Connect with us

National

New anxieties emerge over ‘Don’t Ask’ vote

Repeal supporters hoping for enough votes for cloture

Published

on

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Blade photo by Michael Key)

New anxieties are emerging over whether sufficient votes exist to advance legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as a dispute has emerged in the U.S. Senate over the amendments that will be allowed for the bill.

The issue comes down to a disagreement between Democratic and Republican leadership on the issue of the ability to offer amendments on the Senate floor to the defense budget legislation that contains the repeal language.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said three amendments would be allowed on the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill when it comes to the floor, but Republicans reportedly want an agreement to offer additional amendments to the defense authorization bill.

The three amendments that Reid said he would allow are a measure on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal; a measure to attach the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill, to the defense legislation; and another measure that would address the “secret holds” U.S. senators can place on presidential nominees.

Fred Sainz, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of communications and marketing, said this disagreement has made moving forward with the defense authorization bill “a partisan issue” for senators who would have otherwise voted in favor of cloture.

“Republicans would have liked to have seen additional amendments considered and so the party leaders on both the majority and minority side are holding their caucuses to these procedural issues on party lines,” Sainz said.

Concern about whether there are sufficient votes to move forward piqued on Thursday when the Advocate reported that Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) expressed doubts about finding enough votes for cloture.

“The question is whether the Senate leadership can negotiate an agreement with the Republicans that will allow the bill to come up and get them to feel that they can introduce amendments that they want to introduce as well,” Lieberman was quoted as saying. “But until that happens, I don’t think the votes are there to break the filibuster, which would be a shame.”

Consternation among Republicans seeking to offer additional amendments and now possibly withholding support for cloture is inspiring new worry from “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal supporters.

Sainz acknowledged the confidence that repeal supporters felt earlier in the week has given way to anxiety.

“Given what we now know on the way in which the cloture petition is kind of sizing up, it’s going to be a very close vote,” he said. “It’s going to be definitely a party line and we’re looking to bring a few Republicans to our side.”

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said he’s “still optimistic” that at least 60 senators will vote in favor of cloture on the defense authorization bill and acknowledged the vote would be close.

“I think we all generally feel like we’re still moving in the right direction,” Nicholson said. “Nothing has changed in terms of the estimation that it’s going to be a close vote, and we can’t take even one vote for granted on this.”

Nicholson said if the cloture vote were to take place now, the Senate would move to proceed on the defense authorization bill by a margin of one or two votes or possibly “an even 60.”

On Friday, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network issued the names of seven senators whom the organization says are uncommitted on the cloture vote and urged repeal supporters to contact them to urge them to move forward.

“For repeal to happen advocates need more senators on board to break John McCain’s filibuster,” the statements reads. “All supporters must call their senators now.”

The seven senators are Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.); Richard Lugar (R-Ind.); Judd Gregg (R-N.H.); Jim Webb (D-Va.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio).

Only Webb’s office responded to the Blade’s request for comment on the defense authorization bill.

Will Jenkins, a Webb spokesperson, said he doesn’t have a statement from the senator at this time.

Still, he noted that while Webb voted against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” provision in May during a committee markup, he voted to report out of committee the legislation as a whole.

“He has not indicated how he intends to vote on this in the future — as is his normal practice with pending legislation,” Jenkins said.

The fact that SLDN has cited Lugar as uncommitted for a vote on cloture is noteworthy because the senator told the Blade in July that he would “presume” that he would vote against any filibuster of the legislation.

The failure to invoke cloture on the defense authorization bill on Tuesday raises questions about its passage this Congress and the fate of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Sainz predicted that not having 60 votes to move forward on Tuesday would mean the bill would have to come up again in the lame duck session after Election Day — and perhaps with “a different set of circumstances.”

“It would be tight, but there would be the ability to go ahead and introduce [the defense authorization bill] and conference it,” Sainz said. “But that’s definitely a Plan B. We’re really kind of focused on cloture on Tuesday.”

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