Connect with us

National

Tension mounts as Senate prepares ‘Don’t Ask’ debate

Reid intends to file cloture petition for Tuesday vote

Published

on

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has announced plans to proceed with major defense budget legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language as questions linger about whether sufficient votes are present to move forward.

Reid officially announced plans to proceed with the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on Tuesday during his press conference in the U.S. Capitol.

The majority leader said the defense authorization bill is “especially important” this year because the legislation will be a vehicle to address issues that he called “long overdue,” including “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“I think we should choose common sense over discrimination,” Reid said. “We’re going to match our policy with our principles and finally say that in our country, everyone who steps up to serve our country should be welcome.”

Still, Reid acknowledged opposition in moving forward with the legislation and said he thinks he would have to file cloture to proceed with the bill.

“I would hope we can move to it without having to file cloture on a motion to proceed, but the way things have been going, having had to file cloture on filibuster to more than 100 different pieces of legislation, I probably will have to file cloture on that,” Reid said.

Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, told the Blade the senator intends to file cloture on the defense authorization bill this week for a vote on Tuesday.

Reid would file cloture after a senator objects to moving forward with the defense authorization bill with unanimous consent. After 30 hours of discussion, votes will be cast to determine whether 60 senators approve of ending the filibuster and officially moving to debate and amendments.

Asked at the conference whether he has 60 votes to proceed with the legislation, Reid replied, “We’ll sure find out.”

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he’s “reasonably confident” that “60 firm votes” are in the Senate to end a filibuster.

“I think we’ll actually probably end up with a couple more if needed,” Sarvis said. “I don’t think there are 40 senators who want to go on record as [being] opposed to calling up the defense authorization bill.”

Still, key Republicans in the Senate have expressed concern about the defense authorization bill and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language as well as other provisions in the legislation.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the repeal language a “controversial item” in response to an Blade inquiry on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during his press conference.

“The provision in the bill involves eliminating ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ without the study, and that has also made it pretty controversial,” McConnell said.

The language in the defense authorization bill provides for repeal only after the Pentagon working group developing a plan for implemention an end to law finishes its work on Dec. 1.

An objction to proceeding would most likely come from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has been the most vocal opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the Senate. He has previoiusly objected to unanimous consent on bringing the defense authorization bill to the Senate floor.

Brooke Buchanan, a McCain spokesperson, said in a statement the senator “strongly believes” that Pentagon review should be complete before taking legislative action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“As all four service chiefs have stated, we should not short circuit the ongoing Pentagon review and thereby deny our men and women in uniform a chance to have their voices heard on an important issue that affects them and their service,” she said.

Buchanan was referring to a letter from the four service chiefs made public this spring expressing their discontent with moving forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal before the Pentagon review is complete.

But Sarvis called the notion that Congress must wait for the Pentagon working group to finish its work a “tired talking point from the ‘no’ crowd.”

“Ironically, Congress, in all likelihood, will have that report before the vote is taken on the conference report in the lame duck session,” Sarvis said.

Reid said opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal can have a vote when the legislation comes to the Senate floor on whether to strip out the language from the bill.

“They want a vote on it; they can have a vote on it,” Reid said.

Sarvis said repeal proponents have been anticipating this amendment to come to the Senate floor and are prepared to beat back such a measure.

“I think if Sen. McCain or another senator moves to strike the repeal provisions, we will prevail by a comfortable margin,” Sarvis said.

But finishing the bill before the lawmakers before lawmaker break before Election Day is seen as a major concern by repeal proponents.

Sarvis identified “time” as his biggest concern heading into Senate debate on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” while emphasizing the importance of a Senate vote on the defense authorization bill in September before lawmakers adjourn for the break.

“As long as there are strong opponents in the Senate, they will try to tie this up and ensure that we don’t finish in September or early October,” Sarvis said. “We can’t allow that to happen.”

Sarvis said the lame duck session after Election Day is limited and bills that haven’t already made it through both chambers of Congress are less likely to meet approval.

DREAM Act comes into play

Also during the conference, Reid said he wants to amend the defense authorization bill so that it would include the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill.

The legislation would provide a path to citizenship for young, undocumented immigrants pursuing a college education or position in the U.S. armed forces.

“Kids who grew up as Americans should be able to get their green card if they go to college or serve in the military,” Reid said.

The majority leader noted a number of U.S. service members are Hispanic and said “it’s really important that we move forward on this legislation that we tried to work on.”

Reid said moving forward on the DREAM Act as part of the defense authorization bill is partially in response what he called his inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation this Congress.

“I know we can’t do comprehensive immigration reform,” Reid said. “I’ve tried so very, very hard. I’ve tried different iterations of this, but those Republicans we had in the last Congress have left us.”

McConnell cited the inclusion of the DREAM Act as a potentially “extraneous” amendment to the defense authorization bill.

The minority leader also was critical of Reid said he wants to address the issue of “secret holds” on presidential nominees as part of the defense authorization bill.

“It’s made it needlessly controversial,” McConnell said. “I can’t tell you right now how easy it will be to go forward with that bill, but it’s certainly created an element of controversy that would not have been otherwise there.”

Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for Immigration Equality, an LGBT immigration group, said his organzation was not part of discussion of including the DREAM Act as part of the defense authorization bill, but supports its passage.

“I can’t predict what the impact is going to be, but we certainly support the DREAM Act and I would say that we believe that the Senate majority leader is the right person to make the decision on how best to move forward,” Ralls said.

Sarvis said he doesn’t know whether this measure would complicate efforts for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“I don’t think it has to,” Sarvis said. “I think they are two separate issues and, at the end of the day, I think each one of these amendments are going to have to stand or fall on their own.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

RFK Jr.’s HHS report pushes therapy, not medical interventions, for trans youth

‘Discredited junk science’ — GLAAD

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A 409-page report released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services challenges the ethics of medical interventions for youth experiencing gender dysphoria, the treatments that are often collectively called gender-affirming care, instead advocating for psychotherapy alone.

The document comes in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order barring the federal government from supporting gender transitions for anyone younger than 19.

“Our duty is to protect our nation’s children — not expose them to unproven and irreversible medical interventions,” National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said in a statement. “We must follow the gold standard of science, not activist agendas.”

While the report does not constitute clinical guidance, its findings nevertheless conflict with not just the recommendations of LGBTQ advocacy groups but also those issued by organizations with relevant expertise in science and medicine.

The American Medical Association, for instance, notes that “empirical evidence has demonstrated that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression.”

Gender-affirming care for transgender youth under standards widely used in the U.S. includes supportive talk therapy along with — in some but not all cases — puberty blockers or hormone treatment.

“The suggestion that someone’s authentic self and who they are can be ‘changed’ is discredited junk science,” GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said in a statement. “This so-called guidance is grossly misleading and in direct contrast to the recommendation of every leading health authority in the world. This report amounts to nothing more than forcing the same discredited idea of conversion therapy that ripped families apart and harmed gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people for decades.”

GLAAD further notes that the “government has not released the names of those involved in consulting or authoring this report.”

Janelle Perez, executive director of LPAC, said, “For decades, every major medical association–including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics–have affirmed that medical care is the only safe and effective treatment for transgender youth experiencing gender dysphoria.

“This report is simply promoting conversion therapy by a different name – and the American people know better. We know that conversion therapy isn’t actually therapy – it isolates and harms kids, scapegoats parents, and divides families through blame and rejection. These tactics have been used against gay kids for decades, and now the same people want to use them against transgender youth and their families.

“The end result here will be a devastating denial of essential health care for transgender youth, replaced by a dangerous practice that every major U.S. medical and mental health association agree promotes anxiety, depression, and increased risk of suicidal thoughts and attempts.

“Like being gay or lesbian, being transgender is not a choice, and no amount of pressure can force someone to change who they are. We also know that 98% of people who receive transition-related health care continue to receive that health care throughout their lifetime. Trans health care is health care.”

“Today’s report seeks to erase decades of research and learning, replacing it with propaganda. The claims in today’s report would rip health care away from kids and take decision-making out of the hands of parents,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of NCLR. “It promotes the same kind of conversion therapy long used to shame LGBTQ+ people into hating themselves for being unable to change something they can’t change.”

“Like being gay or lesbian, being transgender is not a choice—it’s rooted in biology and genetics,” Minter said. “No amount or talk or pressure will change that.” 

Human Rights Campaign Chief of Staff Jay Brown released a statement: “Trans people are who we are. We’re born this way. And we deserve to live our best lives and have a fair shot and equal opportunity at living a good life.

“This report misrepresents the science that has led all mainstream American medical and mental health professionals to declare healthcare for transgender youth to be best practice and instead follows a script predetermined not by experts but by Sec. Kennedy and anti-equality politicians.”




Continue Reading

The White House

Trump nominates Mike Waltz to become next UN ambassador

Former Fla. congressman had been national security advisor

Published

on

U.N. headquarters in New York (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

President Donald Trump on Thursday announced he will nominate Mike Waltz to become the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

Waltz, a former Florida congressman, had been the national security advisor.

Trump announced the nomination amid reports that Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, were going to leave the administration after Waltz in March added a journalist to a Signal chat in which he, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and other officials discussed plans to attack Houthi rebels in Yemen.

“I am pleased to announce that I will be nominating Mike Waltz to be the next United States ambassador to the United Nations,” said Trump in a Truth Social post that announced Waltz’s nomination. “From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our nation’s Interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role.”

Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as interim national security advisor, “while continuing his strong leadership at the State Department.”

“Together, we will continue to fight tirelessly to make America, and the world, safe again,” said Trump.

Trump shortly after his election nominated U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) to become the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Trump in March withdrew her nomination in order to ensure Republicans maintained their narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Second federal lawsuit filed against White House passport policy

Two of seven plaintiffs live in Md.

Published

on

Lambda Legal on April 25 filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people who are challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy.

The lawsuit, which Lambda Legal filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, alleges the policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers “has caused and is causing grave and immediate harm to transgender people like plaintiffs, in violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection.”

Two of the seven plaintiffs — Jill Tran and Peter Poe — live in Maryland. The State Department, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the federal government are defendants.

“The discriminatory passport policy exposes transgender U.S. citizens to harassment, abuse, and discrimination, in some cases endangering them abroad or preventing them from traveling, by forcing them to use identification documents that share private information against their wishes,” said Lambda Legal in a press release.

Zander Schlacter, a New York-based textile artist and designer, is the lead plaintiff.

The lawsuit notes he legally changed his name and gender in New York.

Schlacter less than a week before President Donald Trump’s inauguration “sent an expedited application to update his legal name on his passport, using form DS-5504.”

Trump once he took office signed an executive order that banned the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers. The lawsuit notes Schlacter received his new passport in February.

“The passport has his correct legal name, but now has an incorrect sex marker of ‘F’ or ‘female,'” notes the lawsuit. “Mr. Schlacter also received a letter from the State Department notifying him that ‘the date of birth, place of birth, name, or sex was corrected on your passport application,’ with ‘sex’ circled in red. The stated reason was ‘to correct your information to show your biological sex at birth.'”

“I, like many transgender people, experience fear of harassment or violence when moving through public spaces, especially where a photo ID is required,” said Schlacter in the press release that announced the lawsuit. “My safety is further at risk because of my inaccurate passport. I am unwilling to subject myself and my family to the threat of harassment and discrimination at the hands of border officials or anyone who views my passport.”

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.

Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an “X” gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.

Lambda Legal represented Zzyym.

The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.

Trump signed his executive order shortly after he took office in January. Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.

A federal judge in Boston earlier this month issued a preliminary injunction against the executive order.  The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.

Continue Reading
Advertisement World Pride Guide
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular