National

Would ENDA have a shot as a ‘jobs bill?’

Some see room for movement, others not so sure

Published

14 years ago

January 13, 2011

LGBT rights supporters see room for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the U.S. Senate during the upcoming Congress — even as Republican control of the House makes final passage of the legislation highly unlikely.

The 2010 elections left the Senate in Democratic control — although by a reduced margin — providing an opportunity for passage in that chamber if certain conditions are met.

A Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said passage of ENDA in the Senate is “possible” provided that President Obama strongly advocates for its passage.

“You would need the kind of push that you had behind ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” the aide said.

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said “in theory” the Senate could pass ENDA because Democrats retained control of the chamber, although the conversations haven’t taken place yet about moving the bill forward.

Keisling added that the Senate is in a different position than it was in the previous Congress because it’s no longer trying to pass legislation that is being sent over by the House. With Republican control of the lower chamber, the Senate would be more inclined to vote on its own legislation.

“I don’t think of any us know what the Senate is going to be like this year,” she said. “The Senate wasn’t moving a lot of stuff regularly last Congress, but now that they have a different Democratic caucus, the Senate is now in a different position than they were before.”

Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said the prospects of ENDA passing in the Senate are “unknown” at this stage, but said his organization will continue to pursue all important pieces of legislation in both chambers of the next Congress.

“We think that it is important whether or not there’s Republican or Democrat control of the House that there would be a factual record that those pieces of legislation have been approved with even more co-sponsors in them,” Sainz said.

As it was introduced in the last Congress, ENDA would bar job discrimination against gay and transgender workers in most situations in the public and private workforce. Gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) introduced the legislation in the House and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the bill in the Senate.

The legislation stalled in the last Congress and saw no movement in either the House or the Senate. In the House, there was speculation that opponents would use a maneuver called the motion to recommit on the floor to target the transgender language and derail the legislation. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wouldn’t bring ENDA up for a vote until legislative action was complete on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Entering the early days of the 112th Congress, activists are uncertain about the timeline for moving forward with ENDA the next time around, such as when the bill would be introduced or when hearings might take place. Julie Edwards, a Merkley spokesperson, said the senator plans to reintroduce the legislation, although she said she doesn’t yet “have a sense of timing.”

Whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would bring up the legislation for a vote remains in question. Regan Lachappelle, a Reid spokesperson, said the majority leader supports ENDA, but said “Republican cooperation” will be necessary “to do anything.”

“It’s still early right now, so we’re still working on the schedule for this Congress, but it is something that he supports,” she said.

A Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the possiblity for action on ENDA in the Senate would become more clear following the week on Jan. 24 when Senate leadership makes it decisions on what the legislative priorities will be.

Even if it were passed in the Senate, most observers agree that the new Republican leadership makes passing ENDA highly difficult — if not impossible. Passage in the Senate could be a symbolic vote that would build momentum in a future Congress.

Keisling said the legislation has “zero chance” of making its way to Obama’s desk because of Republican control, citing a recent Washington Blade interview with Frank in which he said there was no chance of passing any pro-LGBT legislation this Congress.

“I never say never, but I can’t imagine the circumstances in which it’ll be signed into law this Congress,” she said.

The Republican aide said just because a clear path to passage doesn’t exist in the House, advocates shouldn’t give up on moving forward in the Senate.

“You have to approach this as kind of putting bricks in the wall,” the aide said. “With hate crimes, we were lobbing it left and right for years … but that also set us up to deal with passing it rather quickly when everything happened because we were able to say it passed the Senate five times.”

Sainz said emphasizing that ENDA is at its core a “jobs” bill could enable it to pick up support in the Republican House.

“From that sense, it should appeal to members of the House — and the Senate for that matter — because it’s really doing nothing more than putting people to work, and if they can’t work, then they’re reliant on government assistance,” Sainz said. “So it should be fairly intuitive to Republicans that this is really a ‘jobs’ measure.”

At the end of the last Congress, ENDA had 45 co-sponsors in the Senate, although former Sens. Roland Burris, Ted Kaufman, Edward Kennedy and Paul Kirk were listed as co-sponsors even though they were no longer in the Senate at the end of last year. Former co-sponsors Arlen Specter, Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold have since left the Senate.

It remains to be seen whether their successors would support ENDA, although new Democrats Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) would be likely to support the legislation. Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and may also support ENDA. The offices of those senators didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment.

Kate Dickens, a spokesperson for Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), said the senator’s positions would be consistent “with his position on it while serving in the House — where he has been a supporter.”

One lingering question is whether a bill that includes protections on the basis of sexual orientation only — excluding the gender identity and expression provisions — would stand a better chance in the Senate or have a shot at passing in the House. In 2007, the U.S. House under Democratic control passed a non-inclusive ENDA that never saw a vote in the Senate.

The Republican aide said discussion about removing the transgender protections is a moot point because activists wouldn’t permit the removal of the legislation.

“They’re not going to, so I don’t even think it’s worth considering,” the aide said. “It’s just not worth saying ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ If it’s going to pass, it’s going to pass with the transgender in it. That’s all there is to it.”

Keisling said she thinks both a trans-inclusive and non-trans inclusive bill would have the same zero chance of making it through the House.

“There’s this weird notion that somehow Congress is fine with gay people,” she said. “It’s just not true. You saw how they tried to lay down in the road over ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ If Congress was so good with gay people, why are 90 percent of the gay congress people closeted?”

Up Next

2011 to bring new marriage fights across U.S.

Don't Miss

Gay sex remains a crime under military law

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

Federal Government

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

‘Discredited junk science’ — GLAAD

Published

3 days ago

May 1, 2025

Christopher Kane

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.”

The White House

Trump nominates Mike Waltz to become next UN ambassador

Former Fla. congressman had been national security advisor

Published

3 days ago

May 1, 2025

Michael K. Lavers

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.

U.S. Federal Courts

Second federal lawsuit filed against White House passport policy

Two of seven plaintiffs live in Md.

Published

6 days ago

April 28, 2025

Michael K. Lavers

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.