National
Eyes on N.H. for GOP presidential primary
Romney enjoys strong lead, but Santorum rising
[Editor’s Note: The Washington Blade will have this reporter in New Hampshire next week for the New Hampshire primary.]
Eyes are turning to New Hampshire as the next battleground state for Republican candidates seeking the White House.
The GOP contenders are set to compete Tuesday in a primary to determine who’ll win the state’s 12 at-large delegates in the race to win the Republican nomination.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, coming off a narrow win of eight votes in the Iowa caucuses earlier this week, is the strong front-runner in the polls for a second win in New Hampshire.
According to a Suffolk University/7News Poll published on Friday, Romney holds a strong lead of 40 percent from likely Republican primary voters in the Granite State. He’s followed by libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who has support from 17 percent of poll responders.
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, predicted that Romney would be victorious on Tuesday and the win would make certain he would be the Republican presidential nominee.
“No non-incumbent Republican candidate has ever won both Iowa and New Hampshire,” LaSalvia said via email. “If Romney does this, it would be unprecedented. He’s leading in all of the national and state polls, so if he wins New Hampshire the race for the nomination is over. AND he will win New Hampshire.”
LaSalvia endorsed Romney in op-ed piece published in Friday in the Daily Caller, citing economic and tax policy as reasons to support the candidate. The endorsement was a personal one, and not on behalf on GOProud.
Romney has a reputation for being less anti-gay than other candidates for saying he favors gay rights. Unlike other candidates, he said wouldn’t restore “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and is against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Still, he opposes same-sex marriage and backs the Federal Marriage Amendment.
While Romney and Paul are ahead in New Hampshire, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum has risen in the polls in the state following his strong second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses. In the Suffolk University/7News Poll, the candidate has vaulted into third place in New Hampshire by claiming 11 percent of support.
David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, said the poll shows momentum for Santorum.
“Rick Santorum is the only Republican candidate moving up in New Hampshire,” Paleologos said. “He has cleared the [former U.S. House Speaker Newt] Gingrich and [former Utah Gov. Jon] Huntsman hurdles for third place and is only 6 points away from second place. Watch out Ron Paul.”
But Santorum has been enjoying a less than popular reception from some of the attendees during crowds at his campaign events in the state over his opposition to gay rights.
In one such instance on Friday during a town hall in Keene, N.H., Santorum reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage and his belief that gays shouldn’t be able to serve openly in the military.
“Everybody has certain inalienable rights, serving in the military is not an alienable right,” Santorum said. “It’s a privilege. You’re selected. Not everybody can serve for a variety of different reasons.”
Explaining his opposition to same-sex marriage, Santorum said, “Marriage is a privilege. It is not a right. It is privilege given by society, held up by society, for purposes that it provides some societal good, and I would make the argument, some extraordinary societal good.”
Santorum continued that if marriage was an inalienable right, one “could imagine all the different types of marriages that would happen.” He added, “It’s not discrimination not to grant privileges, it’s discrimination to deny rights.”
“Everyone has a right to live their life,” Santorum concluded. “That doesn’t mean they’re entitled to live their life. That doesn’t mean that they’re entitled to certain privileges that society gives for certain benefits the society obtains from those relationships.”
Santorum’s remarks are consistent with his support for a Federal Marriage Amendment and his plan to restore “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Following Santorum’s remarks, several members of the audience responded with boos.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, blasted Santorum for espousing anti-gay views in a state that is known for its libertarian leanings.
“Rick Santorum’s anti-gay hate is not going to perform well in New Hampshire,” Solmonese said. “His reception there is indicative of just how poorly he will fare with mainstream voters as the primaries progress.”
Solmonese continued that Santorum’s position are not just inconsistent with the views of the majority of people in New Hampshire, but also most Americans.
“Rick Santorum’s views are out of step with the majority of Americans across demographics and faiths,” Solmonese said. “He is basing his campaign off of bashing an entire community of his fellow Americans. That may serve him well with certain constituencies, but it’s something most Americans will not stand for.”
Despite Santorum’s rise, Paul remains the candidate in second-place. Although he enjoys a following among libertarians and younger voters — as well as some LGBT people — his views on gays and AIDS have recently come under scrutiny.
In his 1987 book, “Freedom Under Siege,” Paul wrote that a victim of AIDS is “frequently a victim of his own lifestyle.”
On Jan. 1, Paul defended this position during an interview when FOX News’ Chris Wallace asked the candidate if he still holds these views. The candidate suggested the U.S. government shouldn’t fund AIDS treatment efforts.
“Sexually transmitted diseases are caused by sexual activity, and when it’s promiscuous its spreads diseases,” Paul said. “So if a fault comes with people because of their personal behavior — and in a free society, people do dumb things — but [it] isn’t to be placed as a burden on other people, innocent people. Why should they have to pay for the consequences? That’s a sort of a nationalistic, or socialistic, attitude.”
Asked whether people with AIDS should be denied health care coverage, Paul said no, but added that insurance companies and markets should determine the best way to handle such cases.
Carl Schmid, deputy executive director of the AIDS Institute, said Paul’s remarks demonstrate he’s “way outside the thinking of any compassionate rationale human being” and “irrational” because only 13 percent of AIDS patients receive care from private insurance companies — the rest is government subsidized care.
“Congressman Paul does not seem to understand the preventive benefits of people with HIV being in care and treatment,” Schmid said. “When people are not in care the virus will spread even more. If we followed his irresponsible remarks the HIV situation would actually be worse.”
Yet another candidate that many will be watching in New Hampshire is former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. Many observers say a strong showing for Huntsman in New Hampshire, where he has been focusing his campaign, will make or break his path going forward.
But according to the data from University/7News Poll, Huntsman is polling at bottom of the pack. He had support from 8 percent of respondents, although that’s greater than his standing on a national scale.
Huntsman has a strong following among gay Republicans. The candidate supports civil unions and has advocated for a general notion of moving toward equality. Still, said he thinks the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act “serves a useful purpose.”
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, is among those saying Huntsman’s showing in New Hampshire will determine his later moves.
“By foregoing Iowa, Jon Huntsman heavily committed to the ground game in New Hampshire to produce significant voter support,” Cooper said. “How well he performs there will help determine next steps in South Carolina and Florida.”
Cooper has been selected by the Huntsman campaign to represent the candidate as a delegate during the Republican National Convention. Log Cabin hasn’t made an endorsement in the presidential race.
Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) died on Tuesday. He was 86.
The Massachusetts Democrat served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1981-2013. Frank in 1987 became the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay.
The Washington Blade earlier this month interviewed Frank after he entered hospice care at his Ogunquit, Maine, home where he lived with his husband, Jim Ready, since 2013. The former congressman, among other things, talked about his new book, “The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy.”
The book is scheduled for release on Sept. 15.
NBC Boston reported Frank’s sister, Ann Lewis, and a close family friend confirmed his death.
The Blade will update this article.
Federal Government
Texas Children’s Hospital reaches $10 million settlement with DOJ over gender-affirming care
Clinic specializing in detransition care will be established
The Justice Department announced May 15 that it has reached a settlement with Texas Children’s Hospital, one of the nation’s top pediatric hospitals.
Under the agreement, the hospital will pay more than $10 million in damages and civil penalties related to its provision of gender-affirming care and will establish a clinic specializing in detransition care.
The DOJ partnered with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office to resolve allegations that the hospital submitted false billings to public and private insurers to secure coverage for pediatric gender-affirming procedures. The department alleges the conduct violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the False Claims Act, and federal fraud and conspiracy laws.
The settlement was reached out of court, meaning neither party formally admitted wrongdoing. Both the DOJ and Texas Children’s Hospital denied liability.
“The Justice Department will use every weapon at its disposal to end the destructive and discredited practice of so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ for children,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a DOJ press release. “Today’s resolution protects vulnerable children, holds providers accountable, and ensures those harmed receive the care they need.”
The DOJ’s hardline stance on gender-affirming care sharply contrasts with the positions of major medical organizations, transgender healthcare advocates, and human rights groups, which broadly support gender-affirming care as an evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria.
Adrian Shanker, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Policy and Senior Advisor on LGBTQI+ Health Equity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under during the Biden-Harris administration, told the Washington Blade the settlement could have sweeping consequences for trans youth and healthcare providers nationwide.
“The Trump administration’s framing of gender-affirming care is wildly inaccurate, scientifically implausible, and frankly, just mean-spirited,” Shanker told the Blade. “What’s really clear is that the science hasn’t changed, the evidence hasn’t changed — it’s only the politics that have changed. Unfortunately, the people that lose out the most with a settlement like this one are the patients that are denied access to care where they live.”
According to Shanker, the agreement also requires Texas Children’s Hospital to revoke privileges for physicians involved in providing gender-affirming care, potentially limiting their ability to practice elsewhere.
“This is a weaponized Department of Justice doing absurd investigations against providers that are providing care within the established standard of care,” he said. “They’ve come up with an absurd remedy in their settlement to require a so-called ‘detransition clinic’ to open at Texas Children’s. It’s harmful to science, it’s harmful to trans people, and it’s harmful to the medical profession.”
Shanker argued the case reflects a broader politicization of trans healthcare.
“Every American should be concerned about the weaponized Department of Justice and their obsession with trans people and their access to care,” he said. “These hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, the providers of gender-affirming care, have done nothing wrong. They followed the standards of care that are well established and followed the mountain of evidence.”
Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, echoed those concerns.
“For Texas Children’s to capitulate to this pressure campaign of both Paxton and the Trump administration and end this care, and go after physicians who had been lawfully and faithfully taking care of their patients, it’s hard to see that as anything other than bending the knee in the face of political pressure,” Loewy told the Blade. “That’s not putting your mission above politics. Your mission is to provide health care for kids that need it.”
Loewy said the settlement reflects years of efforts by Paxton and the Trump-Vance administration to target gender-affirming care providers. Paxton has pursued investigations into providers across Texas since 2022 and supported a 2023 law banning gender-transition-related medical care for minors. Meanwhile, the Trump-Vance administration moved quickly in its second term to restrict trans healthcare access, including through Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”
“This is a perfect storm of Ken Paxton’s own mission to stigmatize and target trans young people and their healthcare in Texas with the Trump administration’s targeting of trans people and gender-affirming medical care,” Loewy said. “It is the two of them together. Without that, you wouldn’t have had this settlement.”
Loewy also emphasized that the settlement is part of a broader legal strategy targeting providers nationwide.
“You can’t view this one in isolation from all of the other administrative subpoenas that have been sent to hospitals or other kinds of medical providers that have provided gender-affirming medical care to trans adolescents,” she said. “It is all part and parcel of the same direct line from the executive orders that were issued in the first days of this Trump administration.”
“Every court that has considered those subpoenas has found them illegitimate and issued for an improper purpose, or at least narrowed them really dramatically,” she added. “Courts agree these hospitals didn’t do anything wrong. It’s the DOJ that has the problem here.”
Shanker also criticized the settlement’s requirement that the hospital establish a detransition clinic, arguing the move contradicts existing medical evidence.
“The irony shouldn’t be lost on anyone that the Trump administration is claiming that gender-affirming care lacks a scientific basis, and then is requiring the opening of a so-called detransition clinic, which certainly lacks a scientific basis,” Shanker said. “There’s less than a 1% regret rate when it comes to gender-affirming care. That’s lower than knee surgery, lower than bariatric surgery, lower than childbirth, lower than breast reconstruction, and lower than tattoos.”
Loewy was similarly blunt in her criticism.
“This is the most craven, political, ridiculous elevation of ideology over evidence,” she said. “They are creating a program built on an outcome that almost never happens. It is unprecedented and politically mandated rather than healthcare mandated.”
She said the settlement’s broader effect will be to intimidate providers and further marginalize trans people.
“The real effect here is to further stigmatize trans people and intimidate healthcare providers,” she said. “This is about sending a message nationwide that the DOJ is coming after the doctors. These are committed, faithful, law-abiding physicians and healthcare providers who just want to provide the healthcare their patients actually need.”
Both Loewy and Shanker warned that restricting access to gender-affirming care could deepen health disparities for trans people.
“We know that when transgender Americans lack the care that they need, we end up with higher rates of depression, higher rates of anxiety, higher rates of self-harm and suicidal ideation,” Shanker said. “We know that gender-affirming care is a medically appropriate, scientifically grounded form of care that resolves these challenges and leads us toward health equity. It’s unfortunate that the Trump administration has politicized not only transgender medicine, but the very basis of public health.”
Shanker said the restrictions are already prompting some trans people to relocate in search of care.
“We’re already seeing medical refugees leave states that have restricted access to care to move to states where it’s still available,” he said. “Frankly, we’ve already seen some trans people go to other countries to receive care or maintain access to care.”
Loewy said the DOJ’s recent subpoenas targeting hospitals, including those issued to NYU Langone Health in New York, suggest the administration is escalating its legal strategy.
“We’ve seen the DOJ escalate this by convening a grand jury and issuing grand jury subpoenas to hospitals,” she said. “That is going to be the next front in this fight.”
In addition to , there has been as large increase in anti-trans legislation in the past few years — with 126 federal pieces of legislation introduced this year and 26 state level policies passed across the country.
Still, Loewy pointed to recent court victories as evidence that challenges to these policies can succeed.
“Just yesterday, a state court in Kansas struck down that state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care in one of the most meticulous recognitions of the medical consensus and the harm of denying care to trans young people,” she said. “When courts actually look at the science and the impacts on trans people, they still can rule the right way.”
Asked whether there is any optimism to be found amid the ongoing legal battles, Loewy said she continues to draw hope from advocates, families, and community organizers fighting back.
“The solidarity of the community is really what brings hope,” she said. “There are incredible lawyers, advocates, families, and organizations fighting every day to protect these kids and their privacy and safety. It is that community strength and collaborative effort that continues to give me hope.”
Commentary
‘Live Your Pride’ is much more than a slogan
Waves Ahead forced to cancel May 17 event in Puerto Rico
On May 5, I spoke by phone with Wilfred Labiosa, executive director of Waves Ahead, a Puerto Rico-based LGBTQ community organization that for years has provided mental health services, support programs, and safe spaces for vulnerable communities across the island. During our conversation, Labiosa confirmed every concern described in the organization’s public statement announcing the cancellation of “Live Your Pride,” an event scheduled for Sunday in the northwestern municipality of Isabela. But beyond the financial struggles and organizational challenges, what stayed with me most was the emotional weight behind his words. There was pain in his voice while describing what it means to watch spaces like these slowly disappear.
This was not simply the cancellation of a community event.
“Live Your Pride” had been envisioned as a celebration and affirming gathering for LGBTQ older adults and their allies in Puerto Rico. In a society where many LGBTQ elders spent decades hiding parts of themselves in order to survive, spaces like this carry enormous emotional and social significance. They become places where people can finally exist openly, without fear, apology, or shame.
That is why this cancellation matters far beyond Isabela.
What is happening in Puerto Rico cannot be separated from the broader political climate unfolding across the U.S. and its territories, where programs connected to diversity, inclusion, education, mental health, and LGBTQ visibility increasingly find themselves under political attack. These changes do not always arrive through dramatic announcements. More often, they happen quietly. Funding disappears. Community organizations weaken. Safe spaces become harder to sustain. Eventually, the absence itself begins to feel normal.
That normalization is dangerous.
For years, organizations like Waves Ahead have stepped into gaps left behind by institutions and governments, particularly in communities where LGBTQ people continue facing discrimination, social isolation, economic instability, and mental health struggles. Their work has never been limited to organizing events. It has involved accompanying people through loneliness, trauma, rejection, depression, aging, and survival itself.
“Live Your Pride” represented much more than entertainment. It represented visibility for LGBTQ older adults, many of whom survived decades of family rejection, religious exclusion, workplace discrimination, violence, and silence. These are individuals who came of age during years when living openly could cost someone employment, housing, relationships, or personal safety. Many learned to survive by making themselves invisible.
When spaces like this disappear, something deeply human is lost.
A gathering is canceled, yes, but so is an opportunity for healing, connection, recognition, and dignity. For many LGBTQ older adults, especially in smaller municipalities across Puerto Rico, these events are not secondary luxuries. They are reminders that their lives still matter in a society that too often treats aging and queer existence as disposable.
There are still political and religious sectors that portray the rainbow as some kind of ideological threat. But the rainbow does not erase anyone. It illuminates people and stories that society has often tried to ignore. It reflects the lives of young people forced out of their homes, transgender individuals targeted by violence, older adults aging in silence, and families that spent years defending their right to exist openly.
Perhaps that is precisely why the rainbow unsettles some people so deeply.
Its colors expose abandonment, hypocrisy, inequality, and fear. They force societies to confront realities that are easier to ignore than to address honestly. They reveal how fragile human dignity becomes when political agendas decide that certain communities are no longer worthy of protection, funding, or visibility.
The greatest concern here is not solely the cancellation of one event in one Puerto Rican town. The deeper concern is the message quietly taking shape behind decisions like these — the idea that some communities can wait, that some lives deserve fewer resources, and that safe spaces for vulnerable people are expendable during moments of political tension.
History has shown repeatedly how social regression begins. Rarely with one dramatic act. More often through exhaustion, silence, budget cuts, and the slow dismantling of organizations doing essential community work.
Even so, Waves Ahead made one thing clear in its statement. Although “Live Your Pride” has been canceled, the organization will continue providing mental health and community support services through its centers across Puerto Rico. That commitment matters because people do not survive on slogans alone. They survive because somewhere there are still open doors, trained professionals, supportive communities, and people willing to remain present when the world becomes colder and more hostile.
Puerto Rico should pay close attention to what this moment represents. No healthy society is built by weakening the organizations that care for vulnerable people. No government should feel comfortable watching community groups struggle to survive while attempting to provide services and compassion that public institutions themselves often fail to offer.
The rainbow has never been the problem.
The real problem is the discomfort created when its colors force society to confront the wounds, inequalities, and human realities that too many people would rather keep hidden.
