National
National news in brief
Casey to introduce LGBT anti-bullying bill & more
Casey to introduce LGBT anti-bullying bill
PHILADELPHIA — U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) has announced plans to introduce federal anti-bullying legislation “in the next couple of days” that would be inclusive of protecting LGBT students throughout the country.
During a May 1 speech at the annual Equality Forum, Casey said the bill, which will be known as the Safe Schools Improvement Act, is necessary because data shows that bullying happens “most frequently to children who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.”
“We must enact legislation to do a better job of protecting children, especially those children who are being bullied every day because they’re gay or lesbian,” he said.
Casey said the bill would call on schools to develop policies to prohibit bullying and harassment and create a system to obtain and report data on the issue. Companion legislation to what Casey’s proposing exists in the House. The sponsor of the House version, which has 108 co-sponsors, is Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.).
After the speech, Casey told the Blade his legislation would be different from the Student Non-Discrimination Act that Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is poised to introduce in the Senate.
Casey said it’s important for the federal government to make clear that it’s going to pay more attention to the issue of bullying.
“As you know, it’s been a significant issue as it relates to gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender children for a long time — or children who happen to have parents who are gay or lesbian,” he said.
Casey said the legislation wouldn’t necessarily have language specifically relating to sexual orientation or gender identity but would have more of a “broader directive” toward all students.
Although he said it’s possible for anti-bullying legislation to pass this year, Casey said he’s “learned to be more realistic about how long bills can take.”
Hawaii passes civil unions bill
HONOLULU — In an unexpected development, Hawaii’s House of Representatives last week voted 31-20 to pass a civil unions bill providing the same rights and benefits of marriage to the state’s same-sex couples.
The vote came April 30 during the final hours of the legislative body’s session and after many political observers expected supporters to postpone a vote because they lacked sufficient support to override any veto by Republican Gov. Linda Lingle.
Lingle has not said whether she will sign or veto the bill. Opponents, led by the state Catholic Archdiocese, are demanding that Lingle veto the measure. Supporters need 34 votes to override a veto, three more than the number who voted for the measure on Thursday.
“The legislature’s passage of a civil union bill marks a major step forward in Hawaii’s journey toward fairness and equality, but falls short of the full security and equality protection that come only with the freedom to marry,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the same-sex marriage advocacy group Freedom to Marry.
Hawaii’s state Senate passed the bill earlier this year.
Wolfson played a role in efforts to push for same-sex marriage in Hawaii during the early 1990s, when same-sex couples filed a lawsuit asserting the state’s Constitution required recognition of same-sex marriage. In a highly controversial decision, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in favor of the couple’s suit, setting in motion a process where Hawaii could have become the nation’s first state to legalize gay marriage.
But opponents fought back, pushing through a ballot measure approved by the voters that amended the state’s Constitution in 1998 to ban gay marriage. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruling in 1993 has been credited with unleashing a nationwide backlash against same-sex marriage that led to ballot measures banning gay marriage in states across the country.
Wolfson and other LGBT activists have expressed hope that that backlash is subsiding, and that more states will soon approve same-sex marriage laws similar to those in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.
Franken to introduce student non-discrimination bill
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is poised to introduce a bill that would bar discrimination against LGBT students in schools throughout the country, according to his office.
“We are hopeful that we can introduce our companion anti-bullying legislation soon,” Jess McIntosh, a Franken spokesperson, told the Blade last week.
In the House, the legislation is known as the Student Non-Discrimination Act. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a gay lawmaker, introduced the measure in January. Polis said the legislation would give schools across the country tools to fight “everything from exclusion from prom, to banning clubs, to lack of actions addressing bullying situations.”
McIntosh said she couldn’t say when Franken would introduce the bill; she also couldn’t confirm whether the language in his bill would match the House version.
Daryl Presgraves, spokesperson for the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, which has been advocating for the bill, praised Franken for furthering the effort.
“Obviously, we’re very grateful to Sen. Franken for realizing that the Student Non-Discrimination Act is an important piece of legislation that will help make schools safer for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression,” Presgraves said.
Immigration reform could include UAFA: report
WASHINGTON — A recently published outline of principles Senate Democrats are seeking as part of upcoming comprehensive immigration reform calls for language that would address inequities faced by same-sex bi-national couples.
The 26-page draft proposal, posted online April 29 by Politico, devotes one line to expressing a desire for language to allow LGBT Americans to sponsor their foreign same-sex partners for residency in the U.S. as part of the final immigration reform bill.
“It will eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status,” says the draft.
The proposed language is similar to standalone legislation pending in Congress known as the Uniting American Families Act. The bill would change immigration law to assist an estimated 36,000 same-sex bi-national couples living in the United States.
The draft proposal’s authors are Senate Democrats leading the effort in the chamber for immigration reform: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.).
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, called the proposal “a very significant development” toward including UAFA in comprehensive immigration reform.
“It is a solid indication that lawmakers — in crafting their priorities for the bill — saw this as being one of those priorities,” he said.
Baldwin says OPM has pay-for info on DP bill
WASHINGTON — The only out lesbian in Congress told reporters last week that the administration has sent her information on finding funds to pay for domestic partner benefits legislation for federal workers.
Asked by the Blade on April 28 whether the U.S. Office of Personnel Management had yet provided the data as requested by lawmakers, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) replied, “To me.”
The legislation, known as the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, would make available to the same-sex partners of federal workers the same benefits available to the spouses of straight workers, including health and pension benefits.
“We’ll be able to pay for it,” said Baldwin, the bill’s sponsor. “I’m confident that we will be able to offset it so that it will meet statutory pay-go requirements.”
House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over the legislation reported out the bill late last year. But supporters have said they wouldn’t move the bill to the floor unless OPM provided information on how to pay for the legislation’s cost — an estimated $63 million each year — within the agency’s existing budget.
Baldwin said for strategic reasons, she didn’t want to offer more information publicly on how OPM found the needed funds to pay for the legislation.
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
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.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
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.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
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.
Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
