Connect with us

Politics

Did Obama ask Leahy to delay gay-inclusive immigration reform?

White House spokesperson says he’s ‘not aware’ of any conversation

Published

on

Jay Carney, White House, gay news, Washington Blade
Jay Carney, White House, gay news, Washington Blade

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney wouldn’t deny on Wednesday a media report that the Obama administration asked Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to hold off on the introduction of amendments to include same-sex couples as part of comprehensive immigration reform.

Under questioning initiated by the Washington Blade on the accuracy of the report, Carney restated that Obama supports a provision to immigration reform along the lines of the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay Americans to sponsor their partners for residency in the United States.

“I think the president supports that amendment, and he also made clear that he knows he wonā€™t get everything, necessarily, that he wants in the final comprehensive immigration bill that he hopes the Senate will pass and the House will pass and will arrive on his desk,” Carney said. “But he will push for those things that he believes ought to be in it.”

Carney added if the measure were to come up again ā€” suggesting the possibility of a floor amendment to immigration reform ā€” Obama “would hope” it would have bipartisan support.

When the Blade pointed out that response doesn’t address the issue of whether the White House asked Leahy to hold off on the amendments, Carney said he doesn’t have the content of conversations on immigration reform.

“I think you saw the manner in which it was discussed in the hearing by Senator Leahy, who introduced it, and other members of the committee who discussed it,” Carney said. “We are obviously engaged in conversations with the main players on this issue on a regular basis. And I don’t have the contents of all those conversations.”

When CBS News’ Major Garrett jumped in to ask if Carney would deny the report, Carney replied, “Iā€™m not aware of that conversation.”

“What I can tell you is the president supports the amendment,” Carney said. “The president also believes, as he made clear in Costa Rica, that we need to accept that we may not get everything we want. It doesn’t mean weā€™re not going to fight for the things that we believe in, and this president will.”

During the Senate Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, numerous Democrats on the panel who are known for supporting LGBT rights ā€” Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) ā€” said they couldn’t bring themselves to support the amendment out of fear of losing Republican support for the final bill.

Asked by the Blade if there was a reasonable expectation that Obama should have brought these senators on board in time for the vote, Carney deferred to the Senate.

“I think each senator expressed himself or herself and his or her own views, so I would refer you to them,” Carney said. “The presidentā€™s views are clear. He believes this amendment should be passed and has made his views clear on that. I can’t speak for other senators.”

Earlier during the briefing under questioning from Reuters’ Jeff Mason, Carney noted Obama’s support for the provisions when asked about possible areas of improvement the president would like see addressed when the bill comes to the Senate floor.

“I think heā€™s made clear that he supports that and would like to see Congress support that,” Carney said. “Heā€™s also made clear that he doesnā€™t expect to get everything he wants in this bill. It doesnā€™t mean he wonā€™t fight for everything he wants, but he understands that compromise means not getting every single thing that you want.”

A partial transcript of the exchange between reporters on Jay Carney on the issue follows:

Washington Blade: I want to go back to immigration reform. Senator Leahy yesterday withheld amendments that would have included gay couples as part of a larger package. Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that the White House had asked him to hold off on those measures. Did the White House, in fact, ask Senator Leahy to revoke those amendments?

Jay Carney: I think you heard the President address this issue ā€” I think it was in an interview in Costa Rica. I think the President supports that amendment, and he also made clear that he knows he wonā€™t get everything, necessarily, that he wants in the final comprehensive immigration bill that he hopes the Senate will pass and the House will pass and will arrive on his desk. But he will push for those things that he believes ought to be in it.

He thinks itā€™s important that we make sure that everyone whoā€™s engaged in this process understands that they may not get everything they want, but I think he expressed very clearly his strong support for that amendment. He would hope that if it comes up again that there would be strong bipartisan support for it ā€” and weā€™ll have to see. But his support I think he expressed very clearly.

Blade: Itā€™s clear that the President supports that amendment, but that response doesnā€™t really get to the issue of whether the White House asked Senator Leahy to withhold the amendments.

Carney: I donā€™t have ā€” I think you saw the manner in which it was discussed in the hearing by Senator Leahy, who introduced it, and other members of the committee who discussed it. We are obviously engaged in conversations with the main players on this issue on a regular basis. And I don’t have the contents of all those conversations. What I can tell you is that the President supports ā€”

CBS News: But you don’t deny it?

Carney: Iā€™m sorry.

CBS News: You don’t deny the report.

Carney: Iā€™m not aware of that conversation. What I can tell you is the President supports the amendment. The President also believes, as he made clear in Costa Rica, that we need to accept that we may not get everything we want. It doesn’t mean weā€™re not going to fight for the things that we believe in, and this President will.

Blade: During the markup last night, it was one Democrat after the other ā€” Senator Feinstein, Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer ā€” said they couldnā€™t bring themselves to support the measure. And these are senators from the Presidentā€™s own party. Isnā€™t there a reasonable expectation that the President should have worked to bring them on board in time for that vote in accordance with his vision for immigration reform?

Carney: Well, I think each senator expressed himself or herself and his or her own views, so I would refer you to them. The presidentā€™s views are clear. He believes this amendment should be passed and has made his views clear on that. I can’t speak for other senators.

Watch the video here:

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

House passes spending bill as Greene threatens to oust Johnson

51 of 52 anti-LGBTQ riders were defeated

Published

on

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) speaks at a press conference on Sept. 20. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. House of Representatives averted a government shutdown on Friday with a vote of 286-134 to pass the $1.2 trillion spending bill, over the objections of hard-right members like U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

The congresswoman subsequently filed a motion to remove House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who is himself an ultraconservative legislator. The move marked the second time in six months that the party has called for a vote to oust their own leader.

ā€œToday I filed a motion to vacate after Speaker Johnson has betrayed our conference and broken our rules,ā€ said Greene, who refused to say whether she would call up the resolution to call for a snap vote, which likely means the matter will be delayed until after the two-week recess.

Greene and Johnson are at odds over the content of the minibus appropriations package, with the congresswoman calling it a “Chuck Schumer, Democrat-controlled bill” that does not contain conservative policy demands on matters like immigration and LGBTQ issues.

The speaker, meanwhile, proclaimed, ā€œHouse Republicans achieved conservative policy wins, rejected extreme Democrat proposals, and imposed substantial cuts while significantly strengthening national defense.ā€

With respect to anti-LGBTQ riders submitted by Republican members, more than 50 were ultimately stripped from the bill, which the Human Rights Campaign celebrated as “a victory,” crediting lawmakers for their “bipartisan, bicameral negotiations.”

Of the 52 anti-LGBTQ riders, only one survived in the $1.2 trillion package passed on Friday: A ban on flying Pride flags at U.S. embassies.

Continue Reading

Congress

Massive defeat for anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ riders in spending bill

Proposal has only one rider that would target community

Published

on

U.S. Capitol
U.S. Capitol (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

On Thursday, Congress unveiled the much-anticipated spending bill to avert a government shutdown. The bill, which includes funding for major government departments such as Health and Human Services and Education, featured fierce negotiations over conservative ā€œpolicy riders.ā€ 

These policy riders included bans on coverage for gender-affirming care, DEI bans, sports bans and more. Despite some indications that Democrats might compromise due to the sheer number of conservative policy riders, it appears those fears did not come to fruition. Democrats held firm in negotiations, and the most impactful anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ riders were nowhere to be found.

One policy rider proposed for the Food and Drug Administration would have defunded any hospital that ā€œdistributes, sells or otherwise uses drugs that disrupt the onset of puberty or sexual development for those under 18,ā€ a measure targeting not only transgender youth but also those experiencing precocious puberty. 

Another rider sought to bar any government funding toward ā€œsurgical procedures or hormone therapy for the purposes of gender-affirming careā€ in the Department of Health and Human Services. This move would have significantly impacted private and subsidized insurance in the Healthcare Marketplace. It also aimed to bar the enforcement of President Joe Bidenā€™s executive order titled ā€œPreventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity,ā€ which broadened anti-discrimination protections for trans individuals.

Additional riders included bans on funding for any organization thatĀ ā€œpromotes transgenderism,ā€Ā Title IX protections for trans youth, bans on legal challenges against states over anti-LGBTQ+ laws, book bans, DEI bans and more.

In total, over 40 riders were proposed and negotiated in the spending bills. None of these were found in the final bill.

Ultimately, the final spending bill released contained only a single anti-LGBTQ rider: A ban on Pride flags being raised or displayed above foreign embassies. The policy, while certainly qualifying as anti-LGBTQ and a regression to Trump-era policies, notably does not bar personal displays of Pride flags by embassy workers.

In the past, some embassies have gotten around such bans by not ā€œflying a flag over the embassyā€ but rather, painting portions of the embassy in rainbow colors or draping flags on the side of buildings.

News of the defeat of the most impactful anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ riders comes after a significant push from Equality Caucus Democrats and the Biden administration against the riders. ā€œAs you negotiate government funding for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24), we write to strongly urge you to reject any attempts to include anti-LGBTQ+ provisions in any final FY24 funding agreement,ā€ said a letter signed by 163 representatives on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus to the Biden administration.

However, Republicans also pushed hard for their inclusion. In a shutdown threat issued Feb. 21 from the House Freedom Caucus, Republicans indicated that bans on gender affirming care and trans participation in sports were necessary to prevent a potential shutdown.

Previously, U.S. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) stated that such bans are the “hill we will die on.” In a report published by Axios, one Republican lawmaker stated, ā€œPeople are predicting a shutdown even if it’s just for a few days.ā€ Others concurred, citing gender affirming care riders as one of the potential reasons for such a shutdown.

Many anti-LGBTQ leaders in the Republican Party reacted negatively to the bill. U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)Ā expressed angerĀ at funding for the New Jersey Garden State Equality in Education Fund, calling it ā€œforce feeding the LGBT agenda in schoolsā€ and stating that it enables ā€œgender mutilation surgeries in minors,ā€ ā€œbiological menā€ in womenā€™s bathrooms and trans participation in sports.

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) decried the lack of a DEI ban. U.S. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) stated that Republicans ā€œsurrenderedā€ to Democrats on hormone therapy. The House Freedom Caucus published a lengthy list of healthcare and equality centers that the budget would fund, urging the GOP to vote ā€œnoā€ and to shut down the government.

In a press release published by House Appropriations Democrats, they stated that the bill rejected over a hundred poison-pill riders, many of which targeted LGBTQ people. For example, the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the bill blocked provisions around gender affirming care, sports bans and nondiscrimination.

See the House Appropriations Democrats statement:

Press release, House Appropriations Democrats on Labor-HHS-Education

The bill must pass by Friday evening to avert a government shutdown, though the impacts of such a shutdown would likely not be felt until Monday. If passed, the bill would keep the government funded through September, at which point all of the riders could resurface during the peak of the 2024 presidential election.

However, for the next several months, LGBTQ riders will not pose a significant threat in a year where trans and queer individuals have faced attacks at historic levels.

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

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

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

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Congress

Padilla, FCC introduce measure to improve 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline

HHS launched effort in 2022

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) (Screen capture: YouTube)

U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), joined by U.S. Rep. Tony CƔrdenas (D-Calif.), Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, introduced a measure on Thursday to improve the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.

Calls are currently routed to mental health professionals and local public safety officials based on the caller’s area code ā€” even though, as the lawmakers and officials noted during their announcement ā€” in many cases, the area code, especially for cell phone numbers, does not match the location from which they are calling.

Under the new proposal, Padilla said, “We’re going to be in a position to be able to provide care as quickly and as safely as possible.”

“In the same way that 911 calls in the case of an emergency are routed to local providers, local first responders, so ambulances can come out and help quickly when you call 911, 988 should be tied to a caller’s location, not their area code,” he said.

Calling Padilla, Tillis, and CĆ”rdenas “great champions of mental health,” Rosenworcel noted, “that’s not our stock and trade” at the FCC.

“We are people who deal with technology and communications,” she said, “but we came to realize that we could work with Congress to make sure that everyone in this country who’s going through a crisis has someone to call and someone who can listen ā€” and that’s why in 2022, we set up 988, the easy-to-remember three digit number for anyone who is in crisis.”

A press release from Padilla’s office explains the details for how the update to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline will work:

“The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) announced today seeks to address the discrepancies and inefficiencies of the current system by proposing the adoption of a rule that would require a georouting solution to be implemented for all wireless calls to the 9-8-8 Lifeline while balancing the privacy needs of individuals in crisis. 

Georouting refers to technical solutions that enable calls to be directed based on the location of the caller without transmitting the callerā€™s precise location information.Ā These solutions would permit wireless calls to the 9-8-8 Lifeline to be directed to nearby crisis centers based on factors such as the cell tower that originated the call rather than the area code of the wireless device used to place the call.”

The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline offers LGBTQ-affirming counseling, which is accessible by pressing three.

A 2023 survey by the Trevor Project, which included more than 28,000 LGBTQ participants aged 13-24, found that 41 percent had seriously considered suicide within the past year and 56 percent wanted ā€” but were unable to get ā€” mental health care within the last year.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular