National
Catholic Charities USA’s gay lobbyist
Sheridan Group paid nearly $500K for anti-poverty work
Catholic Charities USA, the nation’s largest network of faith-based agencies providing services to the poor, has hired a Washington lobbying firm owned by a gay man to promote a recently launched anti-poverty initiative before Congress and the Obama administration.
In a little noticed development, Catholic Charities USA retained the Sheridan Group, founded in 1991 by social worker and gay rights advocate Tom Sheridan, to coordinate the development of legislation and related advocacy programs aimed at “starting a new national conversation on poverty and opportunity.”
Lobbying disclosure reports filed with the House and Senate show that Catholic Charities USA paid the Sheridan Group $476,750 between April 2010 and April 2011 for lobbying services and advocacy work related to the Catholic organization’s anti-poverty projects.
News of the Sheridan Group’s lobbying work for Catholic Charities USA comes at a time when local Catholic Charities agencies — including those in D.C., Massachusetts, and Illinois — have withdrawn from providing adoption services for state or local governments rather than be forced to provide such services to same-sex couples.
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington spoke out against a same-sex marriage law at the time the D.C. City Council deliberated over the measure.
Executive Director Edward Orzechowski announced shortly after the D.C. Council passed the same-sex marriage law in December 2009 that Catholic Charities of Washington would discontinue providing adoption services in D.C. rather than be forced to facilitate adoptions by gay and lesbian couples.
Orzechowski also announced that his organization would no longer offer health insurance benefits to the spouses of its employees to avoid having to offer such benefits to same-sex partners.
“This allows us to continue providing services, comply with the city’s new requirements and remain faithful to our church’s teachings,” he said at the time.
Sheridan points out that Catholic Charities USA, while serving as a trade association that represents as many as 165 local Catholic Charities agencies linked to the Catholic Church, is independent from the local agencies, including those that have voiced opposition to same-sex marriage.
“They’re only together as service providers on poverty issues, which is why I have no problem representing them,” Sheridan said of Catholic Charities USA. “And I’m proud to represent them because they do such outstanding work.”
Sheridan said he began his career as a social worker. As a gay Catholic interested in social justice causes, he said he has long admired the dedicated social services work Catholic Charities groups have performed throughout the country.
Prior to founding the Sheridan Group, Sheridan worked as a lobbyist in the early 1980s for the AIDS Action Council, one of the nation’s first national advocacy organizations for people with AIDS. In subsequent years, he said the Sheridan Group has represented a number of AIDS advocacy organizations as well as other non-profit, social justice oriented groups as clients.
Sister Jeannine Gramick, a Catholic nun and one of the founders of New Ways Ministry, which provides support for LGBT Catholics, said Catholic Charities USA and some local Catholic Charities agencies have provided behind-the-scenes support for the LGBT Catholic community.
“Catholic Charities in general have been the most progressive wing of the church other than the nuns,” she said. “In some cases, Catholic Charities USA has supported our events. I feel they personally are pro-gay but they can’t do this publicly.”
Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry’s executive director, said Catholic Charities agencies on the local level shouldn’t be viewed as adversaries to the LGBT community.
“I feel the homophobia is there,” he said. “But that is due mostly to the bishops, who have an immense amount of power over Catholic Charities” on the local level.
When asked to comment on its decision to retain a lobbying firm owned by an openly gay man, Catholic Charities USA issued a written statement to the Blade from its president, Rev. Larry Snyder, a Roman Catholic priest.
Snyder said Catholic Charities USA has utilized the “strategic leadership of the Sheridan Group” to launch its centennial project that “incorporates policy development as well as legislative, communications, grassroots and fundraising efforts” to prevent and alleviate poverty over the next 100 years.
“We have been pleased with the success of this project to date and will continue to work with a bipartisan team of consultants on this campaign as we see our work grow in importance and urgency every day,” he said.
Among Sheridan and his firm’s key duties for Catholic Charities USA was the drafting of a bill called the National Opportunity and Community Renewal Act. Catholic Charities USA officials say they hope the bill, if approved by Congress, will serve as a catalyst for innovative new programs aimed at eradicating poverty in America in 10 years.
Sheridan said some of the money his firm received from Catholic Charities USA has gone to subcontractors that he hired in his role as “general contractor” on behalf of the anti-poverty initiative. The objective, he said, is to put together a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and community leaders to sign on to the legislation.
Although the bill has not attracted much support in Congress so far, Sheridan said its introduction last year was linked to Catholic Charities USA’s 100th anniversary and the group’s special centennial celebration.
Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) introduced the National Opportunity and Community Renewal Act in the Senate last year with no other senator signing on as a co-sponsor. Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) introduced the bill in the House, with just three co-sponsors signing on – all Democrats.
One congressional staffer, who spoke on condition of not being identified, said bills attracting so few co-sponsors usually have little or no chance of passing.
But Sheridan said he will be working closely with Catholic Charities USA and its allies and supporters over the next several months to build a broad-based, bipartisan coalition that he expects will prompt a sizable number of lawmakers to co-sponsor the bill.
Among other things, the bill would provide $100 million for 10 separate grants to fund anti-poverty demonstration projects on the state and local level.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
