Connect with us

National

HRC affirms 'Don't Ask' repeal for 2010

Published

on

The Human Rights Campaign is affirming its commitment to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year as part of its legislative agenda in Congress.

HRC President Joe Solmonese outlined during a Feb. 27 fundraising dinner speech in Raleigh, N.C., expectations for the passage of pro-LGBT federal legislation in Congress, including the repeal of the 1993 barring open service in the U.S. military.

In a DC Agenda interview following the event, David Smith, HRC’s vice president of programs, elaborated on the remarks that Solmonese gave during the dinner.

Smith restated HRC’s commitment to seeing this year the enactment of domestic partner benefits for federal workers, domestic partner tax relief and the Early Treatment for HIV Act, as well as repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He also cautioned against reading too much into the Solmonese’s remarks and said HRC is working on other tasks beyond what Solmonese mentioned.

DC Agenda: Joe said during the dinner that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be brought to an end this year. What is your plan for making that happen?

David Smith: Well, Chris, we’ve been talking about that for months, and there’s been a lot of public dialogue on a path to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” There are obviously a number of options on the table. Somebody just reminded me you have our campaign, so you are well aware of how we hope to move forward on that. (Editor’s note: See “Questions surround Lieberman’s ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal bill”)

Agenda: But what leads you to believe you can accomplish “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal this year?

Smith: We’ve been saying that for months — that this is year for it to be repealed and we’re mobilizing our campaign to accomplish just that.

Agenda: What has the White House been saying on this issue? Does the White House want repeal this year or does it want to wait until the Pentagon review is finished?

Smith: The White House has publicly said that they’re following this process that was set up with [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates and [Chairman of Joint of Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael] Mullen — and that’s precisely what they’re doing is — following the process that was outlined at the Senate Armed Services Committee however many weeks ago that was now.

Agenda: What will happen if repeal doesn’t happen this year?

Smith: We fully expect repeal to happen this year. That’s what we’re working towards.

Agenda: What about two items Joe mentioned that were in the House version of the health care reform: the domestic partner tax penalty elimination and the Early Treatment for HIV Act? They’re not in the president’s proposed legislation. Do you plan to have those provisions moving forward as part of the health care package?

Smith: As far as I understand, the plan right now is that he put forward some broad outlines in terms of how the Senate bill can reconcile with the House bill. And every particular wasn’t included in those policy proposals, so it is still our hope that DP tax and ETHA will be included in whatever fix is — whatever they come up with to reconcile those two bills.

Agenda: How do you see the process going to move forward with health care reform?

Smith: Well, Chris, every reporter in this city, whether they work for DC Agenda or the New York Times is trying to figure out exactly how the process is going to work. They are still figuring it out, or if not still figuring it out, they’re not being open about how it moves forward.

I’ve read many different things, and they certainly are not talking to a whole bunch of people about it. But one version is the House passes the Senate bill, and the Senate introduces a reconciliation bill that fixes the Senate in accordance to what the House wants. There’s many different ways that this could all shake out. But it is still our hope that DP tax relief and ETHA will be included in whatever final resolution there is.

Agenda: And you’re expecting that to happen this year?

Smith: Yes.

Agenda: What about the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act? What do you see as the path for that legislation now?

Smith: Well, as you well know, it’s been passed out of both committees in both the House and Senate in various committees of jurisdiction. It is probably our most ripest piece of legislation in terms of how many times it has had a hearing and markup, so again it is our ripest piece of legislation and indications are that it will happen this year.

Agenda: And you’re expecting it to happen this year?

Smith: Yes.

Agenda: I know there was an issue with how Sen. Joseph Lieberman wanted the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to provide information it would offset the costs of that legislation within the existing budget. Do you know if that issue has yet been resolved?

Smith: I don’t believe it has, but I still think they are definitely looking for an offset and we have every reason to believe that they’re going to find it.

Agenda: Do you have any expectations for a timeline on when we can see floor votes on this legislation in either the House or the Senate?

Smith: No. I mean, I think the rest of the [congressional] calendar is completely up in the air this year.

Agenda: Joe mentioned four things that were part of the calender this year. Why wasn’t [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] included among these four?

Smith: Joe spoke about ENDA in those remarks. It was one speech in one part of the country. It’s not going to be — one speech is not reflective of what we’re working on.

Clearly, there’s a very good possibility there could be movement on ENDA in the House. As you reported, there are issues with the Senate. We’re all, as a coalition, [we] are continuing to work through those issues. And you come to work every day trying to pass legislation, and ENDA is one of our top priorities. And each and every day we’re fighting for it, and you keep pressing until these things happen.

Agenda: But do you think there is as strong a possibility of passing ENDA as the other four things we just talked about?

Smith: Again, I think there are issues in the Senate, which I think are challenges, and we’re working through those challenges with our colleagues and our coalition.

Agenda: Another thing that wasn’t mentioned in Joe’s speech was the Uniting American Families Act. Do you think attaching as part of comprehensive immigration reform can lead to passage of UAFA this year?

Smith: We continue to press to get UAFA into the process. UAFA is one our priorities, and we continue to work on that as well.

Again, Chris, I want to stress, one speech is not going cover every single issue that we’re working on. You should be aware of that. So one speech does not an entire agenda make.

We’re continuing to work on repealing [the Defense of Marriage Act], UAFA, domestic partner benefits for federal employees. There’s a list of efforts that we’re working towards and each one is in various stages of the process.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced

One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.

NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.

John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.

The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.

Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.

Continue Reading

National

Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information

Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.

 “These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.

It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”

 The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question. 

A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit. 

While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.

 Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.   

“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.

 “Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says. 

Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”

 Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”

Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.

 “As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from  the Washington Blade. 

“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said. 

The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”

It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”

The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society. 

The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections

Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Published

on

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Screen capture: YouTube)

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.

While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”

“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.

The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.

Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.

Continue Reading

Popular