National
Mixed views on ‘conscience’ language in defense bill
Some call provision ‘dangerous,’ claim it will lead to discrimination
Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
LGBT rights supporters are expressing disappointment with “conscience” language included in the final version of major Pentagon budget legislation, and although views on its potential impact are mixed, most say the language won’t have a substantive change on current military policy.
A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers made public on Tuesday their agreement for the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill, a $633 billion proposal that sets policy for the Pentagon, continues pay for troops and provides funding for military programs.
But these lawmakers also agreed to include a watered-down provision along the lines of an anti-gay measure included in the House bill by outgoing Rep. W. Todd Akin (R-Mo.). That provision was understood to mean service members would be allowed to harass their gay colleagues and that military chaplains could refuse to minister to them simply by saying to do so goes against their religious beliefs.
The language in the conference report, listed under Section 533, is divided into two parts: the first says service members can’t be punished for their beliefs so long as they don’t violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the second says chaplains can’t be punished for refusing to perform a ritual contrary to their religious beliefs.
The section isn’t as overtly anti-gay as the House language — there’s no mention of “human sexuality” or sexual orientation — and says service members can still be punished if they act or speak out on their beliefs.
Lawmakers were expected to take up the legislation by the end of this week. House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said during the conference that he was hopeful for a vote Thursday.
Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, was among those offering the strongest objections to the “conscience” language, saying passage could lead to “claims to discriminate, not only against lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members, but also against women, religious minorities, and in the provision of health care.”
“It could reopen longstanding prohibitions against harassment, could lead to claims of a right to proselytize other service members as well as civilians in occupied areas, and could lead to claims of an opt-out from providing health care or participating in anti-harassment training,” Thompson said.
One conservative group is also claiming victory. Tony Perkins, president of the anti-gay Family Research Council, expressed satisfaction over inclusion of the “conscience” language in a statement.
“We are happy to see that Congress has included language in the Department of Defense reauthorization bill that will protect the conscience rights of chaplains and service members,” Perkins said. “This language provides for the protection of the First Amendment rights of all our men and women in the Armed Forces.”
But the “conscience” provision is one small part of the defense authorization bill aimed at continuing funds for the Pentagon and paychecks for U.S. troops. Moreover, the provision was included in exchange for dropping another provision in the House bill that would have prohibited same-sex marriages on military bases.
Progressives have reason to celebrate because the final report includes a provision in the Senate bill offered by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to expand health coverage to cover female service members seeking abortions in cases of rape and incest. Previously, the Pentagon would only provide an abortion in the event the mother’s life was in danger.
Furthermore, other LGBT advocates didn’t express the same sense that “conscience” language would have significant impact.
These advocates are echoing the sentiment of Rep. Adam Smith, top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, who told the Washington Blade during a news conference on Tuesday that while he personally doesn’t support the language, it won’t have a substantive impact on the military because it’s consistent with current policy.
“I think that’s current law,” Smith said. “You can’t punish someone based solely on their beliefs. It has to be actions. That’s current law. I didn’t think that this language needed to be in it. If you ask me, what the one thing I would take out of this bill, if I could, that would be the one thing I would take out of this bill. Now, it’s significantly neutered, if you will, to the point where I don’t think it’s going to be a problem, and I’m going to support the bill, but that is a provision that I did not support.”
Among the groups saying the provisions would have no effect are the Human Rights Campaign, OutServe-SLDN and the Center for American Progress.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, called the provision “unnecessary” in the wake of repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but also “meaningless.”
“While it’s bad, it’s also meaningless in a lot of ways,” Cole-Schwartz said. “We were successful in making sure an extension of DOMA wasn’t included and it’s not clear that this language, while unfortunate, will have meaningful consequence for service members.”
Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, called the inclusion of the language “disheartening” — especially because it comes on the second anniversary of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal — but says it won’t create any new policy for the Pentagon.
“Indeed, no service member or chaplain is ever punished for his or her religious beliefs unless he or she acts on those beliefs in a way inconsistent with military law or good order and discipline,” Robinson said.
But Robinson also said the appearance of the language in the defense bill should serve as a cautionary tale.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
“The fact that provisions such as these could make their way into this bill is an indication that the gains we have made are fragile and that we must remain ever vigilant even as we look toward the work ahead of us needed to achieve full equality in our military,” Robinson said.
Crosby Burns, research associate on LGBT issues for the Center for American Progress, also shared the sentiment that nothing new would happen if the “conscience” provision became law.
“Based on the conference reports language, I believe that it essentially reiterates existing freedoms and protections that service members and chaplains already have,” Burns said. “Obviously, it sets a dangerous precedent because it’s based off language in the House bill that was intentionally crafted to allow people to discriminate against openly gay service members, so obviously that’s cause for concern, but based off the existing language, we believe it doesn’t actually change anything in terms of the substantive policy.”
The White House is staying mum on the conference report provision. A spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment after it was made public.
In May, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy saying the Obama administration “strongly objects” to the conscience language as it appeared in the House bill along with the provisions barring same-sex marriage from taking place on military bases.
Denying the passage of the provision would have no impact, ACLU’s Thompson drew on the White House objections to the House language while condemning the provision found in the conference report.
“Earlier this year, the White House conveyed its strong objections to the original House-passed language based on how the provision would affect ‘all personnel-related actions based on certain religious and moral beliefs, which, in its overbroad terms, is potentially harmful to good order and discipline,'” Thompson said. “Those serious concerns have — despite initial reports to the contrary — not been resolved by this conference report language. Rather, they are magnified.”
But the White House Statement of Administration Policy doesn’t go as far as a veto threat over the conscience provision if the final version of the bill includes this provision.
Asked whether a veto is necessary, Thompson said the ACLU has already called on Obama to veto the defense authorization bill over an unrelated provision related to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but hasn’t yet determined whether to include the “conscience” provision as another reason to veto the bill.
“The ACLU, as part of a broad coalition of human rights organizations, is already recommending a veto of the legislation based on its Guantanamo detainee transfer prohibitions,” Thompson said. “We are exploring whether to add this provision as another reason we would recommend a White House veto.”
The complete language of Section 533 of the bill follows:
SEC. 533. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND CHAPLAINS OF SUCH MEMBERS.
(a) PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE. —
(1) ACCOMMODATION. — The Armed Forces shall accommodate the beliefs of a member of the armed forces reflecting the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member and, in so far as practicable, may not use such beliefs as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment.
(2) DISCIPLINARY OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. — Nothing in paragraph (1) precludes disciplinary or administrative action for conduct that is proscribed by chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), including actions and speech that threaten good order and discipline.
(b) PROTECTION OF CHAPLAIN DECISIONS RELATING TO CONSCIENCE, MORAL PRINCIPLES, OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. — No member of the Armed Forces may— (1) require a chaplain to perform any rite, ritual, or ceremony that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain; or (2) discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a requirement prohibited by paragraph (1).
(c) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall issue regulations implementing the protections afforded by this section.
Michigan
Progressives score victory as El-Sayed wins Mich. Senate primary
Democratic newcomer will face Rogers in November
Michigan held its primary on Tuesday, allowing the two major political parties to select their nominees to go head-to-head for the state’s U.S. Senate seat.
NBC News called the Democratic race early, giving the victory to physician Abdul El-Sayed over incumbent U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in an extremely close primary. El-Sayed won 48.5 percent of the primary vote, with Stevens trailing by just one percentage point at 47.5 percent.
Both candidates have campagined on supporting the LGBTQ community through different avenues— for El-Sayed he focused on his past promoting HIV and PrEP funding and research. Stevens focused on her legislative history working to support transgender rights in the state.
This is a major win for progressive Democrats, who have been bearing the brunt of political attacks from President Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and centrist Democrats.
El-Sayed, a former health director in Detroit, ran his campaign largely on making life in the Great Lakes State more affordable amid rising costs. His policies include promoting “Medicare for All,” pushing health policy that targets the regressive efforts of the Trump-Vance administration that rolls back funding for both Women and LGBTQ people, minimizing the growing amount of money in politics, and he was very vocal in his criticism of Stevens for supporting aid to Israel. He was endorsed by two major progressives — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Stevens, the four-term congresswoman, is much closer to establishment Democrats on policy than El-Sayed.
During her time in the federal government, she has consistently supported the Equality Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She has also emphasized supporting local manufacturing and lowering housing costs in the state.
She was named to Advocates for Trans Equality’s 118th Congressional Champions list for her pro-trans policies and was endorsed by establishment heavy hitters Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
The contentious race boiled down not only to Michigan affairs but also extended to international conflicts — namely Palestine. (South Africa has filed a case in the International Court of Justice in The Hague that accuses Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip after Oct. 7.) This primary also acted as one of the first major races that pushed back against AIPAC, a lobbying group that works to promote pro-Israel candidates in U.S. elections. The group has been involved in domestic politics since 1954.
AIPAC devoted a massive amount of money to this race.
The Associated Press reported that the pro-Israel lobbying group spent more than $30 million on ads against El-Sayed because of his vocal denunciation of Israel and his continued criticism of its policies towards Palestine.
Michigan has a large Muslim and Arab American population, which could, in part, explain how El-Sayed was able to win.
The Republican side was far less competitive. Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) ran unopposed and clinched the GOP nomination. He has consistently held anti-LGBTQ positions, going as far as voting multiple times for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, voting against repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and supporting efforts to directly target the attempted expansion of Title IX protections to include trans people.
El-Sayed will face off against Rogers in November for Michigan’s Senate seat — one that could have lasting impacts not only on the state’s politics but also on the Republicans’ narrow Senate majority and Trump’s political agenda.
National
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
Administration criticizes National Museum of American History
The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.
According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.
Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.
“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.
The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.
The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.
The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”
The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.
It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”
Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”
On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.
In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.
House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”
In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.
Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.
“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.
Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.
It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.
An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)
National
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs
A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.
News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.
Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.
Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.
A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.
Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.
“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.”
Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.
Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.
“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,” Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.
Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.
In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.
“Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.
It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end.
“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.
“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes.
Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.
Doug Ollivant to face Eugene Vindman in Va. 7th Congressional District
LGBTQ advocates optimistic about D.C.’s expected new mayor
Progressives score victory as El-Sayed wins Mich. Senate primary
Dutch prime minister opens World Pride Human Rights Conference
Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028
PHOTOS: Lambda Legal in the Pines
Poland’s top court rejects recognition of same-sex marriages from other EU countries
Should I divorce my catty gay friend group?
PHOTOS: Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade
