National
Super Tuesday could bring more confusion to GOP race
High stakes as 437 delegates up for grabs next week
The winding road of the Republican presidential primary race continues next week as GOP voters in 10 states weigh in on who should be their standard-bearer heading into November.
A strong showing by any GOP candidate on Super Tuesday — when 437 delegates are up for grabs — could push someone from the race.
If former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who regained his position as front-runner after wins in Arizona and Michigan this week, does well in the contests, it could mean the end of the game for one or more of his remaining opponents: former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
The states holding contests on Super Tuesday are: Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia.
Super Tuesday comes on the heels of another important contest on Saturday: the Washington State caucuses, where 43 delegates are in play. On Tuesday, Wyoming will also begin its caucuses, but that process will continue throughout the week and the results won’t be known until Saturday.
But it appears that Super Tuesday will not be a cakewalk for Romney, after he only eked out a three-point win over Santorum in his home state of Michigan.
Dan Pinello, who’s gay and a government professor at the City University of New York, said he thinks the outcome of the contests will be “muddled” and won’t leave a clear Republican front-runner in their aftermath.
“It’s going to be a mix of wins by various candidates,” Pinello said. “I don’t think the field is going to be any clearer after Tuesday than it is before, quite frankly. I anticipate that all four candidates will also continue regardless of what happens on Tuesday.”
Hastings Wyman, who’s also gay and editor of the Southern Political Report, said Santorum may continue to show strength in several southern states.
“I think he has a good shot in Oklahoma, possibly in Tennessee, possibly in Georgia,” Wyman said. “The only one I would give him a good shot in is probably Oklahoma.”
In Ohio, Santorum could show that his campaign continues to have life. According to a poll published Tuesday by the University of Cincinnati, Santorum leads Romney by 11 percentage points among Republican primary voters.
Wyman said the race in Georgia is important for Gingrich because if he doesn’t win there, which is his home state, it will likely be the end of his campaign.
“It’s very hard to predict what he’ll do, but I think it’ll be very hard from him to stay in if he doesn’t carry Georgia,” Wyman said. “He’s working very hard down there. He’s touring the state, he’s speaking to these mega churches, he’s treating it like Romney was treating Michigan.”
Gingrich seems poised to capture the state. A poll published Monday by Survey USA found him leading there with 39 percent of support among Republican voters. Santorum follows at 24 percent, while Romney comes in at 23 percent.
The contest in Virginia will also be of special interest because it’s awarding a large number of delegates, 46, and because only two candidates will be on the ballot: Romney and Paul.
Wyman said Republicans unhappy with Romney may vote for Paul in an effort to prolong the Republican primary season and prevent Romney from claiming the nomination. Virginia has an open primary, which means Democrats can come to the polls.
“It would not surprise me if a lot of the people who vote for Santorum or Gingrich would get out the vote for Paul just to slow down Romney,” Wyman said.
David Lampo, a gay Republican activist from Alexandria, Va., said he’s voting for Paul in the primary not as a protest vote, but because of the candidate’s libertarian views.
“I’m a longtime libertarian, so of course he appeals to me,” Lampo said. “Not the greatest messenger, but he has reintroduced libertarianism to millions of Americans, particularly a whole new generation of young voters. And he even runs competitively with President Obama in many polls.”
As a U.S. House member, Paul was among the Republicans who voted for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and against a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but the candidate has also been a strong supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Lampo said Paul has been “a bit uneven” on LGBT issues, but “shines” compared to the other Republican presidential candidates.
CUNY’s Pinello said Paul may have “a few good showings” in Super Tuesday, but expressed doubt the candidate would be able to prevail in any states next week.
“I don’t know that he’ll win any states, but he will have good enough showings to argue that his effort isn’t necessarily doomed, at least from his perspective,” Pinello said. “His supporters are so gung-ho that it doesn’t really make a difference that he hasn’t won any states outright.”
Even if Romney builds off his wins in Michigan and Arizona by sweeping the contests on Super Tuesday, whether Santorum or Gingrich will drop out immediately remains unclear.
Wyman said the Romney alternatives may see if they can win a brokered convention when Republicans gather in Tampa later this year to anoint their nominee.
In that case, delegates wouldn’t be able to settle on a nominee during the ballot round and would have to negotiate through political horse-trading to settle on a candidate.
“If they can all stay in and keep their delegates at least on the first ballot — I think most states require that — then they might possibly be able to keep Romney from winning on the first ballot and maybe create some opportunity for somebody else,” Wyman said.
Pinello said the prospects of a brokered convention in Tampa are diminished now that Romney has pulled off a win — albeit a narrow one — in his home state of Michigan this week, but such an outcome could still be possible.
“If the current polling data nationally show that Obama has a lead, although not large, but nonetheless a lead, over all four of the current Republican candidates,” Pinello said. “So the party leadership across the nation that may be wishing for a Jeb Bush or a Chris Christie or someone else be their champion and save the day, but I don’t think that’s likely at all.”
Whether the GOP candidates will draw on anti-gay rhetoric to win support from Republican voters prior to Super Tuesday also remains to be seen.
Wyman said “you might see some” campaigning directed against the LGBT community in the Super Tuesday states as the candidates jockey for support among conservative voters.
“They’ve all been pretty stalwart in their opposition to anything gay,” Wyman said. “Every now and then one of them will act a little bit liberal and say, ‘I don’t believe in discrimination,’ but they do. Ultimately, they side with the religious right on most gay issues.”
Pinello expressed doubt that Romney would draw on anti-gay attacks, saying the candidate would instead opt to focus on economic issues, but couldn’t say the same about Santorum.
“He had that confrontation before the New Hampshire with college students over same-sex marriage,” Pinello said. “A lot of commentators said that had been a mistake by him in terms of allowing the issue to drift away from economic issues, but he doesn’t seem concerned by that. He’s happy to be the stalwart on social issues.”
Pinello said if the candidates want to talk about social issues, the would be more inclined hot button topics other than LGBT rights, such as a abortion and the Obama administration’s rule providing contraception to women.
The candidates’ positions on LGBT issues are already well-known. Each of the Republican candidates who’ve won primaries — Romney, Santorum and Gingrich — has signed a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage vowing to back a Federal Marriage Amendment, defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court and establish a commission on “religious liberty” to investigate the harassment of same-sex marriage supporters.
Santorum has gone further by saying he’d restore “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if elected president, and Gingrich has said he’d order an “extensive review” of going back to the policy.
As candidates campaign in Tennessee, they may want to weigh in on state pending legislation commonly known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which would prohibit discussion about homosexuality in schools from kindergarten through eighth grade.
Chris Sanders, chair of the Nashville Committee for the Tennessee Equality Project, said polls are showing Santorum has strength in Tennessee and his views are in synch with what’s happening in the legislature.
“Given the fact that he has been so explicitly anti-equality, it’s just another index that we’ve got a lot of work to do in Tennessee,” Sanders said.
Sanders dismissed the idea that Santorum or other candidates would explicitly mention state legislative issues, such as the “Don’t Say Gay Bill,” but said “the anti-equality candidates will find very hospitable ground for themselves here.”
The Washington State caucuses on Saturday could also draw anti-gay sentiments from the candidates because Gov. Chris Gregoire earlier this month signed marriage equality into law, and anti-gay forces are at work to collect the 120,577 signatures needed by June 6 to put the law before voters in November.
Santorum made his opposition to the marriage law a cornerstone of his campaign in Washington State. On the same day the marriage law was signed, Santorum held a campaign rally in the state, saying Gregoire’s signature “isn’t the last word” on marriage as he called on supporters to bring the measure to the polls.
For his part, Gingrich took a softer approach to Washington — as well as the expected legalization of same-sex marriage in Maryland — by saying last week these states were going about it “the right way” by using the legislative process instead of the courts, even though he personally opposes same-sex marriage.
“I think at least they’re doing it the right way, which is going through voters, giving them a chance to vote and not having a handful of judges arbitrarily impose their will,” Gingrich said.
The candidate’s statement contradicts his support for a Federal Marriage Amendment, which, if passed, would abrogate all laws allowing same-sex marriage, including those passed by state legislatures.
Romney has yet to address specifically the legalization of same-sex marriage in Washington, but Pinello doubted the candidate will talk about the issue ahead of Saturday.
“He is really trying to focus on economic issues, single-mindedly,” Pinello said. “I don’t think he would initiate any conversation. He can’t necessarily avoid a question that might come up if one were posed, but I’m sure it will be a short answer, and then he’d jump back to some economic issue.”
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.
Federal Government
Bureau of Prisons declines to reconsider transgender inmate policy
Democratic lawmakers raised concerns this week, lawsuit filed
Following a letter sent Monday by several Democratic senators raising concerns about the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ updated transgender inmate policy, the BOP responded to a request for comment from the Washington Blade, saying it does not plan to reverse the changes implemented earlier this year.
The policy was revised in 2025 to comply with President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
In a statement to the Blade, BOP spokesperson Donald Murphy said the updated policy is rooted in medical guidance and data-driven decision making.
“The BOP implemented the February 2025 policy to ensure that inmates with gender dysphoria are properly diagnosed and treated consistent with best medical practices,” he said. “Unlike the prior administration’s one-size-fits-all approach, the BOP’s new policy ensures individualized assessments and treatments. And while the previous administration’s policies on treating inmates with gender dysphoria was driven by radical ideology, the BOP’s current policy is based on medical studies, medical expert opinions, state correctional policies, caselaw, and penological concerns. Absent court order, there are no plans to reconsider or revisit the policy.”
U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) signed the letter, arguing that the policy change fails to adequately prioritize the safety of trans inmates — protections they say are guaranteed under the Constitution.
This inquiry comes days after a federal lawsuit was filed against the Justice Department specifically on the concern that trans inmates are not receiving adequate care.
Earlier this month, the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, a legal organization focused on LGBTQ rights since 1977, filed a lawsuit in District Court of the District of Columbia against the Trump-Vance administration in collaboration with GLAD Law, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, and Wardenski P.C.
The suit, filed on May 6, alleges the administration is “ignoring federal protections” designed to prevent sexual abuse of incarcerated trans people.
“Transgender people in prison are sexually abused or assaulted at nearly 10x the rate of the general prison population,” the press release announcing the lawsuit states, adding that federal legislation was enacted to address those risks.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Paulina Poe, is a trans woman currently incarcerated in a men’s facility. According to the complaint, she has been “propositioned, groped, sexually harassed, and assaulted” by male inmates and subjected to strip searches by male officers — circumstances the Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations were intended to prevent.
The lawsuit also argues that the policy changes violate constitutional protections and deny trans inmates medically necessary care.
“The Eighth Amendment requires prisons and jails to provide ‘adequate medical care’ to incarcerated people which includes adequate treatment for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria,” says the Transgender Law Center. “‘Adequate medical care’ should be delivered according to accepted medical standards, such as WPATH’s Standards of Care. Some courts have said that in some circumstances ‘adequate medical care’ for gender dysphoria includes providing gender-appropriate clothing and grooming supplies, and the ability to present yourself consistent with your gender identity.”
GLAD Law Staff Attorney Sarah Austin also issued a statement when the lawsuit was announced, saying those responsible for the policy changes — and the rollback of protections under the Prison Rape Elimination Act — will be “held accountable for this egregious and lawless action.”
“The federal government’s unlawful attempt to roll back binding Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations is an especially dangerous step in its ongoing campaign to strip transgender people of legal protections,” Austin said. “The targeting of transgender incarcerated people is a deliberate choice to put vulnerable people in harm’s way simply because of who they are.”
The Justice Department has not responded to the Blade’s request for comment.
