Connect with us

National

Key vote on LGBT student bill could come in June

Polis expects Senate committee vote on SNDA

Published

on

Rep. Jared Polis said he expects a Senate committee to vote on SNDA in June. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A crucial vote on a non-discrimination measure for LGBT students could take place next month when a key Senate committee takes up education reform legislation.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a gay lawmaker who works on education issues, said Monday the Senate panel with jurisdiction over education reform is set to consider the Elementary & Secondary Education Act reauthorization in June.

“It’s a very complex area of law, and it’ll begin with Senate markups in June as Chairman [Tom] Harkin has indicated he plans to hold,” Polis said during a conference call hosted by the Center for American Progress.

Anti-bullying advocates have been pushing for the inclusion of SNDA, which Polis sponsors in the House, as part of larger education reform. SNDA prohibits public schools and school programs from discriminating against LGBT students.

Polis predicted Harkin’s initial mark for Elementary & Secondary Education Act reauthorization wouldn’t contain the pro-LGBT measures and suggested a vote would take place in committee to include SNDA in the larger bill.

“Although we don’t expect to see SNDA in the chairman’s mark of the initial bill, we are optimistic we can amend the ESEA because all but one of the Democrats on the committee are co-sponsors of the Student Non-Discrimination Act,” Polis said.

In the Senate, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) sponsors SNDA. He’s a member of the Senate HELP committee, so any amendment to include this measure as part of Elementary & Secondary Education Act reauthorization would likely come from him.

As of last week, Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) was the sole Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee who wasn’t a co-sponsor of SNDA.

But Stephanie Allen, a Hagan spokesperson, said her boss this week signed on as co-sponsor for the student non-discrimination bill.

Hagan’s co-sponsorship means Democrats on the HELP committee are unanimous in their support for SNDA. Additionally, her support brings the total number of SNDA supporters on the panel to 12, the majority needed for passage in committee.

Despite Polis’ remarks, Capitol Hill observers said the plan for proceeding in the Senate with education reform and SNDA haven’t yet been settled.

Shawn Gaylord, director of public policy for Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, said he’s also heard that Harkin wants to proceed with education reform in June, but plans for SNDA inclusion haven’t yet been settled.

“You hear conflicting opinions on how that’s going to move forward,” Gaylord said. “I would imagine in the next two weeks, we’ll learn a little more about what the real strategy is, but at the moment I still think there’s viewpoints about what’s happening.”

Spokespersons for Democratic senators wouldn’t confirm that plans are in place to amend the Elementary & Secondary Education Act reauthorization to include SNDA during a markup in June.

Justine Sessions, a HELP committee spokesperson, was mum on the components that would be included in education reform as she acknowledged the committee is working on crafting a bi-partisan package.

“We are continuing to work to craft a comprehensive, bipartisan bill to reauthorize ESEA, and are not commenting on any specific elements of the legislation,” Sessions said.

Alexandra Fetissoff, a Franken spokesperson, said SNDA is a “big priority” for her boss, but plans for the legislation remain unclear.

“Right now the status of the bill is in flux and we’re still working very hard to get it included,” Fetissoff said. “As of today, every Democratic member of the HELP committee is a cosponsor of SNDA, which demonstrates its strong support in the committee. Beyond that we can’t comment on ongoing negotiations.”

Whether a vote on an amendment would also take place during the committee markup to include the Safe Schools Improvement Act, another anti-bullying bill, remains unclear.

In the Senate, Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) sponsors SSIA which, among other things, would require public schools to establish codes of conduct explicitly prohibiting bullying and harassment.

Larry Smar, a Casey spokesperson, said plans to pursue SSIA in education reform are similarly not yet pinned down at this point.

“We don’t yet know what will be in the base bill,” Smar said. “Sen. Casey has urged Senator Harkin to include SSIA in the ESEA reauthorization. Since so much is unknown at this point I can’t get into exact strategy.”

SSIA doesn’t enjoy the same level of support in the HELP committee as SNDA, so adoption of the Casey bill as part of education reform may be more challenging.

Three Democrats on the panel aren’t co-sponsors of SSIA: Sens. Hagan, Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.).

Jude McCartin, a Bingaman spokesperson, said his boss sometimes supports bills even though he doesn’t co-sponsor them.

“Sen. Bingaman supports [and] hopes the reauthorization of ESEA contains strong anti-bullying [and] non-discrimination provisions, though at this point in the negotiations it is unclear what those might be,” McCartin said.

Adam Bozzi, a Bennet spokesperson, said his boss believes that SNDA is the best way to end anti-gay harassment of students.

“Sen. Bennet supports addressing bullying in our schools, particularly as it relates to GLBT students,” Bozzi said. “He believes the best approaches include the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which he has co-sponsored in the Senate.”

Given that Hagan, Bingaman and Bennett are co-sponsors for SNDA and voted in favor of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal last year, their support for the SSIA is likely should the measure come up in committee.

Additionally, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was an original co-sponsor for SSIA, so his affirmative vote could make up for any single Democrat that doesn’t support the measure. Additionally, Kirk’s co-sponsorship may encourage other GOP members of the panel to vote in favor of the bill.

The extent to which the White House will lobby for passage of an LGBT-inclusive ESEA reauthorization package also remains to be seen.

The White House hasn’t yet enumerated support for either the SNDA or the SSIA, although it has called for safer schools as part of education reform without specifically mentioning anti-LGBT bullying.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said the administration will work with Congress to produce education reform legislation that provides protections against harassment.

“When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is being considered, we look forward to working with Congress to ensure that all students are safe and healthy and can learn in environments free from discrimination, bullying and harassment,” Inouye said.

Gaylord said the White House has expressed support for the anti-bullying policy, but hasn’t been visible in working to pass LGBT-inclusive education reform.

“What they might be doing behind the scenes, I don’t know,” Gaylord said. “I suspect one possibility may be that they’re waiting for stronger signals that this is really moving forward and, again, that could all become clear in the next week or two because it does seem like there’s some new activity happening.”

But the biggest challenge in passing LGBT-inclusive education reform legislation is ensuring that the enumerated protections meet majority approval in the Republican-controlled House.

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), chair of the House Committee on Education & the Workforce, has said he envisions education reform as a series of smaller bills as opposed to one larger piece of reform legislation.

Last week, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) introduced the first of these bills: the Setting New Priorities in Education Spending Act. The bill proposes to cut 43 education programs, many of which were already defunded in the final FY-2011 budget agreement signed into law by President Obama.

Alexandra Sollberger, a spokesperson for the House Committee on Education & the Workforce, was non-committal in response to an inquiry on whether Kline would be open to pro-LGBT elements in education reform.

“We are holding ongoing discussions with minority committee staff on the content of these bills,” Sollberger said.

But Sollberger said any provision dealing with safe schools would come up last in Kline’s plan for education reform legislation.

“The education reform bills will each address a different theme, such as flexibility, teachers, and accountability,” she said. “Any efforts to address safe school issues will likely come into play with the accountability legislation, which is likely to be the last piece of the puzzle.”

Polis said SNDA advocates in the House will work to build the number of co-sponsors for the legislation to enhance its chances for passage as part of education reform.

“Our work in the meantime … is to simply increase the number of sponsors and show that this piece of legislation will have among the top number of sponsors and supporters than any other legislation for ESEA,” Polis said.

As of deadline, the legislation has 132 co-sponsors — including two Republicans — which is more than the bill had in the last Congress when Democrats were in control of the House.

Another pending bill that would help LGBT students is the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act, which would require colleges to establish policies against harassment.

Polis said the legislation is focused on higher education so wouldn’t be part of Elementary & Secondary Act reauthorization.

“It wouldn’t be included in ESEA,” Polis said. “That’s just the K-12 grade piece, so it would be a different area of federal law.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Florida

AIDS Healthcare Foundation sues Fla. over ‘illegal’ HIV drug program cuts

Tens of thousands could lose access to medications

Published

on

(Photo by Catella via Bigstock)

Following the slashing of hundreds of thousands of dollars from Florida’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program, AIDS Healthcare Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Florida Department of Health over what it says was an illegal change to income eligibility thresholds for the lifesaving program.

The Florida Department of Health announced two weeks ago that it would make sweeping cuts to ADAP, dramatically changing how many Floridians qualify for the state-funded medical coverage — without using the formal process required to change eligibility rules. As a result, AHF filed a petition Tuesday in Tallahassee with the state’s Division of Administrative Hearings, seeking to prevent more than 16,000 Floridians from losing coverage.

The medications covered by ADAP work by suppressing HIV-positive people’s viral load — making the virus undetectable in blood tests and unable to be transmitted to others.

Prior to the eligibility change, the Florida Department of Health covered Floridians earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level — or $62,600 annually for an individual. Under the new policy, eligibility would be limited to those making no more than 130 percent of the federal poverty level, or $20,345 per year.

The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors estimates that more than 16,000 patients in Florida will lose coverage under the state’s ADAP because of this illegal change in department policy. Florida’s eligibility changes would also eliminate access to biktarvy, a widely used once-daily medication for people living with HIV/AIDS.

Under Florida law, when a state agency seeks to make a major policy change, it must either follow a formal rule-making process under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act or obtain direct legislative authorization.

AHF alleges the Florida Department of Health did neither.

Typically, altering eligibility for a statewide program requires either legislative action or adherence to a multistep rule-making process, including: publishing a Notice of Proposed Rule; providing a statement of estimated regulatory costs; allowing public comment; holding hearings if requested; responding to challenges; and formally adopting the rule. According to AHF, none of these steps occurred.

“Rule-making is not a matter of agency discretion. Each statement that an agency like the Department of Health issues that meets the statutory definition of a rule must be adopted through legally mandated rule-making procedures. Florida has simply not done so here,” said Tom Myers, AHF’s chief of public affairs and general counsel. “The whole point of having to follow procedures and rules is to make sure any decisions made are deliberate, thought through, and minimize harm. Floridians living with HIV and the general public’s health are at stake here and jeopardized by these arbitrary and unlawful DOH rule changes.”

AHF has multiple Ryan White CARE Act contracts in Florida, including four under Part B, which covers ADAP. More than 50 percent of people diagnosed with HIV receive assistance from Ryan White programs annually.

According to an AHF advocacy leader who spoke with the Washington Blade, the move appears to have originated at the state level rather than being driven by the federal government — a claim that has circulated among some Democratic officials.

“As far as we can tell, Congress flat-funded the Ryan White and ADAP programs, and the proposed federal cuts were ignored,” the advocacy leader told the Blade on the condition of anonymity. “None of this appears to be coming from Washington — this was initiated in Florida. What we’re trying to understand is why the state is claiming a $120 million shortfall when the program already receives significant federal funding. That lack of transparency is deeply concerning.”

Florida had the third-highest rate of new HIV infections in the nation in 2022, accounting for 11 percent of new diagnoses nationwide, according to KFF, a nonprofit health policy research organization.

During a press conference on Wednesday, multiple AHF officials commented on the situation, and emphasized the need to use proper methods to change something as important as HIV/AIDS coverage availability in the sunshine state. 

“We are receiving dozens, hundreds of calls from patients who are terrified, who are confused, who are full of anxiety and fear,” said Esteban Wood, director of advocacy, legislative affairs, and community engagement at AHF. “These are working Floridians — 16,000 people — receiving letters saying they have weeks left of medication that keeps them alive and costs upwards of $45,000 a year. Patients are asking us, ‘What are we supposed to do? How are we supposed to survive?’ And right now, we don’t have a good answer.”

“This decision was not done in the correct manner. County health programs, community-based organizations, providers across the state — none of them were consulted,” Wood added. “Today is Jan. 28, and we have just 32 days until these proposed changes take effect. Nearly half of the 36,000 people currently on ADAP could be disenrolled in just over a month.”

“Without this medication, people with HIV get sicker,” Myers said during the conference. “They end up in emergency rooms, they lose time at work, and they’re unable to take care of their families. Treatment adherence is also the best way to prevent new HIV infections — people who are consistently on these medications are non-infectious. If these cuts go through, you will have sicker people, more HIV infections, and ultimately much higher costs for the state.”

“Patients receiving care through Ryan White and ADAP have a 91 percent viral suppression rate, compared to about 60 percent nationally,” the advocacy leader added. “That’s as close to a functional cure as we can get, and it allows people to live healthy lives, work, and contribute to their communities. Blowing a hole in a program this successful puts lives at risk and sets a dangerous precedent. If Florida gets away with this, other states facing budget pressure could follow.”

The lawsuit comes days after the Save HIV Funding campaign pressed Congress to build bipartisan support for critical funding for people living with or vulnerable to HIV. In May of last year, President Donald Trump appeared to walk back his 2019 pledge to end HIV as an epidemic, instead proposing the elimination of HIV prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and housing services in his budget request to Congress.

House appropriators, led by the Republican majority, went further, calling for an additional $2 billion in cuts — including $525 million for medical care and support services for people living with HIV. 

While Senate appropriators ultimately chose to maintain level funding in their version of the spending bills, advocates feared final negotiations could result in steep cuts that would reduce services, increase new HIV infections, and lead to more AIDS-related deaths. The final spending package reflected a best-case outcome, with funding levels largely mirroring the Senate’s proposed FY26 allocations.

“What the state has done in unilaterally announcing these changes is not following its own rules,” Myers added. “There is a required process — rule-making, notice and comment, taking evidence — and none of that happened here. Before you cut 16,000 people off from lifesaving medication, you have to study the harms, ask whether you even have the authority to do it, and explore other solutions. That’s what this lawsuit is about.”

Continue Reading

National

Federal authorities arrest Don Lemon

Former CNN anchor taken into custody two weeks after Minn. church protest

Published

on

Don Lemon (Screenshot via YouTube)

Federal authorities on Thursday arrested former CNN anchor Don Lemon in Los Angeles.

CNN reported authorities arrested Lemon after 11 p.m. PT while in the lobby of a hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif., while he “was leaving for an event.” Lemon’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, in a statement said his client was in Los Angeles to cover the Grammy Awards.

Authorities arrested Lemon less than two weeks after he entered Cities Church in St. Paul, Minn., with a group of protesters who confronted a pastor who works for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (An ICE agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis woman who left behind her wife and three children. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents on Jan. 24 shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old nurse who worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs, in Minneapolis.)

Lemon insists he was simply covering the Cities Church protest that interrupted the service. A federal magistrate last week declined to charge the openly gay journalist in connection with the demonstration.

“Don Lemon was taken into custody by federal agents last night in Los Angeles, where he was covering the Grammy awards,” said Lowell in his statement. “Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done. The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable.”

“Instead of investigating the federal agents who killed two peaceful Minnesota protesters, the Trump Justice Department is devoting its time, attention and resources to this arrest, and that is the real indictment of wrongdoing in this case,” Lowell added. “This unprecedented attack on the First Amendment and transparent attempt to distract attention from the many crises facing this administration will not stand. Don will fight these charges vigorously and thoroughly in court.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi on X confirmed federal agents “at my direction” arrested Lemon and three others — Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy — “in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.”

Fort is also a journalist.

Lemon, who CNN fired in 2023, is expected to appear in court in Los Angeles on Friday.

“Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of a free society; it is the tool by which Americans access the truth and hold power to account. But Donald Trump and Pam Bondi are at war with that freedom — and are threatening the fundamentals of our democracy,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson on Friday in a statement. “Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were doing their jobs as reporters. Arresting them is not law enforcement it is an attack on the Constitution at a moment when truthful reporting on government power has never been more important. These are the actions of a despot, the tactics of a dictator in an authoritarian regime.”

Continue Reading

The White House

Expanded global gag rule to ban US foreign aid to groups that promote ‘gender ideology’

Activists, officials say new regulation will limit access to gender-affirming care

Published

on

President Donald Trump speaks at the 2025 U.N. General Assembly. The Trump-Vance administration has expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid to groups that promote "gender ideology." (Screenshot via YouTube)

The Trump-Vance administration has announced it will expand the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.”

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau in a memo, titled Combating Gender Ideology in Foreign Assistance, the Federal Register published on Jan. 27 notes  “previous administrations … used” U.S. foreign assistance “to fund the denial of the biological reality of sex, promoting a radical ideology that permits men to self-identify as women, indoctrinate children with radical gender ideology, and allow men to gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women.”

“Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being. It also threatens the wellbeing of children by encouraging them to undergo life-altering surgical and chemical interventions that carry serious risks of lifelong harms like infertility,” reads the memo. “The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women and children but, as an attack on truth and human nature, it harms every nation. It is the purpose of this rule to prohibit the use of foreign assistance to support radical gender ideology, including by ending support for international organizations and multilateral organizations that pressure nations to embrace radical gender ideology, or otherwise promote gender ideology.”

President Donald Trump on Jan. 28, 2025, issued an executive order — Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation — that banned federal funding for gender-affirming care for minors.

President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the global gag rule, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services.

Trump reinstated the rule during his first administration. The White House this week expanded the ban to include groups that support gender-affirming care and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

The expanded global gag rule will take effect on Feb. 26.

“None of the funds made available by this act or any other Act may be made available in contravention of Executive Order 14187, relating to Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, or shall be used or transferred to another federal agency, board, or commission to fund any domestic or international non-governmental organization or any other program, organization, or association coordinated or operated by such non-governmental organization that either offers counseling regarding sex change surgeries, promotes sex change surgeries for any reason as an option, conducts or subsidizes sex change surgeries, promotes the use of medications or other substances to halt the onset of puberty or sexual development of minors, or otherwise promotes transgenderism,” wrote Landau in his memo.

Landau wrote the State Department “does not believe taxpayer dollars should support sex-rejecting procedures, directly or indirectly for individuals of any age.”

“A person’s body (including its organs, organ systems, and processes natural to human development like puberty) are either healthy or unhealthy based on whether they are operating according to their biological functions,” reads his memo. “Organs or organ systems do not become unhealthy simply because the individual may experience psychological distress relating to his or her sexed body. For this reason, removing a patient’s breasts as a treatment for breast cancer is fundamentally different from performing the same procedure solely to alleviate mental distress arising from gender dysphoria. The former procedure aims to restore bodily health and to remove cancerous tissue. In contrast, removing healthy breasts or interrupting normally occurring puberty to ‘affirm’ one’s ‘gender identity’ involves the intentional destruction of healthy biological functions.”

Landau added there “is also lack of clarity about what sex-rejecting procedures’ fundamental aims are, unlike the broad consensus about the purpose of medical treatments for conditions like appendicitis, diabetes, or severe depression.”

“These procedures lack strong evidentiary foundations, and our understanding of long-term health impacts is limited and needs to be better understood,” he wrote. “Imposing restrictions, as this rule proposes, on sex-rejecting procedures for individuals of any age is necessary for the (State) Department to protect taxpayer dollars from abuse in support of radical ideological aims.”

Landau added the State Department “has determined that applying this rule to non-military foreign assistance broadly is necessary to ensure that its foreign assistance programs do not support foreign NGOs and IOs (international organizations) that promote gender ideology, and U.S. NGOs that provide sex-rejecting procedures, and to ensure the integrity of programs such as humanitarian assistance, gender-related programs, and more, do not promote gender ideology.”

“This rule will also allow for more foreign assistance funds to support organizations that promote biological truth in their foreign assistance programs and help the (State) Department to establish new partnerships,” he wrote.

The full memo can be found here.

Council for Global Equality Senior Policy Fellow Beirne Roose-Snyder on Wednesday said the expansion of the so-called global gag rule will “absolutely impact HIV services where we know we need to target services, to that there are non-stigmatizing, safe spaces for people to talk through all of their medical needs, and being trans is really important to be able to disclose to your health care provider so that you can get ARVs, so you can get PrEP in the right ways.” Roose-Snyder added the expanded ban will also impact access to gender-affirming health care, food assistance programs and humanitarian aid around the world.

“This rule is not about gender-affirming care at all,” she said during a virtual press conference the Universal Access Project organized.

“It is about really saying that if you want to take U.S. funds —   and it’s certainly not about gender-affirming care for children — it is if you want to take U.S. funds, you cannot have programs or materials or offer counseling or referrals to people who may be struggling with their gender identity,” added Roose-Snyder. “You cannot advocate to maintain your country’s own nondiscrimination laws around gender identity. It is the first place that we’ve ever seen the U.S. government define gender-affirming care, except they call it something a lot different than that.”

The Congressional Equality Caucus, the Democratic Women’s Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian and Pacific American Caucus, and the Congressional Black Caucus also condemned the global gag rule’s expansion.

“We strongly condemn this weaponization of U.S. foreign assistance to undermine human rights and global health,” said the caucuses in a statement. “We will not rest until we ensure that our foreign aid dollars can never be used as a weapon against women, people of color, or LGBTQI+ people ever again.”

Continue Reading

Popular