming hormone therapy and accommodations to transgender people.
News of the order by Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a Republican appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, was reported in a press release by the ACLU, which is representing plaintiffs in the litigation.
Pursuant to issuance of the executive order on Jan. 20, the the BOP announced that that “no Bureau of Prisons funds are to be expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex,” while also prohibiting clothing and commissary items the agency considers incongruous with a person’s birth sex, and requiring all BOP staff to misgender transgender people.
Two transgender men and one transgender woman, each diagnosed with gender dysphoria by prison officials and prescribed hormone therapy, were either informed that their treatment would soon be suspended or were cut off from their treatment. On behalf of America’s 2,000 or so transgender inmates, they filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump administration and BOP in March.
The ACLU noted that while Lamberth’s order did not address surgeries, it did grant the plaintiff’s motion for a class certification and extended injunctive relief to the full class, which encompasses all persons who are or will be incarcerated in BOP facilities and have a current medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria or who receive that diagnosis in the future,” per the press release.
“Today’s ruling is made possible by the courageous plaintiffs who fought to protect their rights and the rights of transgender people everywhere,” said Shawn Thomas Meerkamper, managing attorney at the ACLU’s Transgender Law Center. “This administration’s continued targeting of transgender people is cruel and threatens the lives of all people. No person—incarcerated or not, transgender or not—should have their rights to medically necessary care denied. We are grateful the court understood that our clients deserve basic dignity and healthcare, and we will continue to fight alongside them.”
“Today’s ruling is an important lifeline for trans people in federal custody,” said Michael Perloff, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of D.C. “The ruling is also a critical reminder to the Trump administration that trans people, like all people, have constitutional rights that don’t simply disappear because the president has decided to wage an ideological battle.”
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Hegseth orders Navy to rename Harvey Milk ship
Nancy Pelosi calls the move ‘a shameful, vindictive erasure’
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the renaming of the U.S. Naval Ship Harvey Milk, according to a report in Military.com on Tuesday.
Since 2016, the replenishment oiler has borne the name of the late gay rights icon, who served in the Navy during the Korean War, was separated from the service other than honorably to avoid being court martialed for his homosexuality, and then went on to become the the first LGBTQ candidate elected to public office in California.
Per the article, a memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of the Navy outlined the plans to rename the ship, and a defense official said the order to take this “rare step” came from Hegseth with an announcement deliberately planned for Pride month, on June 13.
The memo reviewed by Military.com indicates that the move comes as part of an effort to strengthen “alignment with president and SECDEF objectives and SECNAV priorities of reestablishing the warrior culture.”
Milk was assassinated in 1978 while serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. U.S. House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D), who has represented the city in Congress since 1987, said the decision is “a surrender of a fundamental American value: to honor the legacy of those who worked to build a better country” and “a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.”
“Our military is the most powerful in the world — but this spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the ‘warrior’ ethos,” she said.
Renaming a Naval ship is traditionally considered taboo, as well as a harbinger of bad luck.
During the Biden-Harris administration in 2023, however, a cruiser and research ship with names tied to the Confederacy were renamed — though Military.com notes that “the recommendation to rename the two ships came from a commission that was created by Congress to study names with ties to the Confederacy across the entire military.”
CBS on Tuesday reported that along with the Harvey Milk, the Navy is also considering renaming other John Lewis-class oilers including the USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and USNS Harriet Tubman.
California
DOJ launches investigation into Calif. trans student-athlete policy
State AG vows to defend Golden State laws
One day after President Donald Trump threatened to strip California of “large scale federal funding” over its policy on transgender student-athletes, his Justice Department announced it is investigating the state for potentially violating Title IX.
“The investigation is to determine whether California, its senior legal, educational, and athletic organizations, and the school district are engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of sex,” the DOJ said in a statement.
The DOJ said it notified State Attorney General Rob Bonta, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, the Jurupa Unified School District, and the California Interscholastic Federation of its investigation.
AB Hernandez, 16, is an out trans female student-athlete at Jurupa Valley High School who qualified for this weekend’s state track and field championship. As the Washington Blade reported earlier this week, the CIF announced a change in the rules at the finals to accommodate girls who were displaced by Hernandez, including giving medals to cisgender competitors who earn a podium spot should Hernandez place ahead of them.
“We remain committed to defending and upholding California laws and all additional laws which ensure the rights of students, including transgender students, to be free from discrimination and harassment,” said Bonta in a statement. “We will continue to closely monitor the Trump administration’s actions in this space.”
As KTLA reported, California is one of 22 states that allow trans student-athletes to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. Former Gov. Jerry Brown signed that policy into law in 2013.
The DOJ announced it is also now supporting a federal lawsuit targeting Bonta and the state Department of Education, claiming that California law and CIF policy discriminate against cisgender girls by allowing trans female athletes to compete according to their gender identity.
The lawsuit was filed by a conservative law group, Advocates for Faith and Freedom, representing the families of two girls at Martin Luther King High School in Riverside. Their suit claims the school’s cross-country team dropped one athlete from her varsity spot in favor of a trans athlete and that school administrators compared their “Save Girls Sports” T-shirts to swastikas.
Officials in Washington also weighed-in, referring to trans girls and women as “males.”
“Title IX exists to protect women and girls in education,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet K. Dhillon. “It is perverse to allow males to compete against girls, invade their private spaces, and take their trophies.”
“The law is clear: Discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal and immoral,” said U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli. “My office and the rest of the Department of Justice will work tirelessly to protect girls’ sports and stop anyone — public officials included — from violating women’s civil rights.”
According to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, out of the 5.8 million students in California’s K-12 public school system, the number of active trans student-athletes is estimated to be in the single digits.
Jessica Stern, D.C. Episcopal bishop to speak at WorldPride conference
Judge blocks Trump’s order for prison officials to withhold gender affirming care
Hegseth orders Navy to rename Harvey Milk ship
Trans Ugandans build power through business
D.C. police chief rescinds request to close Dupont Circle Park for WorldPride
Shakira cancels WorldPride concert
I am a proud Jewish, gay man
Is compulsory NGO registration a death kneel to activism?
Bowser raises Pride flag over Wilson Building
