Connect with us

National

Another shot for DP benefits bill

Lieberman, Baldwin reintroduce legislation

Published

on

House and Senate lawmakers reintroduced legislation on Friday that would allow the U.S. government to provide domestic partner benefits to federal employees in same-sex relationships.

The legislation, known as the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, would allow gay federal workers to have the same benefits for their partners that straight workers can have for their spouses — including health and pension benefits.

In the House, the legislation was introduced by lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). The legislation has 53 original co-sponsors, including the other three openly gay members of Congress: Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.). Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) is the sole Republican original co-sponsor for the legislation.

Baldwin in a statement said the U.S. government must “set an example as an equal opportunity employer.”

MORE IN THE BLADE: HRC DENIES NOM CLAIM ON DOMA REPEAL IN DEFENSE BILL

“If we are to treat all federal employees fairly and recruit the best and the brightest to serve in government, we need this legislation,” Baldwin said.

The Senate companion legislation was introduced by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.). The only original co-sponsor of the bill is Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Both were seen as leaders in the legislative fight in the Senate to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Lieberman called passage of the legislation “the next step to achieving equity for the gay community.”

“We repealed the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy in the military because we want the best men and women America has to offer to defend our country,” Lieberman said. “The same is true for federal employees: we want to attract the best men and women possible to serve in federal government. One way to do that is by offering competitive benefits to the family members of gay federal employees.”

MORE IN THE BLADE: SENATE PANEL APPROVES DOMA REPEAL LEGISLATION

According to a 2009 UCLA Williams Institute report, more than 30,000 federal workers would benefit from the legislation because they’re in committed relationships with same-sex partners who aren’t federal employees.

LGBT advocates heralded the introduction of the bills as way forward to ensure gay federal workers are on the same footing as their straight counterparts.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the bill “embodies the simple principle that equal work deserves equal pay.”

“Thousands of LGBT people serve our country every day as federal civil servants, yet their families cannot receive the same important benefits that their straight coworkers’ do,” Solmonese said. “This is not simply a matter of fairness; it is also a way to ensure that the federal government recruits and retains the best and the brightest.”

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said Congress should pass the legislation so the U.S. government can keep up with other employers that offer domestic partner benefits.

“It is long past time the federal government — the country’s largest civilian employer — provide benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees,” Carey said. “In addition to being fundamentally fair and helpful to thousands of families all across the country, extending these benefits is a sound business decision because it will help the federal government recruit and retain the best people.”

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, praised both Ros-Lehtinen and Collins for bringing GOP support to the legislation.

“As the largest employer in the nation, the United States government should lead the way in attracting and retaining the best and brightest for public service,” Cooper said. “Right now the federal government lags behind 22 states, the District of Columbia, and a majority of Fortune 500 companies when it comes to providing competitive personnel policies. This commonsense legislation would provide greater access to benefits for employees, and would do so without adding to the federal debt.”

According to Log Cabin, the Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that the total cost of the legislation would average about $70 million each year through 2020. This estimated cost would be to around two hundredths of a percent, or .02 percent, of the federal government’s total budget for federal employees.

In the last Congress, both House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over the legislation reported their versions of the bills to the floor. However, the legislation didn’t see a floor vote in either chamber of Congress.

The U.S. government could offer these benefits to federal employees without the passage of this legislation if not for the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Although Lieberman and Collins are championed the federal benefits in the Senate, they aren’t co-sponsors of DOMA repeal legislation known as the Respect for Marriage Act. The bill was recently reported out of committee to the Senate floor.

The Courage Campaign, Freedom to Marry and other LGBT groups have launched a campaign to convince Lieberman and Collins to co-sponsor DOMA repeal, although they haven’t signed on in support.

Lieberman has expressed concern about the portion of the Respect for Marriage Act that would enable federal benefits to flow to married gay couples even if they live in states that don’t recognize marriage equality.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

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

‘Discredited junk science’ — GLAAD

Published

on

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.”




Continue Reading

The White House

Trump nominates Mike Waltz to become next UN ambassador

Former Fla. congressman had been national security advisor

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Second federal lawsuit filed against White House passport policy

Two of seven plaintiffs live in Md.

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Popular