National

Bracing for cuts after supercommittee’s failure

LGBT, HIV/AIDS programs could face reductions

Published

13 years ago

November 22, 2011

LGBT and HIV/AIDS advocates are bracing for potential cuts as a result of the congressional supercommittee’s failure this week to come up with a deficit reduction deal.

On Monday, members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — comprised of six Democrats and six Republicans — announced that they were unable to come up with an agreement on $1.5 trillion in budget cuts by the Wednesday deadline as established by legislation signed by President Obama in August.

As a result of the supercommittee’s failure to come up with a plan for deficit reduction, a sequester will kick in that will lower spending by $1.2 trillion beginning in fiscal year 2013 by $109.3 billion in cuts per year. Half of the cuts — $54.7 billion — will come from the Defense Department and the other half from mandatory and discretionary domestic spending — including HIV/AIDS programs and certain government programs that help LGBT people.

MORE IN THE BLADE: GAY MEN SHOULD BE SCREENED FOR HPV RELATED CANCERS

According to the Congressional Budget Office, reductions in discretionary appropriations for non-defense programs — including HIV/AIDS programs — would range from from 7.8 percent in 2013 to 5.5 percent in 2021, resulting in savings of $294 billion.

AIDS Institute Deputy Executive Director Carl Schmid (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Carl Schmid, deputy executive director for the AIDS Institute, said the mandatory cuts that will occur in 2013 “will certainly impact funding levels” for discretionary HIV/AIDS programs such as the Ryan White Care Act, AIDS Drug Assistance Programs and research spending.

“We’re going to try to work to make sure that doesn’t happen, but if it does happen, there’ll be less money for prevention, less money for drugs to keep people healthy, less for care and treatment and less money for research,” Schmid said.

Schmid added the potential cuts are of particular concern because the number of people living with HIV/AIDS continues to grow.

“There’s more and more people living with HIV than ever before,” Schmid said. “There’s more accessing the AIDS Drug Assistance Program than ever before, so it’s at a time when there’s more and more people with HIV, and at a time that we know treatment is a way to cut transmission.”

According to a CDC report published in August, HIV in the United States continues to disproportionately impact young gay and bisexual men, although as a whole, infection rates have been relatively stable in recent years. New infections among among young men who have sex with men increased 34 percent between 2006 and 2009, while infections among young, black men who have sex with men increased 48 percent from 4,400 in 2006 to 6,500 in 2009.

MORE IN THE BLADE: NATIONAL AIDS POLICY DIRECTOR STEPS DOWN

Brian Hujdich, executive director for HealthHIV, also said the failure of the supercommittee may jeopardize federal programs on which low-income Americans depend for medical coverage.

“We are disappointed but not surprised at the supercommittee’s inaction,” Hujdich said. “They had both the latitude and responsibility to make hard decisions, but once again chose to do nothing. The weight of congressional indecision now falls on the backs of the most vulnerable and medically under-served communities, whose health care coverage may be impacted in 2013.”

Other programs at risk could include some that LGBT Americans rely on in greater numbers than their straight counterparts.

Last week, Kellan Baker and Zach Britt of the Center for American Progress wrote a report that detailed how either action or inaction by the supercommittee could have significant impact on programs affecting LGBT people.

“Gay and transgender communities most at risk include families with children and gay and transgender people who are doubly marginalized in American society, such as gay and transgender people of color, those living in poverty, immigrants, homeless youth, elders, and those with disabilities,” Baker and Britt wrote.

Among the programs identified that could be cut include planned data collection by the Department of Health & Human Services on sexual orientation and gender identity; mental health services that help LGBT youth and adults cope with depression, bullying and discrimination; and programs that support out-of-home gay and transgender youth.

Despite the failure of the committee, many were unhappy with plans the committee was proposing and thankful an agreement wasn’t made on any one of them.

MORE IN THE BLADE: ONE AIDS MARCH THAT SHOULD END

According to the CAP report, Democrats proposed cutting $400 billion from Medicare, $75 billion from Medicaid and $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending — while increasing revenue by $1.3 trillion. Republicans, on the other hand, proposed to cut $500 billion from Medicare and $185 billion from Medicaid, with $1.2 trillion more in discretionary cuts and only $40 billion in revenue increases.

Laurie Young, director of aging and economic security at the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said the plans the supercommittee was proposing were “really not good” and the failure to come up with a plan is better than an agreement on a bad one.

“No deal today is better than them having agreed upon a bad deal that would have cut benefits to people who are already receiving them and relying on them,” Young said.

Moreover, the two largest programs providing HIV/AIDS care to low-income people — Medicare and Medicaid — won’t see immediate cuts as a result of the supercommittee’s failure. Social Security and Medicaid are immune from cuts under the sequester. Medicare would see, at most, a 2 percent reduction in payments, but those cuts would only affect providers and would not raise co-pays or premiums on people covered under this program.

Young said the exemption of these programs is important because LGBT people are particularly dependent on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as they age.

“We don’t have the same ability to access economic security and retirement that our heterosexual counterparts do,” Young said. “And so, we’re twice as likely to age alone and four times less likely to have children who would take care of us.”

But Schmid said the protection of Medicare and Medicaid from the sequester “doesn’t mean all the problems are solved” and those programs could be affected as Congress makes the decisions for cuts.

“There’s still going to be pressure to cut Medicare and Medicaid in the future, so we have to remain vigilant,” Schmid said.

Since the cuts won’t begin until Jan. 2, 2013, Congress has the opportunity to come up with an alternative for deficit reduction rather than the sequestration imposed the supercommittee’s failure to come up with a plan.

Young predicted Congress would work to come up with an alternative because Republicans won’t want to see drastic cuts to defense and Democrats won’t want to see drastic cuts to domestic programs.

“We’re going to have to work over the next year to make sure that we get a balanced plan that doesn’t depend on just slashing benefits or slashing cuts in federal agencies, but also really looks to raising revenues,” Young said. “The chore for next year is making sure that we can get a balanced plan, which was never really considered by the supercommittee.”

Schmid said advocates are going to fight to include HIV/AIDS among the programs that won’t receive cuts, but acknowledged they’re facing an uphill battle.

“These are supposed to be across the board cuts, but there are some other low-income programs that are exempt by the law to sequestration and, I think, we will fight to be included in them as well,” Schmid said. “That will be our job over the next year before these cuts take place in 2013.”

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.