Connect with us

Politics

Pelosi talks ENDA at Netroots Nation

Says discharge petition an option, but not enough votes to pass bill

Published

on

Gay News, Washington Blade, HIV/AIDS

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) talked ENDA at Netroots Nation. (Blade photo by Michael Key)

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) entertained on Saturday the idea of a discharge petition for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — but was skeptical the bill has the votes for passage in the U.S. House.

Pelosi made the remarks in San Jose, Calif., during Netroots Nation, an annual conference for progressive bloggers and activists, when questioned about an ENDA discharge petition by panel moderator and political analyst Zerlina Maxwell.

“We can do discharge, but we don’t have enough votes to pass it,” Pelosi said. “So that means we have to have mobilization outside from some of our Republican friends, who should think that this is a form discrimination that we should be getting rid of. But this is certainly the next order of business for us.”

Initially, Pelosi in her lengthy response talked about the LGBT accomplishments between 2009 and 2010 when Democrats were in control of Congress and the White House, such as passage of hate crimes protections legislation and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

Pelosi said the initial plan was to proceed with ENDA, but the order was changed to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” first before the 111th Congress expired because that was what the “community” wanted.

“The community came to us and they said, ‘We feel more enthusiasm for your doing the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ first — well, second, because we had done hate crimes, now ENDA would be next,” Pelosi said. “They said, no, we wanted ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ And that, because we have to depend on outside mobilization and all the rest, and, of course, all four — that would be hate crimes, that would be ENDA, that would ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ that would be marriage equality — would be the four. We were trying to do them in the order of how we thought we could get them done fastest. We thought ENDA; they thought ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal.”

Pelosi expressed enthusiasm for ENDA, saying it should be “the next order of business for us” and “we’ll do everything we possibly can” to pass the legislation.

However, Pelosi also said “bathrooms” has been an issue for the legislation, although she said that issue could have an easy fix.

“What it comes down to in some of the debate is bathrooms,” Pelosi said. “I’m just telling you honestly what some of the debate is about on that subject because if you have everybody there and ENDA is the law, and you are not discriminating, then who uses what John? Just put a unisex sign on the John and get this thing over with, right? What’s the problem?”

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, expressed displeasure with Pelosi’s response, but said it’s a good sign that she didn’t rule out the possibility of a discharge petition.

“Unfortunately, Leader Pelosi launched a long and winding filibuster and avoided making any concrete commitment to lead on our community’s proposed ENDA discharge petition in 2013,” Almeida said. “But she did not rule out this bold strategy either, and we are hopeful she will agree eventually.”

A successful discharge petition would bring ENDA to the House floor regardless of whether Republican leaders like House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) or House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) want to keep it from a vote. For a discharge petition to succeed, a majority of House members, or 218, have to sign it.

That’s 42 more names than the current 176 lawmakers who currently sponsor in the House. The last time a discharge petition succeeded was 11 years ago in 2002 for campaign finance reform legislation known as McCain–Feingold in the Senate.

Nonetheless, Almeida was optimistic that a discharge petition would be a strategy that would yield positive results if pursued.

“Just a few months ago, House Democrats launched a discharge petition for the Paycheck Fairness Act, and that’s already gotten around 200 signatures,” Almeida said. “We believe ENDA could get even more signatures on our proposed discharge petition, and we have a small shot at getting to 218. But in order to have a chance to win, the House Democrats have to first be willing to try.”

Freedom to Work promoted the idea of asking Pelosi about the ENDA discharge petition prior to the start of the panel by sending out the proposed question via Twitter using the hastag #AskPelosi. Among those who retweeted the proposal were PFLAG National, the TaskForce and Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign.

As reported by other media outlets, Pelosi was also booed during the same session when she defended the recently revealed data collection policies under the Obama administration at the National Security Agency . The heckler wasn’t concerned about ENDA, but what a called a “secret law.”

Almeida said he’ll continue to pursue a discharge petition because attention will be on the lower chamber of Congress to pass ENDA if the Senate approves the legislation.

“Once we pass ENDA in the Senate this fall, with 60 or more bipartisan votes, the pressure will grow even stronger for House Democrats to launch the discharge petition in 2013,” Almeida said. “We spoke with several House Democrats about this strategy this weekend in San Jose, and I think there will be interest.”

Almeida declined to identify which House Democrats with whom he had spoke and which expressed interest in a discharge petition, but said these lawmakers wanted him to follow up next week.

With the Supreme Court decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 expected next week, Almeida emphasized that LGBT workplace protections and marriage equality are both priorities worth pursuing.

“We will continue this campaign to make 2013 the year for progress not only on the freedom to marry, but also the freedom to work,” Almeida said. “We deserve both freedoms. We deserve full equality under law.”

CORRECTION: An initial version of the article, citing a transcript from the Northwest Pacific Progressive Institute, misquoted and mischaracterized Pelosi’s remarks on ENDA. The Blade regrets the error.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

Sens. Butler, Smith introduce Pride in Mental Health Act to aid at-risk LGBTQ youth

Bill is backed by Democrats in both chambers

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.) speaks at the International LGBTQ Leaders Conference on Nov. 30, 2023. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Sens. Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.) and Tina Smith (D-Minn.) introduced the Pride in Mental Health Act on Thursday, legislation that would strengthen resources in mental health and crisis intervention for at-risk LGBTQ youth.

“Accessing mental health care and support has become increasingly difficult in nearly every state in the country,” said Butler, who is the first Black LGBTQ senator. “Barriers get even more difficult if you are a young person who lacks a supportive community or is fearful of being outed, harassed, or threatened.”

“I am introducing the Pride in Mental Health Act to help equip LGBTQ+ youth with the resources to get the affirming and often life-saving care they need,” she said.

“Mental health care is health care,” said Smith. “And for some LGBTQ+ youth, receiving access to the mental health care they need can mean the difference between living in safety and dignity, and suffering alone through discrimination, bullying, and even violence.” 

The Minnesota senator added that data shows LGBTQ students are experiencing “an epidemic” of “anxiety, depression and other serious mental health conditions.”

For example, a 2023 study by The Trevor Project found that 54 percent of LGBTQ youth reported symptoms of depression, compared to 35 percent of their heterosexual counterparts.

Joining the senators as cosponsors are Democratic U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (Mass.), Bob Casey (Penn.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Alex Padilla (Calif.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Cory Booker (N.J.), and Tammy Baldwin (Wis.). Baldwin was the first LGBTQ woman elected to the House in 1999 and the first LGBTQ woman elected to the Senate in 2013.

Leading the House version of the bill are LGBTQ Democratic U.S. Reps. Sharice Davids (Kan.), Eric Sorensen (Ill.), and Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), along with 163 other House members.

Organizations that have backed the Pride in Mental Health Act include the Human Rights Campaign, GLSEN, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Education Association (NEA), National Center for Transgender Equality, Seattle Indian Health Board, PFLAG National, The Trevor Project, American Psychological Association, Whitman-Walker Institute, InterACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, National Alliance on Mental Illness, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Mental Health America, and Center for Law and Social Policy.

Continue Reading

Congress

Before TikTok, the U.S. took action over national security concerns with Grindr

House voted to pass TikTok ban on Wednesday

Published

on

Grindr's IPO at the New York Stock Exchange (Screen capture: YouTube/NYSE)

In a bipartisan vote of 352-65 on Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives cleared a bill that would force a divestiture of TikTok by its Chinese parent company ByteDance or ban the video sharing platform’s use in the U.S.

While the legislation faces an uncertain path to passage in the U.S. Senate, Wednesday’s vote provided additional evidence of the extent to which lawmakers are concerned about U.S. national security risks that could stem from TikTok.

More specifically, as recent years have seen relations between the U.S. and China become more fraught than they have been since the two countries first established diplomatic ties in 1979, questions have been raised about the access government leaders in Beijing might have to data from America’s 150 million TikTok users who are active on the platform each month.

Concerns have also been raised about whether and how the platform’s content moderation policies, algorithmic recommendation engine or other features might be manipulated to advance Chinese interests — including, potentially, by sowing political strife in the U.S. or manipulating or undermining American elections.

Many of these claims are speculative, lacking the type of evidence that might be required if they were presented in a court of law. Nevertheless, for purposes of forcing a divestiture through an act of Congress or a decision by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, they are sufficient.

CFIUS is a nine-member interagency panel that adjudicates questions of whether business transactions between foreign buyers and U.S. targets may raise national security concerns. Since 2020, the committee has investigated TikTok because the platform was created by ByteDance’s 2017 purchase of U.S. startup Musical.ly.

The probe led to negotiations over a deal in which American user data from TikTok would be sold to U.S. based multinational computer technology company Oracle, which would vet and monitor the platform’s algorithms and content moderation practices — but Axios reported on Monday that talks between TikTok and CFIUS have stalled for months.

Parallels to Grindr case

As directed by CFIUS, in 2020, Grindr, the location-based app used primarily by gay and bisexual men and transgender or gender diverse communities, was sold by the Chinese-based Beijing Kunlun Tech to San Vicente Acquisition, a firm that was incorporated in Delaware.

According to Reuters, Kunlun’s failure to notify CFIUS when the company purchased Grindr in 2018 was likely one of the reasons the committee decided to force the divestiture and thereby unwind an acquisition that, by that point, had been consummated for two years.

While CFIUS does not share details about the specific nature of national security risks identified with transactions under its review, reporting at the time suggested concerns with Grindr had to do with the Chinese government’s potential to blackmail Americans, potentially including American officials, with data from the app.

Cooley LLP, an international law firm with attorneys who practice in the CFIUS space, notes that the committee uses a “three-part conceptual framework” to assess national security threats:

  1. What is the threat presented by the foreign person’s intent and capabilities to harm U.S. national security?
  2. What aspects of the U.S. business present vulnerabilities to national security?
  3. What would the consequences for U.S. national security be if the foreign person were to exploit the identified vulnerabilities?

The firm writes that “issues that have raised perceived national security risks range from the obvious (e.g., foreign acquisitions of U.S. businesses with federal defense contracts) to the seemingly benign (e.g., foreign minority investments in offshore wind farm projects or online dating apps.)

Cooley additionally notes that CFIUS considers vulnerabilities such as “whether the U.S. business deals in ‘critical technology,’ ‘critical infrastructure’ or ‘sensitive personal data'” and threats such as “the foreign buyer’s/investor’s track record of complying with U.S. and international laws (e.g., export controls, sanctions and anti-corruption regimes.)”

Some critics argue CFIUS has been overzealous in enforcing investment restrictions against Chinese buyers, but assuming this may be true — and putting aside questions of whether U.S. national security concerns are best served by this approach — China’s foreign direct investment has “declined considerably,” according to another global law firm with a substantial CFIUS practice, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The firm notes heightened scrutiny has been applied particularly in cases of “Chinese investment in the U.S. biotechnology industry,” while Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld highlighted CFIUS’s expanded jurisdiction over Chinese investments in U.S. real estate — noting, however, that the committee’s increased authority is “unlikely to satisfy members of Congress and state legislators who want to prohibit investments in agricultural and other land by investors from ‘countries of concern’ such as China.”

Two years after the finalization of Grindr’s divestiture in 2020, the company went public on the New York Stock Exchange and enjoyed a 400 percent rise in its stock price. Its current value is $1.75 billion.

TikTok is privately owned, but Angelo Zino, a vice president and senior equity analyst at CFRA Research, told CNBC that the platform’s U.S.-only business “could fetch a valuation north of $60 billion” if Congress passes the bill to force its divestiture from ByteDance.

Continue Reading

Congress

AOC’s announcement of new bill quotes a group with history of anti-LGBTQ advocacy

NCOSE still has ties to extremists

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) (Screen capture: YouTube/MSNBC)

A press release issued on March 7 by the office of U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) included quoted remarks from the CEO of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, a group with a history of anti-LGBTQ advocacy that was previously named Morality in Media.

The release concerns a bipartisan, bicameral bill that was introduced by Ocasio-Cortez to fight the proliferation of non-consensual, sexually explicit “deepfake” media — created by “software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means” — by establishing a federal civil right of action for victims.

“Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is leading a bipartisan bill to stop nonconsensual deepfake pornography that centers survivors’ civil right of action,” the congresswoman’s chief of staff, Mike Casca, said in a statement to the Washington Blade on Saturday. “Organizations from left, right, and center support it.”

Separately, in a discussion about these topics on X, Casca said, “I disagree that quoting a group in a release is an endorsement of that group, especially at a time when gop support is required to pass anything in the house & the senate, nonetheless ‘partnering’ with them.”

Remarks by NCOSE CEO Dawn Hawkins that were included in the announcement from Ocasio-Cortez’s office are inoffensive and germane to the legislation. For instance, she said “it is past time that our laws catch up and hold the perpetrators of this abuse accountable,” calling the measure “a critical step forward” in securing “justice for survivors through civil remedies.”

Primarily focused on opposing pornography, NCOSE has sought to distance itself from the avowed anti-LGBTQ positions that were held by the organization and its leadership in the past, but there is ample reason to doubt the narrative that the group underwent an ideological evolution.

Hawkins authored a statement on behalf of her organization in December 2023 that promised to fight against the sexual exploitation of LGBTQ victims and expressed “deep regret that there were moments in our organization’s history prior to our leadership change in 2011, when remarks were made that were indeed anti-LGBTQ+.”

The statement also noted that “our former namesake, Morality in Media (MIM), was associated with actions that starkly contrast with our current values,” including possible advocacy against Disney’s extension of benefits to employees’ same-sex partners and a press statement “arguing that homosexuality is connected to crime.”

Casting doubt on the sincerity of these statements, along with Hawkins’ proclamation that “we do not tolerate statements and actions by current employees that spread harmful misinformation and hate towards any particular group or individual,” are the following facts:

  • NCOSE’s current general counsel Benjamin Bull previously served as chief counsel of the far-right legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated an anti-LGBTQ hate group. The attorney also served as executive director for ADF International.
  • During an interview with former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, Bull praised a 2013 decision by the Supreme Court of India that re-criminalized LGBTQ sex.
  • Amherst College professor Hadley Arkes, a conservative political scientist with longstanding ties to NCOSE — he was listed as a board member on the group’s 2022 990 form — supports the discredited practice of conversion therapy, which is banned in 20 U.S. states. When delivering public remarks in 2021, he said, “We’ve had many people who, with therapy and conversion, just have come out away from that life.”
  • Arkes also opposes same-sex marriage. During the same event in 2021, he compared the decision by gay and lesbian couples to wed with the choice to shoot heroin. Close to the end of his two-hour lecture, the professor conceded that, “I think I’ve said enough to offend everybody tonight.”
  • Hawkins organized a conference in South Africa in 2022 whose keynote address was delivered by Errol Naidoo, an anti-LGBTQ minister who has blamed abortion and the “homosexual agenda” for”a culture of death” in his country and was quoted in a Nigerian newspaper as saying “I hate gays. It runs against God’s wishes.”
  • Also delivering a presentation during the conference was Sharon Slater, president of Family Watch International. The SPLC lists the organization as an anti-LGBTQ hate group, noting that Slater has claimed LGBTQ people are more prone to disease, more promiscuous, and likelier to engage in pedophilia.
  • Slater has also defended the criminalization of LGBTQ conduct by African countries like Uganda and forged close relationships with proponents of these policies like Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa, who supported the law passed last year that imposes prison sentences for homosexuality (and the death penalty, in certain cases).

Along with the bill introduced last week by Ocasio Cortez, the DEFIANCE Act, NCOSE is a major supporter of the Kids Online Safety Act — another bipartisan legislative effort to combat the sexual exploitation of minors along with other harms facilitated by Big Tech and social media companies.

Earlier iterations of KOSA drew opposition from LGBTQ and civil rights groups over concerns that, for instance, the law might suppress affirming or pro-LGBTQ online content or prevent queer youth from accessing online communities.

On Feb. 15, however, a coalition of seven national LGBTQ organizations wrote a letter to U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who introduced KOSA along with Republican U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), informing him that they would no longer oppose the bill.

Signed by GLAAD, GLSEN, the Human Rights Campaign, PFLAG National, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and The Trevor Project, the letter thanked Blumenthal for “hearing our concerns” and “updating the legislation to address potential adverse consequences for LGBTQ+ youth.”

For years, Congress has sought to pass legislation to curb the power of market-dominant tech platform companies and hold these firms accountable for harms they have facilitated. More recently, many lawmakers have agreed on the need for a bipartisan federal privacy law and regulations targeting emerging technologies like artificial intelligence — but so far have failed to pass any.

Support among Republicans and Democrats for bills like KOSA and the DEFIANCE Act were bolstered by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on online child sexual exploitation at the end of January, where the senators grilled the CEOs of TikTok, Discord, Snap Inc. (Snapchat), X (formerly Twitter), and Meta (which owns Facebook and Instagram).

Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled U.S. House is preparing to vote on a bill that would force the divestiture of TikTok by its Chinese parent company ByteDance or ban the popular video sharing platform in the U.S.

While the measure would have to overcome opposition from Senate Democrats to pass, bipartisan support comes because of the national security risks presented by TikTok along with concerns about the harms suffered by American users — even though the evidence for some of these claims is scant, unclear, or disputed.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular