Connect with us

National

Election results put LGBT advocates back on defense

Baldwin says chances ‘slim’ for ENDA in new Congress

Published

on

In the wake of the seismic change brought about by Election Day results on Tuesday, supporters of LGBT rights are making new plans to advance their agenda in Congress as many signature bills now seem out of reach.

On Tuesday, the Republicans swept back into power by winning a majority of seats in the U.S. House and by shrinking the Democratic majority in the Senate.

CNN on Wednesday projected the GOP will take control of the U.S. House in the 112th Congress by winning at least 60 seats in the election — far more than the 39 seats the party needed to take control of the chamber.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who was given a score of “0” on the Human Rights Campaign’s most recent congressional scorecard, will likely replace House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in that role when Republicans come into power in the next Congress.

Democrats fared better in the Senate and retained control of the chamber. Many U.S. senators credited with being allies of the LGBT community, such as Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), won re-election in tight races.

Still, Democrats in the Senate are left with a reduced majority and some LGBT allies, such as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), were ousted by voters.

The major wins by the GOP raises serious doubts about moving big ticket pro-LGBT legislation — such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — in the next Congress.

Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the only out lesbian in Congress, predicted the shift in control of the House will have a “very significant impact” on advancing pro-LGBT legislation.

“What I hope is that the Republican majority that takes over will not revert to its agenda of the last time they were in the majority, which put us frequently on the defense fighting back anti-gay measures,” she said.

Baldwin said the “chances are very slim” that ENDA or legislation providing partner benefits to federal workers would pass.

“I have seen no great signs that the Republicans who have been re-elected have changed their previous stances, and I certainly don’t feel like the new crop of candidates coming in are champions of gay rights,” she said.

Still, LGBT advocates say they see a path forward for advancing certain rights even with the challenge of Republican control of the House and reduced Democratic majorities in the Senate.

Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president of communications, said the loss of the House will “certainly impede, but not entirely stop” his organization’s pursuit of LGBT rights through legislation.

Among the items that Sainz identified as having a chance for passing are legislation eliminating the tax penalty on employer-provided health benefits to same-sex partners. Sainz also said he sees a way forward for the Domestic Partner Benefits & Obligations Act.

“There could be space to pass something like a domestic partnership taxation bill, or even a [Domestic Partner Benefits & Obligations Act] bill,” Sainz said. “So, in terms of the federal legislative front, I think that that’s probably the best assessment at this point.”

Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs at the Center for American Progress, also said she sees room for the passage of tax equality legislation or a bill to extend partner benefits to federal workers.

“I think if you take a look at some of the issues around equality in benefits, equality in tax treatment — those are issues that I would make investments in and talk about when it comes to Congress,” she said.

Even though Democrats will be in the minority in the House, Sainz said HRC expects lawmakers to introduce major pro-LGBT legislation, such as ENDA and a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Supporters of LGBT rights are also preparing for the possibility of anti-gay measures. Sainz said he expected “targeted attacks” with anti-LGBT bills and amendments in the Republican-controlled House.

“We will work to stop the legislative rollback at every turn,” Sainz said.

Which anti-gay measures might the House pursue? Sainz said he wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“At the highest of levels, we may very well see another Federal Marriage Amendment,” Sainz said. “At probably the more opportunistic level, we may see things inserted into bills as amendments that may be harder to spot.”

Baldwin said LGBT advocates “need to be vigilant” and prepare for any number of anti-gay initiatives that might emerge from the House. Still, Baldwin said she thinks the passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment in the 112th Congress would be “unlikely.”

“I think that is unlikely simply because we still have the super majority requirements in the U.S. Senate, but it may come up, we will have to see,” she said.

Stachelberg said the Republican pledge to repeal the health care reform law should also be seen as an anti-gay initiative. Among other things, the law prohibits insurance companies from discriminating based on HIV status.

“Our community needs to be as vocal as any in beating back those efforts to repeal the health care bill,” Stachelberg said. “It would be devastating to our community.”

The Republican takeover of Congress has also augmented the sense of urgency around finishing legislative work on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year while Democrats control Congress.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the results on Election Day “underscore the urgent need” to wrap up efforts on repealing the military’s gay ban. A repeal measure is included as part of major defense budget legislation currently pending before the Senate.

“It would be a huge blow, not only to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal advocates but also to defense contractors and military families, if we don’t get an authorization bill by the end of the year,” Nicholson said.

Nicholson said an “abdication” of the authorization of funds for new defense expenditures and personnel measures would be “unthinkable.”

“This Congress should not want to end its term with that enormous failure on its shoulders,” Nicholson said.

Baldwin also emphasized the importance of the lame duck session in moving forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal — although she characterized the Senate’s chances of passing repeal as only “possible.”

“My hope is that since the lame duck will occur with the hold over incumbents, that they can work their way through a filibuster or avoid a filibuster and resolve to pass legislation that would repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” she said.

Many see passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the lame duck session of Congress before Republicans take control as a challenge. One Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said a lot has to come into alignment for the Senate to pass such legislation.

“The political climate during the lame duck session will be toxic,” the aide said. “Passage of the defense bill will require all the stars aligning. And it will be impossible to pass this bill without the active support and pressure from President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.”

With pro-LGBT initiatives possibly tied up for at least the next two years, many advocates are looking more closely at the Obama administration to make changes.

Stachelberg said the LGBT community needs to consider “a range” of ways to address inequality, including non-congressional action.

“Congress is part of that, for sure, but it would be terribly short-sighted if we didn’t invest in efforts to … build on the success that this administration has begun to develop with respect to the executive branch,” she said.

Among the administrative changes that Stachelberg said could be explored are regulatory changes, data collection, non-discrimination policies and funding streams.

Sainz said HRC would continue to push for non-legislative changes from the Obama administration.

“Where federal policy changes are concerned, we believe that non-legislative policy changes will become our continued avenue for progress at the federal level,” Sainz said. “That’s where we’re going to put an awful lot of resources over the next few years.”

According to an HRC document provided by Sainz, among the policy changes the organization is seeking from the administration is LGBT inclusion in health care reform implementation.

Specifically, HRC wants the Department of Health & Human Services to ensure that:

• health disparity and data collection efforts include sexual orientation and gender identity;

• state health insurance exchanges provide coverage available to same-sex partners and their children;

• and benefits packages that insurance plans offer don’t exclude treatments for gender transition.

Another policy change that HRC is seeking is ensuring that LGBT families are included in federal disaster relief.

According to HRC, LGBT families affected by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 were excluded from government services and subjected to anti-gay harassment in shelter facilities. HRC also asserts same-sex couples had difficulty obtaining housing or relief payments.

Consequently, HRC is urging urged the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to adopt policies barring discrimination against LGBT people and to ensure that their families can receive household aid.

Editor’s note: Tammy Baldwin photo is a Blade file photo by Michael Key

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