Connect with us

National

Doubts persist as today’s ‘Don’t Ask’ cloture vote approaches

Activists fear 60-vote threshold may not be reached

Published

on

Supporters of open service in the U.S. military are expressing uncertainty — and even doubt — over today’s vote to move forward in the U.S. Senate with major defense legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, is among those saying he doesn’t think there are sufficient votes to move forward with the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill and the repeal language in the legislation.

Asked whether he sees success for the cloture vote, set for today at 2:15, Nicholson replied, “As it stands right now, no.”

“I haven’t seen anybody budge,” Nicholson said. “The Republican caucus is standing united and it’s still just a standoff.”

Blame is already being assigned to the White House.

Trevor Thomas, spokesperson for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said his organization hasn’t seen an effort from the White House on the issue in recent days.

“We have not seen any signs that the White House has been whipping this vote in the last 48 hours,” Thomas said.

Thomas said he can’t predict what will happen with the cloture vote and maintained SLDN is “taking nothing for granted.”

Still, he said the vote will be “very tight” and repeal supporters need to call their senators to seek their support.

Provided all 59 Democrats vote in favor of moving forward with the defense legislation, at least one Republican vote is necessary to reach the 60-vote threshold to end the filibuster on the legislation.

However, GOP leaders are reportedly telling its caucus to vote against cloture because of limitations on amendments that Democratic leadership will allow on the floor.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said three amendments would be allowed on the defense authorization bill: a measure stripping the legislation of its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language; a measure attaching the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill, to the legislation; and a measure addressing the “secret holds” senators can place on presidential nominees.

“Sen. Reid, if he has not, absolutely needs to be on the phone with Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, other members that we’ve discussed — and also be sitting down with them,” Thomas said.

On Monday, two key Republican senators issued statements indicating a lack of support for moving forward with the defense authorization bill, without outright saying they would vote against cloture.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said the Senate should “have the ability to debate more than the three amendments the majority leader is allowing” and noted that the defense authorization bill “is the largest discretionary authorization measure that Congress considers.”

“It is therefore imperative that Senate deliberations on the defense bill be conducted without limitations and in a manner that allows for the consideration of all related amendments that senators may wish to offer,” she said.

An original co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act who’s known for supporting LGBT rights, Snowe also expressed concern about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language in the legislation and said a Pentagon report due Dec. 1 would help guide the decision to repeal the 1993 statute.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in a separate statement on Monday that the Democratic leadership’s decision to limit amendments on the defense authorization bill is “disappointing.”

“It is disappointing, however, that instead of allowing a full and open debate on the defense authorization bill, the majority leader intends to shut Republicans out of the debate,” she said.  “Republicans and Democrats should have an equal opportunity to offer relevant amendments to this critical legislation.”

Collins called on Democratic leadership to “work with Republican leaders to negotiate an agreement so that the Senate can debate the defense bill this week.”

Other senators who are seen as potentially breaking with the Republican filibuster on the defense authorization bill are Sens. George Voinovoich (R-Ohio), Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). Their offices haven’t responded to the Blade’s request for comment on the legislation.

Earlier on Tuesday, SLDN added Sens. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) and Kit Bond (R-Mo.) as Republicans who might break with their party to vote for cloture on the defense authorization bill.

The standoff over the number of amendments that will be allowed on the defense authorization bill has become a partisan issue even among LGBT groups.

On Monday, R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, issued a statement criticizing Reid over the rules he’s set for the defense authorization bill.

“There is an overwhelming majority of senators, Democrats and Republicans, who are committed to repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ but Senator Reid’s partisan tactics could prevent the Senate from moving forward with this critical legislation for our nation’s military,” Cooper said.

Cooper added that the potentially “historic achievement” of the legislation shouldn’t “be scuttled because the Democratic majority has decided to exclude Republicans from the legislative process.”

But Michael Mitchell, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, responded in a statement on Monday by saying Republicans are the ones obstructing the process.

“I hope that the Log Cabin Republicans will stop trying to blame those who are working through the legislative process to finally repeal [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] once and for all and instead work to change the votes of their party’s senators and have it pass with the bipartisan support they claim they have,” Mitchell said.

Noting that Reid has said on the Senate floor he’s willing to work with Republicans on the legislation, Mitchell said a failure to invoke cloture wouldn’t be “the Democrats’ fault and it certainly won’t be the fault of Sen. Harry Reid.”

(Troops photo courtesy of the Department of Defense)

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