National
Will arrests at White House usher new era of activism?
Gay soldier becomes face of civil disobedience

Lt. Dan Choi, a gay West Point graduate and Arabic linguist who served as an infantry officer in Iraq, was arrested last week after handcuffing himself to the White House fence in protest of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
A gay solider who handcuffed himself to the White House fence last week in protest of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has emerged as a national figure who is challenging LGBT rights groups to take a more militant posture in the fight for anti-discrimination bills stalled in Congress.
Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and Arabic linguist who served as an infantry officer in Iraq, was one of three protesters arrested outside the White House on March 18. Many people see the action as a challenge to gay groups aligned with the Obama administration and Democratic Party leaders in Congress.
“I want to explain why these actions are exactly what we need to be doing as American citizens,” Choi told DC Agenda upon his release from jail March 19. “When there’s a time when our leaders are unable, unwilling to do the right thing, somebody has to step up to the responsibility.”
His arrest — and comments in a Newsweek interview this week criticizing gay rights leaders for being too closely aligned with the Washington political establishment — comes at a time when some activists and donors are complaining that President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have not pushed hard enough to advance several LGBT rights bills, including the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Choi, who is in the process of being discharged from the Army under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” was joined in the White House protest by Jim Pietrangelo, a former Army captain discharged in 2004 for being gay, and Robin McGehee, co-founder of the new LGBT direct action group GetEqual.org.
Pietrangelo also handcuffed himself to the fence while McGehee assisted the two. Police charged all three with refusing to obey a lawful order to disperse, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine.
McGehee agreed to pay a $35 fine to end the case against her in a process known as post and forfeit. But Choi and Pietrangelo pleaded not guilty at an arraignment the following day in D.C. Superior Court after being held overnight in jail. A judge set an April 26 trial date for the two.
Shortly after U.S. Park Police officers arrested Choi and Pietrangelo and uniformed Secret Service officers arrested McGehee, four other protesters affiliated with GetEqual.org were arrested by U.S. Capitol police for staging a sit-in at the Capitol Hill office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Other people were arrested around the same time in Pelosi’s district office in San Francisco. The Washington and San Francisco protesters said they were targeting Pelosi for not moving fast enough to schedule a House vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA. The long-stalled legislation calls for banning employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
“We had three simultaneous actions happening at the same time on the same day — with the simple demand that we wanted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed immediately and ENDA to be brought to the floor immediately,” McGehee said.
“And we’ll be back in April,” said McGehee, who lives in Fresno, Calif. “I can’t tell you what we’re going to do, but we’ll be back.”
Asked if future actions would involve LGBT protesters getting arrested, McGehee said, “Yes, absolutely.”
“Some of these will include non-violent civil disobedience that will lead to arrests and some of them will be moments that you’re going to highlight injustice through a creative action idea that doesn’t include an arrest,” she said.
“But what we’re trying to do is create the lunch-counter moment that highlights the injustice and gives the visual imagery that shows we really are in a civil rights battle,” she said.
McGehee said the “lunch-counter moment” was a reference to the famous sit-ins staged by blacks at segregated restaurants and lunch counters in the South during the late the 1950s and early 1960s, when civil rights activists were arrested and jailed.
The non-violent civil disobedience actions organized then by Martin Luther King Jr. and his supporters have been credited with laying the groundwork for Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The act ended segregation by banning discrimination based on race and color in employment, housing and public accommodations.
Gay activists have engaged in civil disobedience actions since the Stonewall riots in New York City ushered in the modern gay rights movement in 1969. Gay and AIDS activists involved with the AIDS protest groups ACT UP engaged in widely publicized civil disobedience actions in the 1980s to challenge inaction on the part of the government to fighting AIDS.
But since the early 1990s, when President Bill Clinton emerged as the first U.S. president to openly support gay rights and gay-supportive Democrats won control of Congress, most of the nation’s LGBT groups chose a path of more traditional lobbying and electioneering to build support for gay rights causes.
McGehee’s reference to the arrest actions by black civil rights activists in the South, where police often treated arrested demonstrators harshly, paralleled Choi’s arrest outside the White House.
According to D.C. gay Democratic activist Paul Yandura, who has served as a spokesperson for Choi and Pietrangelo, Choi recounted a harrowing encounter with a police officer at the city’s Central Cellblock, where the two were taken after their arrest.
Yandura noted that Choi and Pietrangelo wore their military uniforms to the protest and remained dressed in their uniforms during their overnight stay at the cellblock. He said Choi told him an officer at the cellblock ordered him to stand before him at attention and “violently” ripped several cloth insignias, including an American flag insignia, from Choi’s uniform.
One by one, the officer ripped off the flag insignia, cloth stripes indicating Choi’s rank and a cloth U.S. Army insignia, so as “to humiliate him,” Yandura said.
Shortly after being asked about the incident by DC Agenda, Assistant D.C. Police Chief Diane Groomes said she looked into the matter and confirmed that a Park Police officer removed the insignias from both Choi and Pietrangelo’s uniforms at a Park Police holding facility.
She said the incident occurred before the two men were taken to the Central Cellblock, which is operated by D.C. police.
“[D.C. police] were not involved in said matter,” Groomes told DC Agenda in an e-mail. She said Park Police Lt. Phil Beck confirmed to her that an officer with the Park Police removed the two gay men’s uniform insignias, but she did not know why.
A Park Police spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment.
Choi challenges HRC
Choi appeared to take a swipe at established LGBT rights groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, in an interview this week with Newsweek, which raised eyebrows among some activists.
“Within the gay community, so many leaders want acceptance from polite society,” he said in the interview. “I think there’s been a betrayal of what is down inside of us in order to achieve what looks popular, what look enviable.
“The movement seems to be centered around how to become an elite,” he said. “I would say to them: You do not represent us if all you are looking for is a ladder in to elite society.”
He also told Newsweek he believes a “deep schism” exists within the LGBT rights movement, with many gay and transgender youth becoming alienated from the more establishment-oriented groups.
Choi’s own plans for the White House protest last week were announced about a half hour before it began during a noon rally in Freedom Plaza that HRC organized jointly with comedienne Kathy Griffin in support of efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Choi was not a scheduled speaker at the rally. In a statement, HRC spokesperson Trevor Thomas said Choi first asked HRC President Joe Solmonese if the soldier could have a speaking role at the event.
“Joe explained that it wasn’t his sole decision to make on the spot given that there was already an established program that included Kathy Griffin, other organizations and veterans,” Thomas said.
But Thomas and others familiar with the rally said Griffin later invited Choi to speak during her allotted time period on the rally stage.
Once on stage, Choi urged rally attendees to march with him to the White House to send a message to “repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ — not next year, not tomorrow, but now. Now is the time.”
He made no mention of his plans to handcuff himself to the White House fence, saying only, “I’m going to the White House right now. I want you all to take out your cell phones and any recording devices and document this moment right now as we together make history.”
He then turned to Griffin and Solmonese and asked if they would join him in a march to the White House. Griffin said, “Of course,” and Solmonese gave him a thumbs-up signal. But the two later said that they chose to remain at the rally to continue to push for lobbying efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
About 200 people followed Choi and Pietrangelo for the four-block walk from Freedom Plaza to the White House. HRC said more than 1,000 people attended the Freedom Plaza rally.
Phil Attey, a gay D.C. activist and volunteer coordinator for the Obama for president campaign was among those who attended the Freedom Plaza rally. He expressed distaste over Choi’s march to the White House, calling it “politically unsophisticated beyond belief.”
“It’s a shame that our community needs to be educated about the political process and they don’t get it,” he said. “They don’t understand that Congress needs to be moved on this issue and that people across the country have the power to do that. And if they’re going to get them to yell and scream at the president, we’re going to fail, we’re going to lose.”
But Choi and McGehee said later that Obama isn’t pushing hard enough to prod Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The two said their arrest action was aimed, in part, at pushing the president into including language to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in his 2010 Department of Defense authorization bill, which could enable the repeal to take place this year.
While saying he has great respect for Griffin, a popular comedienne with a large gay following, Choi said he questioned HRC’s decision to team up with a comedienne for a rally addressing discrimination against gays in the military.
“’Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is not a laughing matter,” he said in the Newsweek interview.
HRC says differing
tactics no ‘schism’
Solmonese and two local activists involved in lobbying for D.C.’s same-sex marriage law took exception to some of Choi’s comments.
“Any healthy and diverse social movement will have a diversity of voices and opinions,” Solmonese told DC Agenda. “Individuals and groups will take different approaches based on their ideology, life experience and other sincerely and deeply held beliefs about the political process. This is not indicative of a schism, but rather a sign of vibrant engagement.”
And D.C. gay activist Bob Summersgill, who coordinated strategy for lobbying the City Council for approval of a same-sex marriage law, called Choi’s criticism of HRC off base.
“Direct action is a very good tactic,” he said. “But it’s most effective when you do it in conjunction with standard lobbying. This past week, Dan Choi had a dual message to pass ENDA and repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but also to attack HRC at the same time.”
Summersgill disputed Choi’s assertion that national lobbying groups like HRC are more interested in seeking an elitist status than in passing laws.
“HRC is a federal lobbying organization,” he said. “To pass laws, you have to talk to and build relationships with members of Congress.”
Jose Zuniga, who was among the first to challenge “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993 as a sergeant in the Army, noted that civil disobedience has an important place in civil rights endeavors, including in the LGBT community.
“I respect Dan Choi’s passion and, although I wish he had not engaged in civil disobedience while dressed in an Army uniform, I personally understand, as someone who was discharged from the U.S. Army … because I am a gay man, the frustration he and our community rightly feel,” Zuniga said.
Like Summersgill and Solmonese, Zuniga said civil disobedience should be carefully coordinated with legislative advocacy efforts.
National
Activists rally in response to Supreme Court ruling
‘We won’t bow to hatred: we outlive it’

Politicians, LGBTQ activists, and allies gathered at the Lutheran Church of the Reformation in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, D.C. on Wednesday following the ruling by the United States Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Skrmetti. The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender adolescents in a 6-3 ruling.
A rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court was called for by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and other organizations following the high court ruling on Wednesday. However, due to a thunderstorm and flood watch, the scores of activists who were to attend the rally were directed to a Lutheran church down the street from the court. Undeterred, activists and community leaders were joined by U.S. Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) for an indoor rally at the church.
“We know that freedom is not inevitable,” Markey told the crowd. “It is fought for by people who said ‘no’ in the face of health cuts, ‘no’ in the face of discrimination, ‘no’ in the face of invasive laws that ban life-saving and life-affirming healthcare and ‘no’ to this anti-justice, anti-freedom agenda.”
Also speaking at the rally was Deirdre Schifeling, chief political advocacy officer of the National ACLU.
“We believe transgender rights matter,” Schifeling stated. “Transgender kids matter and deserve love, support and the freedom to shape their own futures. I am still processing how the Supreme Court could disagree with such an obvious truth.”
“Today’s ruling shows us that unfortunately these attacks on our freedom will not end here,” Schifeling continued. “The Trump administration and extremist politicians across the country are continuing to target our right — our human right — to control our own bodies.”
“If politicians think that we are going to sit back and be defeated, that we are going to let them strip our rights and freedoms away without a fight, they’ve got another think coming,” Schifeling said. “We will never back down. We will never back down or give up. We will organize, we will mobilize and we will fight to protect trans rights in our communities, in our legislatures, in our elections, and in court rooms across the country.”

“Today, the highest court in this land decided that the bodily autonomy of trans youth, specifically trans youth of Tennessee and states with bans harming youth across the country do not matter,” said trans advocate Hope Giselle-Godsey.
“The opponents of trans equality think that today is a victory, but history will remember it as a moment that sharpened us and not silenced us,” Giselle-Godsey continued.
“So yes, today we grieve for the people in those states where those bans exist, but we grieve in motion,” Giselle-Godsey said. “To the system that thinks that it won today, just like every other time before: you will lose again. Because we won’t bow to hatred: we outlive it. We out-organize it. We out-love it. We are still here and we are not finished yet.”

U.S. Supreme Court
Lawyers who fought gender affirming care ban at the Supreme Court remain optimistic
Wednesday’s decision, while disappointing, leaves room for more legal challenges

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday upholding Tennessee’s ban on medical care for transgender minors, several of the plaintiffs’ attorneys expressed disappointment with the outcome but stressed that the fight was not over.
While the decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti will shield Tennessee and more than 20 other states from litigation challenging their anti-trans healthcare restrictions, the majority decision was not so broadly written that opportunities to fight for expanded rights and protections — or to push back against the Trump-Vance administration’s discriminatory policies — were extinguished, they said.
Addressing reporters during a press call hours after the decision was released were Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, Karen Loewy, director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, and Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee.
On the one hand, the lawyers were adamant that the conservative justices in the 6-3 majority opinion “got this completely wrong,” as Cameron-Vaughn said, because Tennessee’s law is “clearly a sex based classification and transgender based classification” on its face.
At the same time, he said “the fact that it’s a narrow ruling means that we will continue to fight and stand with trans people and their families in Tennessee with all the tools at our disposal to continue to stand against the assault from the government.”
Explained Strangio, “The court did not rule on whether or not transgender status independently warrants the type of heightened scrutiny that sex based classifications also trigger,” meaning that “lower court decisions — for example, in the 9th and the 4th Circuit that have already recognized that transgender status triggers this type of heightened scrutiny — will remain good law, and that government discrimination targeting transgender people, either through facial classifications or invidious discrimination, are both contexts in which the [Supreme] Court has today explicitly left open for heightened scrutiny.”
“The most immediate effect is on our clients and other young, young transgender people in Tennessee and across the country who need medical care that the government has stepped in to ban,” added Strangio, who is the first transgender attorney to argue before the Supreme Court. “And for them, we are devastated, and we know that we will continue fighting so that government discrimination against transgender people will end.”
“This is a setback in many ways,” he said, “but we continue onward in the fight and we can, you know, hold simultaneously, both the pain of this decision and all of the possibilities of the future we’re building.”
Responding to a question from the Washington Blade about whether the justices considered the potential harms of cutting off access to treatments for young people who have begun to medically transition, Strangio said he and his co-counsel stressed the issue in briefs and during oral argument.
He continued, “I think one of the frustrating things about the type of deference that this court found would apply here” as opposed to a more heightened level of scrutiny “is that they don’t really look at the underlying evidence, and so they can just sort of defer broadly and uncritically to state legislatures or legislatures more more generally.”
Strangio noted that while the dissenting opinions from the liberal justices, particularly Sonia Sotomayor’s, addressed harms related to the sudden loss of access to treatments for transgender youth, “that did not figure in in the majority opinions, in the ways that we all wished that it would have.”
“And we know how devastating it is for people to lose access to medically necessary care,” he said.
Responding to the same question, Loewy said “I would just lift up Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in as much as her questioning of Tennessee’s attorneys during argument was a recognition of the real harms to our actual clients. And her dissent really talks about what it meant before our clients had access to the gender affirming medical care that they needed, and the real harm of that now being unavailable to them.”
“So, there was definitely some recognition during the discussion, during argument, of what this really means for trans young people,” Loewy said. “And you know, it was clearly not part of the calculus that the majority was willing to really consider.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court upholds ban on transgender care for minors
Skrmetti decision among this term’s most highly anticipated rulings

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a ban on medical interventions for transgender minors in Tennessee, with the three liberal justices dissenting in a ruling that will shield similar laws that block or restrict access to care in more than 20 other states.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said questions about the “safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments” should be resolved democratically.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued, in her opinion, that the decision “authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them,” adding that “Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.”
Plaintiffs who challenged Tennessee’s ban were a doctor and three families argued that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
They also emphasized that the care prohibited for minors in the state — puberty delaying medication, hormone therapy, and surgeries — is made available to patients younger than 18 if they are sought for reasons other than gender transitions.
The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, was among the most anticipated of the court’s June term.
President Donald Trump in February formally reversed course from the Biden-Harris administration’s support for the plaintiffs challenging the Tennessee law, urging the Supreme Court to uphold the ban.
Attorneys, Democratic lawmakers, and medical groups object to the ruling
Representing the plaintiffs in the litigation challenging the ban were the Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee, Karen Loewy, director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Sasha Buchert, counsel and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, and attorneys with the firm Akin Gump.
“Today’s ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution,” said Strangio, who is the first trans lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court. “Though this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives.”
“The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful,” Strangio said. “We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.”
“This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive,” said Buchert. “But we will continue to fight fiercely to protect them. Make no mistake, gender-affirming care is often life-saving care, and all major medical associations have determined it to be safe, appropriate, and effective. This is a sad day, and the implications will reverberate for years and across the country, but it does not shake our resolve to continue fighting.”
“The Court today failed to do its job,” said Levi. “When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution’s backbone. Instead, it chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics.”
“The Court’s ruling abandons transgender youth and their families to political attacks. It ignored clear discrimination and disregarded its own legal precedent by letting lawmakers target young people for being transgender,” said Minter. “Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians. This decision will cause real harm.”
In a press conference on Capitol Hill, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) told reporters, “This Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that one of their jobs is to protect individual rights and protect individuals from being discriminated against. It’s an awful decision.”
“On the floor, we had a bill, that the Republicans wanted to take away these rights,” Schumer said. “And we got, I believe, every Democrat voting against it. So it failed because it needed 60 votes. So we’re going to explore every solution.”
U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also hosted a press conference, arguing that the court’s decision — and conservative-led efforts to restrict the rights and freedoms of transgender people more broadly — is of a piece with the Republican Party’s broader policy agenda, particularly in Trump’s second term.
In 2019, the congresswoman shared that her daughter, then 22, was trans. When asked on Wednesday whether her staunch opposition to the ruling was both professional and personal, Jayapal said, “I’m not speaking about my personal situation these days” but her family aside, “it’s also personal to me as a member of Congress that represents families who are experiencing the same kinds of issues and the same kind of fear that I hear from people across the country.”
She added, “And so I think what’s important is to recognize that trans people are a tiny percentage of the country and are doing no harm to anyone else. And despite the disinformation, the lies that are being circulated about trans people, I think that we are powerful when we come together, when we realize that these attacks are coordinated and are really about the same thing, which is exerting power over us and taking away our rights in a democracy that should be about allowing everyone to contribute their full selves.”
U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said: “Today, hate won. The far-right justices of the Supreme Court endorsed hate and discrimination by delivering a win for Republicans who have relentlessly and cruelly attacked transgender Americans for years. With 25 states already having laws in place that ban gender-affirming care for trans youth, the Supreme Court has cleared the way for families in half of the country to no longer access the medically necessary and life-saving care they need for their children.”
The senator continued, “But here is what no Court nor politician can ever change: trans people will continue to exist. Their health care is lifesaving and essential, and trans rights are human rights. We have a fight ahead of us, but discrimination and hate cannot and must not win.”
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said: “Access to medically-necessary care for trans youth saves lives, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s callous decision puts trans youth and their families at risk.
“MAGA extremists across the nation will not stop at banning medically-necessary gender-affirming care for trans youth. The Court’s life-altering decision lays out the playbook for extremist politicians to continue their crusade against trans people and further exclude them from daily life. And this is just the beginning—this decision opens the floodgates for MAGA extremists in state legislatures and Congress to ban medically-necessary care, from gender-affirming care to abortion access.
“This is just wrong—everyone should have access to the care they need, when they need it. No exceptions.
“Let’s get politicians out of the exam room. We will continue to fight these divisive policies in communities nationwide to fully realize the vision of America as a land of freedom and equality for all, and I won’t rest until my Equality Act is signed into law to deliver on this fundamental promise.”
“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is devastating for young transgender Americans and their families who live in states that decide to put divisive and dehumanizing politics over people,” said U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Wis.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.
“The Court’s ruling upholding Tennessee’s cruel and politically-motivated ban on medically-necessary care for young trans people undermines the ability of transgender patients, their families, and doctors to make medical decisions about accessing evidence-based care without politicians’ interference,” he said.
The congressman added, “The law the Court upheld is an attack on some of the most vulnerable in our community—but we still have other tools to challenge anti-trans laws in courts across the country. As Chair of the Equality Caucus, I am committed to continuing to lead elected officials from across the country in the fight for full equality for transgender people under the law here in Congress.”
“Every parent wants to keep their child healthy. Parents and trans young people have the right to make private health care decisions with their doctors. Today’s ruling allowing Tennessee politicians to interfere in private health care decisions is not only draconian, it’s dangerous and hateful,” said U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.). “I want families who are feeling scared today about the consequences of this decision to know that I’m with you. I’m fighting for you in Congress every single day, and I will not back down.”
Jayapal, Markey, Merkley, Takano, and Balint were among the 164 members of Congress who filed an amicus brief urging the court to preserve access to care.
New York Attorney General Letitia James also released a statement: “At a time when LGBTQ+ communities are under relentless attack, this decision is dangerous and a profound disappointment. Gender-affirming care is essential and lifesaving health care, and denying young people access to it will have devastating consequences.
“Let me be clear: gender-affirming care remains legal and protected in New York, including for young people.
“To the transgender community in Tennessee and across the country: We stand proudly with you. We are strongest together, and we will not let this decision weaken our resolve to build a safer, more just, inclusive, and compassionate nation for all.”
Also issuing a statement was a coalition of seven medical associations that had submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs — American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, Endocrine Society, the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, and the American Pediatric Society.
The organizations said:
“As experts dedicated to providing patients with compassionate, evidence-based care every day, we are disappointed in the United States vs. Skrmetti decision, which increases the likelihood that other states will limit or eliminate families’ and patients’ ability to access medical care.
“As doctors, nurse practitioners, and nurses, we believe that every patient is different. Decisions about medical care must be based on individualized assessments by qualified professionals in consultation with the patient and their parents or legal guardians and guided by well-designed medical evidence. This Supreme Court decision strips patients and families of the choice to direct their own health care.
“Every patient should have access to the medical care they need. Health care professionals must be able to rely on their training, education, and expertise to provide appropriate care based on the needs and values of each patient and their family, without bans or interference.”
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups object to the ruling
Allison Scott, president of the Campaign for Southern Equality, said ““I am heartbroken today. No one should be forced to leave their home state to access healthcare – and it is outrageous to see the U.S. Supreme Court uphold these bans and continue to allow the government to interfere with the personal medical decisions of families.”
“The Court’s ruling can’t change what we know in our bones: our identities, our families, and our lives are strong, worthy, and not up for debate by extremists,” she said. “The Trans Youth Emergency Project will be here to help families navigate this painful time.”
“Today, the Supreme Court took the place of parents and doctors and stripped away their ability to make private, lifesaving decisions for their children,” said GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis. “This ruling is a chilling step toward unchecked government overreach, intruding on the most personal aspects of our private lives.”
She added, “All families are now less safe and left vulnerable to politicians and a Court that has abandoned its duty to protect personal liberties. Every family deserves the freedom to make the medical decisions that help their children live, thrive, and be well.”
“This is a devastating and deeply dangerous decision that carries irreversible harm to transgender youth and their families. The majority’s opinion politicizes decades of medical consensus, ignores the Constitution’s mandate of equal protection, and turns its back on youth and their families,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward.
“Our team at Democracy Forward will continue to work every day to support transgender people, including young people, their families, and communities, and we will never give up making the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law a reality for all people,” she said.
National LGBTQ Task Force President Kierra Johnson said: “Gender affirming care can mean the difference between life and death for our transgender youth. Today, the Supreme Court rejected the science and authorization of gender affirming care, upheld harmful bans, and denied the lived experiences of trans youth.
“The Supreme Court has now rolled back critical protections against discrimination on the basis of sex. This is an especially devastating moment for transgender youth, their parents and their doctors across the country. Tennessee’s ban on essential medical care — and other similar state bans — will continue to wreak havoc on the lives of these families.
“What we know is this: transgender youth denied access to appropriate medical care are in danger of worse physical and mental health outcomes.
“Americans look to the Supreme Court as the highest court of the land, making decisions with long term impact in these critical times; decisions that speak to the value certain communities. Transgender youth are often overlooked, undervalued, and lack the protection that they deserve as both minors and transgender community members. Gender dysphoria impacts more than the physicality of a person and, when left untreated, may result in anxiety and depression. When there is no legal doctrine that speaks to pertinence of gender affirming care, it shows that the law is not on their side, discrediting and disenfranchising a community while obliterating their humanity. ”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, said: Today the Supreme Court used the greatest hits of discredited anti-trans, pseudoscientific ideas in order to rule against the equal access of trans kids to healthcare. This is healthcare that is safe, supported by every mainstream medical association, and which is granted with the consent of youth’s parents.
“Moreover, the Court could only issue such a ruling by overlooking the obvious: The denial of equal access to healthcare for trans kids is sex discrimination. Gender-affirming treatments are allowed for some children but not others under the Tennessee law SB1, which explicitly states as one of its goals to encourage minors to ‘appreciate their sex.’
“So what they did here is the equivalent of denying a person’s race, in order to declare that racial discrimination laws don’t apply.
“Now, while the Skirmetti ruling is not as sweeping as it could have been, because it leaves the door open to future cases on sports and bathrooms, it will likely turbocharge attempts to exempt trans people from Constitutional protections. What the court has done is give these efforts the sheen of judicial legitimacy, and a road map for how to do so, by directing them to leave out the explicit targeting of trans people.
“Because as long as the attempts to push trans people outside of the bounds of public life using the law are implicit, then governmental entities have free reign to do so, now.
“The success of manipulating legal, scientific, and media organizations with anti-trans disinformation by Christian Nationalist and authoritarian entities is crystal clear in this decision.”
“LPAC is devastated that the Supreme Court has turned away from experts like the American Academy of Pediatrics and hard data showing that health care for trans youth improves physical and mental health, and instead succumbed to political pressure,” said Janelle Perez, executive director of LPAC. “This cruel decision opens the floodgates for politicians to decide what we and our children need to be healthy. These are decisions that should be made by families and healthcare providers, not politicians.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said: “Today’s Supreme Court decision is a devastating blow to transgender youth and the families who love them, but it will not break our resolve. Families may now have to make the heartbreaking choice to leave their state or split their families, or take on extensive financial burdens, in order to ensure that their kids can access medically necessary care.
“This Court chose to allow politicians to interfere in medical decisions that should be made by doctors, patients, and families—a cruel betrayal of the children who needed them to stand up for justice when it mattered most.
“As parents, advocates, and community leaders, we know that our fight doesn’t end in courtrooms—it lives in our communities, our hearts, and our unwavering commitment to each other. Still, we will not be deterred. We will support families forced to make impossible choices, fund legal challenges, and build a movement so powerful that no politician can ignore us. Together, we will turn this pain into power and keep fighting until every transgender person in America can live with dignity, safety, and the freedom to be who they are.”
Tennessee AG and Log Cabin Republicans celebrate the ruling
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said, “In today’s historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism. A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee’s elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand.”
The AG continued, “I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood.”
Log Cabin Republicans interim executive director Ed Williams released the following statement:
“The U.S. Supreme Court just upheld Tennessee’s law prohibiting trans medical surgeries and treatments for minors. This decision is not ‘anti-trans.’ It is a historic and critical win for children and common-sense. The majority of Americans support equal treatment for trans Americans and protections from discrimination. They also back laws like Tennessee’s, which protect children from receiving life-altering and irreversible medical procedures or treatments often pushed on them by a zealous cabal that views children as pawns in their gender ideology crusade.
“LGBT conservatives have long believed there is a middle-road that upholds respect, inclusion, and protection for trans Americans while curbing the excesses of a radical political movement attempting to push its bizarre agenda in sports, schools, governments, and hospitals. Today’s Supreme Court is a step in the right direction.”
The Washington Blade will update this story.
-
U.S. Supreme Court1 day ago
Supreme Court upholds ban on transgender care for minors
-
U.S. Federal Courts3 days ago
Meeting the moment: Democracy Forward takes prominent role in fighting Trump regime
-
District of Columbia2 days ago
Juvenile arrested for anti-gay assault in D.C.
-
National3 days ago
New LGBTQ+ Archive to save scrubbed federal resources