Connect with us

National

Picking up the pieces after ‘Don’t Ask’ defeat

Repeal supporters pin hopes on lame duck session after election

Published

on

Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal are picking up the pieces after a devastating loss in the U.S. Senate and — amid fears the opportunity for repeal has been lost — anticipating another shot at passing legislation that would end the law after Election Day.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he continues to see a path for legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this Congress as he acknowledged the need for new efforts.

“We do have a shot in the lame duck,” he said. “And, I think, frankly, it’s better than 50/50, but we’ve got to change the mix. … It’s unlikely the vote will be that different.”

Still, Sarvis said “time is the enemy” even as he maintained that sufficient time remains this year to move forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“We’re only talking about four or five days in November, and it’s unclear how many days in December,” Sarvis said. “This bill is tough to do in the best of circumstances when you aren’t up against time. I think it can be done, but time is a factor for sure.”

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the legislative route to repeal will be a “challenge” and “those who let this vote fail yesterday really made it difficult for us all moving forward.”

“But we have no choice but to give it our all and try our best to push it through,” Nicholson said.

Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), confirmed the majority leader’s plans to move forward with the defense authorization bill later this year.

“Sen. Reid reserved the right to reconsider the vote and that is what we intend to do at some point in the future,” Manley said.

Even before the vote, speculation and promises that Senate leaders would try again to start work on the defense authorization had emerged.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of Senate standalone repeal legislation, said Tuesday during a news conference he’s received assurances from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that the bill would come up again in the lame duck session after Election Day.

“If for some reason, we don’t get the 60 votes to proceed, this ain’t over,” Lieberman said. “We’re going to come back into session in November or December. I spoke to Sen. Reid [Tuesday]. He’s very clear and strong that he’s going to bring this bill to the floor in November or December.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said during a later news conference that he hopes the prospects for passing the defense authorization bill would be different after Election Day, but couldn’t offer more details.

“But as chairman of the committee, I’m going to do everything I can to get this bill before the Senate so that it’s subject to debate and amendment,” Levin said. “But I can’t discern what that path is at the moment. It’s too soon after the filibuster damage has been done.”

At least one political analyst is skeptical about the passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in Congress this year.

Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, expressed doubt about passage after Election Day — even as he acknowledged that “a lame duck session can be unpredictable.”

“From the perspective of September, the odds seem clearly against passage this year,” Sabato said. “Repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] would have to be fast-tracked, and that requires broad agreement in the Senate. That’s unlikely.”

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate failed to invoke cloture to bring to the floor the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill — legislation to which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language is attached.

The vote in the Senate was 56-43, which was shy of the 60 votes necessary to end the filibuster from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

A unified GOP caucus — in addition to Democratic Arkansas Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln — comprised the “no” votes that defeated a cloture vote. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was the only senator who didn’t vote.

Reid changed his vote to “no” on the legislation in a procedural move that would enable him to bring the legislation to the floor again.

Sarvis said the failure of the Senate to invoke cloture on the defense authorization bill is “shameful” because it means the continued discharge of gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.

“That vote means that gay and lesbian service members are going to continue to be discharged every day while Republicans and Democrats in the Senate figure out how to move forward,” Sarvis said.

Sarvis said the LGBT community needs to “express more outrage” over the vote to convince Senate leaders to schedule the vote again and for successful passage.

“If we aren’t offended, if we aren’t outraged by this vote, I’m not sure how the political dynamics change,” Sarvis said. “Yes, things will be somewhat better after the mid-term elections are behind us, but the few determined opponents are still going to be there.”

Various explanations have been offered for the loss on Tuesday, although partisan politics are widely seen as the reason for failure.

Some faulted the GOP caucus for being obstinate in its vote against cloture even though many Republican senators previously expressed support for the defense authorization bill as a whole.

In a news conference following the vote, Levin called the unified GOP obstruction of the defense authorization bill “outrageous and sad.”

Levin accused the GOP of initially opposing the move forward with the defense authorization bill because of the language that would lead to an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“For two days, we’ve heard here that they objected to our proceeding because of the language in the bill relative to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ even though that language is very moderate language,” Levin said.

The senator noted that the provision provides that repeal would only take effect after the Pentagon working group completes its study on the issue and the president, defense secretary and chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the U.S. military is ready for repeal.

Levin added he couldn’t recall a previous time in which the U.S. Senate couldn’t proceed to debate on defense authorization legislation.

“It’s important to know that we were just simply trying to get to the point where we could debate a bill,” he said. “I don’t think a filibuster has ever before prevented the Senate from getting to a defense authorization bill.”

GOP senators — including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who supported the repeal amendment to the defense authorization bill in committee — accused Democratic leadership on the Senate floor Tuesday of being intransigent by limiting the number of amendments that could come to the floor.

“That is why I am so disappointed that rather than allowing full and open debate and the opportunity for amendments from both sides of the aisle, the majority leader apparently intends to shut down the debate and exclude Republicans from offering a number of amendments,” Collins said.

Sarvis said a number of factors played into the unsuccessful cloture vote on Tuesday, including the pressure that repeal advocates placed on Reid to schedule the vote regardless of whether 60 votes were present to move forward.

“Those who were advocating a vote this Congress always understood that we would need 60 votes to succeed,” Sarvis said. “So the reality is, the majority leader scheduled the vote, but we came up short. We lost Democrats that we thought would be with us up until a few days ago and we lost some Republicans until late last week that we thought would be with us.”

Sarvis said Levin and McCain may have to reach some agreement on the number of amendments that can be offered to move forward.

“It doesn’t look good for Democrats or for Republicans — and especially this Congress — to be the first Congress in almost 50 years not to approve an authorization for the funding of our troops, especially when we are in war,” Sarvis said.

Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal have also cited insufficient support from the White House as a reason why the cloture vote was defeated.

Sarvis said President Obama didn’t make an effort to encourage senators to vote for cloture in the days prior to Tuesday.

“I did not see the White House whipping the vote for 72 hours before,” Sarvis said.

Nicholson ascribed blame to Obama as well as Reid and other LGBT organizations.

“The White House didn’t lift a finger to help and certain gay rights organizations refused to criticize Senator Reid while he derailed the vote in advance,” he said. “It’s just not a good position to be in with all of the hurdles and challenges of a highly polarized lame duck session ahead.”

During a Tuesday news conference, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied Lady Gaga had done more to advance the bill than President Obama. The pop singer appeared at a rally in Maine to promote passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation and tweeted with senators to encourage them to move forward.

“We wouldn’t be taking on these issues if it weren’t for the president,” Gibbs said. “This is an issue that passed the House because of the president and this administration’s work and the work of many members in Congress.”

Gibbs also ascribed blame to the 60-vote threshold needed to move forward with legislation in the Senate — even for a bill to authorize funds for the Pentagon — and said “it’s certainly not healthy for the way our government works and it sets an awful precedent for getting things done in the future.”

Sarvis said support from the White House during the lame duck session would be crucial to advancing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“We need the president speaking on this issue in the lame duck asking senators to be with him,” Sarvis said. “We know he favors repeal, but now we need him engaged more than ever.”

In the wake of Senate defeat, repeal advocates are seeking other options to move forward on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Litigation seeking to overturn the law has received renewed attention. Both Log Cabin v. United States and Witt v. Air Force are moving through the courts and could lead to an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” although legal experts expect those cases won’t be resolved for years.

In a statement following the Senate vote, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, urged the Obama administration not to appeal a recent California federal court’s decision against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the case of Log Cabin v. United States.

“We expect the Justice Department to recognize the overwhelming evidence that proves [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] is unconstitutional,” Solmonese said.

Even with litigation proceeding, Sarvis maintained that the legislative route is the best path for moving forward with repeal.

“The ball game is still in the Senate,” he said. “Yes, there’s some good things going on in the courts with Maj. Witt and the Log Cabin Republican case, but in all likelihood, those are going to be tied up for years.”

One question about a possible future vote on the defense authorization bill is what impact the Pentagon working group’s study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” due Dec. 1 would have on the legislation.

Sarvis dismissed the notion that the report represents a complication because he said he thinks the report would favor “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“They were asked to provide the [defense] secretary with a set of recommendations on how to implement open service,” Sarvis said. “Well, that is not going to be hurtful. Indeed, I’m not that concerned about the results of the survey.”

Nicholson said the completion of the Pentagon report should make voting for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” easier for many senators, but said its release will be “thrown into the highly charged and high politicized environment of the lame duck session.”

“Unfortunately, the working group itself has become so politicized that its utility in this whole processed has been diminished because of that as well,” Nicholson said. “Bottom line — the administration really screwed this one up.”

Many senators, including McCain, have said they want to see the report before acting on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Sarvis predicted continued equivocation from these senators upon the completion of the report and congressional hearings may be necessary following the completion of the study to address concerns.

“Sen. McCain says, ‘Oh, I’m going to need some time to study that report and analyze how they came up with those recommendations,’” Sarvis said. “‘We may need some hearings on that.’ So that’s going to remain a moving target.”

Another possible complication in the legislative effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” later this year is state election laws.

According to Bloomberg News, state laws in Illinois, Delaware and West Virginia terminate the terms of appointed senators immediately after Election Day. Their elected successors may start in the lame duck session this year as opposed to the start of the next Congress.

These laws mean Sens. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Carte Goodwin (D-W.Va.) and Roland Burris (D-Ill.) — who voted in favor of cloture on Tuesday — may have to give up their seats to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal opponents in the lame duck session.

Sarvis acknowledged that a worst-case scenario of the loss of all three seats would complicate efforts to move forward with the defense authorization if the Senate faces another filibuster.

“If we’re facing another filibuster, I think it’s very, very challenging if we lose those three seats,” Sarvis said.

Sarvis said he’s spoken with Chris Coons, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware, about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“He looked me in the eye and told me that if he’s in the U.S. Senate, he will be voting for repeal,” Sarvis said. “So, I take heart from that commitment.”

Sarvis said he has “no idea” how Republican candidate Christine O’Donnell would vote should she win in the November election. O’Donnell is known for her opposition to gays and has spoken out against homosexuality.

Illustration courtesy of Georgia Voice

Continue Reading
Advertisement

homepage news

Biden names civil rights veteran to U.S. Education Dept.

Catherine Lhamon’s portfolio will include LGBTQ rights, sexual misconduct, racial discrimination

Published

on

Nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education Catherine Lhamon. (Photo public domain))

The White House announced Thursday that President Joe Biden has nominated Catherine Lhamon to serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.

Lhamon currently serves as a Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council for Racial Justice and Equity at the White House, where she manages the President’s equity policy portfolio. She is a former attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, (ACLU) and served as chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from 2017 to 2021.

She has also served as Legal Affairs Secretary to California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Her portfolio at Education, where she previously served in the same position under former President Barack Obama, will include LGBTQ rights, sexual misconduct and racial discrimination in the nation’s K-12 schools, universities and colleges. Lhamon was Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, to which President Obama nominated her and the Senate confirmed her in 2013.

“I am thrilled that President Biden is nominating Catherine Lhamon to serve as Assistant Secretary of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education. Catherine has devoted her career to ensuring equity is at the core of all her work,” U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a statement released by his office Thursday.

“She has a strong record of fighting for communities of color and underserved communities, whether as the current Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council, the former chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, or as a civil rights educator at Georgetown University. We are thrilled to have Catherine serving as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights and know she will continue to fight for fairness, equity, and justice for all of America’s students.”

Lhamon has also litigated civil rights cases at National Center for Youth Law, Public Counsel Law Center, and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.  Lhamon taught federal civil rights appeals at Georgetown University Law Center in the Appellate Litigation Program and clerked for the Honorable William A. Norris on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Catherine Lhamon is the right choice to lead the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights at such a critical time for the country and the agency. There is much work to do in order to roll back the harmful policies and legacies of Betsy DeVos, from her attacks on transgender students to her unconscionable revocation of discriminatory discipline guidance and rewrite of Title IX rules,” Adele Kimmel, Director of the Students’ Civil Rights Project at Public Justice told the Blade in an email.

“During her previous tenure in the same job, Catherine embraced equality, enforced Title IX and ensured students had an ally inside the federal government. She will do so again, and the Senate should move to quickly confirm her so she can begin the work of restoring the Department’s commitment to protecting the civil rights and dignity of students and implementing the Biden Administration’s pledge to undo the damage that DeVos has done,” Kimmel added.

Born in Virginia and raised in California, Lhamon graduated from Amherst College and Yale Law School. Lhamon and her husband and two daughters are transitioning between California and Maryland.

Continue Reading

National

Family of transgender woman who died in ICE custody sues federal government

Roxsana Hernández passed away in N.M. in 2018

Published

on

A picture of Roxsana Hernández, a transgender Honduran woman with HIV who died in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in 2018, hangs on a wall inside the offices of Colectivo Unidad Color Rosa, an LGBTQ advocacy group in San Pedro Sula, Honduras. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

 

The family of a transgender woman with HIV who died in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in 2018 has sued the federal government.

The Transgender Law Center and two immigration lawyers — Daniel Yohalem and R. Andrew Free — in 2020 filed a lawsuit in U.S. District for the District of New Mexico against five private companies who were responsible for Roxsana Hernández’s care.

The lawsuit named Management and Training Corporation, LaSalle Corrections, Global Precision Systems, TransCor America and CoreCivic as defendants. The Transgender Law Center, Yohalem and Grant and Eisenhofer Law on Wednesday petitioned the court to add the federal government to the lawsuit.

“This amended complaint adds the United States, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the list of entities who had a direct role in Roxsana’s death,” said the Transgender Law Center in a press release.

Hernández, who was from Honduras, entered CBP custody on May 9, 2018, when she asked for asylum at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego. She arrived at the Cibola County Correctional Center, a facility in Milan N.M., that CoreCivic operates, a week later.

Hernández was admitted to Cibola General Hospital in Grants, N.M., shortly after she arrived at the privately-run detention center. Hernández died at Lovelace Medical Center in Albuquerque, N.M., on May 25, 2018.

The lawsuit, among other things, alleges Management and Training Corporation personnel “denied Roxsana and her fellow detainees food, water and restroom access throughout their transfer” from California to a facility in San Luis, Ariz., that LaSalle Corporations operates. The lawsuit also states Hernández did not receive necessary medical care from LaSalle Corporations, Global Precision Systems and TransCor personnel as they transported her to the Cibola County Correctional Center.

CoreCivic officers, according to the lawsuit, delayed Hernández’s medical care once she was hospitalized.

An autopsy the New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator performed concluded Hernández died from Castleman disease associated with AIDS.

A second autopsy that former Georgia Chief Medical Examiner Kris Sperry performed at the Transgender Law Center’s request concluded the cause of death was “most probably severe complications of dehydration superimposed upon HIV infection, with the probable presence of one or more opportunistic infections.” The second autopsy also found “evidence of physical abuse” that included bruising on Hernández’s rib cage and contusions on her body.

“Defendants’ discriminatory, negligent, and reckless acts and omissions: (a) caused Roxsana to suffer severe emotional and physical distress; (b) created an unreasonable risk that Roxsana’s condition would deteriorate, especially in light of her known HIV-positive status; (c) caused Roxsana’s condition to deteriorate; (d) diminished the opportunity for Roxsana’s condition to improve; (e) caused her to lose her chance to survive and participate in the federal immigration process; and (f) ultimately, caused her death,” reads the motion the Transgender Law Center filed on Wednesday.

“My sister came to the U.S. in search of safety and protection from the horrific violence she experienced as a trans woman in Honduras, and what she found instead was abuse, discrimination and neglect,” said Hernández’s sister, Jenny Hernández Rodríquez, in the Transgender Law Center press release. “The tragic fact that she is no longer with us is a direct result of that discrimination and neglect.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security — which oversees ICE and CBP — with whom the Washington Blade spoke on Thursday declined to comment.

The Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan, N.M. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

Hernández’s death sparked widespread outrage among immigration advocates. Her case also intensified calls for ICE to release all trans women in their custody.

The Transgender Law Center, the Rapid Defense Network and the Ballard Spahr law firm in April 2020 filed a class action lawsuit that demanded the release of all trans people in ICE custody.

More than 40 Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives in January 2020 called for ICE to release all trans people in their custody. Illinois Congressman Mike Quigley on Thursday during a House Appropriations Committee hearing asked Acting ICE Director Tae Johnson about the treatment of trans people in his agency’s custody.

“We have made some efforts on sort of improving our training and identifying specific facilities which would focus on housing these individuals in a less restrictive environment but there’s always more work we can do,” said Johnson. “We’re looking at all aspects of our vulnerable population to include transgender, and this is going to continue to be a priority for us as we move forward in assessing our detention framework.”

A unit for trans women in ICE custody opened at the Cibola County Correctional Center in 2017. It closed in 2020.

Continue Reading

National

Biden administration to ban discrimination against LGBTQ patients

Published

on

The Biden administration announced on Monday it would enforce civil rights protections under Obamacare to prohibit discrimination in health care against patients for being LGBTQ, reversing policy during the Trump years excluding transgender status as a protected characteristic under the law.

The Department of Health & Human Services declared it would enforce Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination in health care on the basis of sex, and begin to take up cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement the Supreme Court has “made clear that people have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex and receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.”

“Fear of discrimination can lead individuals to forgo care, which can have serious negative health consequences,” Becerra said. “It is the position of the Department of Health and Human Services that everyone — including LGBTQ people — should be able to access health care, free from discrimination or interference, period.”

The move is consistent with the executive order President Biden signed on his first day in office directing federal agencies to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Bostock v. Clayton County to the furthest extent possible. Federal agencies were directed to comply within 100 days of the executive order, which is about now and a short time after Biden’s first 100 days in office.

The announcement with respect to Section 1557 comes on the same day as the hearing took place this morning in Bagly v. HHS, a case before a federal court in Massachusetts challenging Trump’s undoing of transgender protections under the law. An attorney with the U.S. Justice Department announced a new notice of proposed rule-making is coming with respect to Section 1557.

Sharita Gruberg, vice president for the LGBTQ Research and Communications Project at the Center for American Progress, said in a statement the change “assures LGBTQ people that their rights will be upheld at the doctor’s office, vaccine sites, and everywhere else they seek health care and coverage.”

“The administration’s announcement that it will enforce these protections are a critical step toward addressing vaccine hesitancy among LGBTQ people, a population that has been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and seriously harmed by the previous administration’s attempts to permit discrimination against LGBTQ patients, Gruberg added.

The past three administrations have instituted policy on LGBTQ protections based on their interpretation of Section 1557. Each move had varying implications and directions for LGBTQ patients.

The Obama administration issued a rule in 2016 interpreting Section 1557 to apply to cases of anti-transgender discrimination and discrimination against women who have had abortions, which was consistent with court rulings at the time. However, that move was enjoined by a nationwide court order in Texas as a result of litigation filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The Trump administration, shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock, made final a regulation proposed last year rescinding the Obama administration’s transgender protections under Section 1557. Faced with criticism, the Trump administration defended itself by saying its move was consistent with the court order in Texas, although it seemed to ignore the decision from the higher court.

The new rule from HHS goes above and the beyond the Obama administration by instituting protections based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. It wasn’t immediately clear whether the proposed rule would be a new regulation entirely, or seek to modify the changes that were made in the two previous administrations. The Blade has placed a request seeking comment with HHS.

Susan Bailey, president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement the new HHS rule is a welcome change after the Trump administration rescinded protections for transgender patients.

“It’s unfortunate that such an obvious step had to be taken; the AMA welcomes this common-sense understanding of the law,” Bailey said. “This move is a victory for health equity and ends a dismal chapter in which a federal agency sought to remove civil rights protections.”

Discrimination in health care is an experience transgender people commonly report. The U.S. Transgender Survey in 2015 found one-third of responders said they had at least one negative experience in health care related to being transgender. Further, 23 percent of responders said they didn’t seek health care because they feared being mistreated and one-third said they didn’t go to a provider because they couldn’t afford it.

A Center for American Progress survey from 2018 had similar findings with respect to transgender people and patients with being gay, lesbian and bisexual or queer. Eight percent of responders said a doctor refused to see them because of their perceived or actual sexual orientation, while 28 percent of providers said a doctor refused to see them because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation.

Hospitals, especially religiously affiliated providers, refusing to provide transition-related care, including gender assignment surgery, is another frequently reported incident for transgender patients. The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, has filed litigation against hospitals under Section 1557 for refusing to perform the procedure.

Rachel Levine, assistant secretary of health and the first openly transgender presidential appointee to obtain Senate confirmation, hailed the HHS rule change in a statement.

“The mission of our Department is to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. All people need access to healthcare services to fix a broken bone, protect their heart health, and screen for cancer risk,” Levine said. “No one should be discriminated against when seeking medical services because of who they are.”

Although the Biden administration’s announcement is a welcome move for LGBTQ advocacy groups, the change is not without critics.

John Banzhaf, a law professor at George Washington University who declares himself a supporter of transgender rights, said the policy could have unintended consequences, which he said has become evident in the British health system.

“[Transgender] individuals with a penis but no vagina are being asked to have medical tests on their non-existent cervices, while [transgender] persons with a vagina and cervix will not be asked, under new guidelines which appear to place lives at risk and encourage a physically impossible medical exam on organs which simply do not exist,” Banzhaf said. “And, carrying this absurdity to its totally illogical conclusion, a patient with a penis and a full beard was offered a cervical test because, despite his clearly masculine appearance and style of dress, he registered himself as being gender neutral.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular