Connect with us

Local

Maryland trans bill set to die in committee

Lawmakers linked it to marriage, opposed two ‘gay bills’ in one year

Published

on

Dana Beyer

Dana Beyer, executive director of Gender Rights Maryland, blamed Senate President Thomas V. Miller (D-Prince George’s and Calvert Counties) for the trans bill’s demise. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A bill in the Maryland Legislature aimed at banning discrimination against transgender people in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations is expected to die in committee on Monday, ending chances for passing it for the sixth year in a row.

The Gender Identity Non-Discrimination Act, SB 212, is stalled in the legislature’s Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, with no indication that Senate leaders plan to bring it up for a vote by March 26. That date has been long established as the deadline for one of the legislature’s two bodies to approve all bills in time for consideration by the other body.

“I actually feel the political atmosphere has improved markedly for gender identity civil rights,” said Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery County), one of the lead sponsors of the bill.

“But the problem is we did same-sex marriage and for some unfathomable reason people seem to think we can’t do both of these bills in the same session,” Raskin told the Blade. “As a number of members said to me, we can’t do two gay bills in one session.”

Raskin was referring to the Maryland Legislature’s approval earlier this year of the Civil Marriage Protection Act, which calls for legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. That bill is expected to come before voters in a referendum in November.

Raskin and other longtime supporters of the transgender bill say they have tried repeatedly to dispel the view that the trans measure is a “gay” bill or that it’s linked to same-sex marriage.

Dana Beyer, executive director of Gender Rights Maryland, a statewide transgender advocacy organization that led efforts to pass the trans bill this year, blamed Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller (D-Prince George’s and Calvert Counties) for the bill’s demise. According to Beyer, knowledgeable sources at the state capital in Annapolis say Miller put out the word that the bill should not come up for a vote.

Beyer noted that Miller’s stance is the opposite of the posture he took on the marriage bill. Miller voted against the marriage bill but allowed it to come up for a vote and reportedly blocked efforts to derail the bill with a filibuster.

“If Miller doesn’t want it, it doesn’t happen,” Beyer said. “It doesn’t matter what the other senators want.”

Other advocates for the bill, who asked not to be identified, said they believe Miller was blocking a vote on the bill in committee because he believes it doesn’t have the votes to pass and he prefers not to have Democratic leaders lose on a controversial vote like this one.

Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Chair Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery County) has authority under Senate rules to bring all bills up for a vote in his committee. Beyer and others sharing her view believe Frosh defers to Miller on controversial bills such as the transgender measure, even though his constituents in progressive-leaning Montgomery County support the bill.

“Miller said I will let the marriage bill come to a vote and I will protect it, I will prevent a filibuster,” Beyer said. “I won’t vote for it but I will not allow people to kill it. If he would do that for us we would get our bill passed.”

Miller, Frosh and spokespersons for the two failed to immediately return calls

Last year, the Maryland House of Delegates approved a version of the Gender Identity Non-Discrimination Act that lacked a public accommodations provision. Supporters in the House said they didn’t believe it could pass with such a provision. The bill died in the Senate last year after most supporters joined opponents and voted to pull it from the Senate floor and send it back to committee.

This year, at the strong request of Gender Identity Maryland, the bill’s sponsors agreed to include the public accommodations clause. House leaders announced earlier this year that they would not go through the exercise of passing it again only to have it defeated in the Senate. So they decided to not bring up the bill until or unless it first cleared the Senate.

One supporter asking not to be identified said bringing the bill to the Senate, which couldn’t pass it last year, with a public accommodations clause made it “that much more difficult” to secure Senate passage this year.

Asked if he thought the trans bill could pass in the Senate this year if it were brought up for a vote, Raskin said, “I haven’t done any kind of whip count on it. But my gut tells me the votes are there – narrowly, but they’re there.”

Raskin added, “I am still hopeful that we can pull a rabbit out of the hat before the end of the session. And if not, I’m feeling very good about the prospects for passage next year.”

Carrie Evans, executive director of the statewide LGBT group Equality Maryland, said at the request of Gender Rights Maryland, her group didn’t take the lead role in lobbying for the trans bill this year.

“Of course it’s disappointing,” Evans said. “This is one of our highest priorities – to pass this bill. We continue just like with marriage. We clearly don’t give up. We’re going to regroup and we have a strong coalition working on this bill.”

State Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County), who is gay and another of the lead supporters of the transgender bill, couldn’t be immediately reached for comment. Last year Madaleno strongly criticized his colleagues’ decision to send the bill back to committee rather than bring it up for a floor vote.

Beyer and Jenna Fischetti, director of the Baltimore-based advocacy group TransMaryland, said that while transgender non-discrimination legislation has stalled in the state legislature, trans non-discrimination bills have passed in four important jurisdictions in the state, including Montgomery County, Howard County, Baltimore County and Baltimore City.

The two said those non-discrimination measures cover close to 50 percent of the state’s population. Beyer said she believes 95 percent of the state’s transgender people live in those four jurisdictions.

“So in that respect, practically speaking, we’ve done the job,” Beyer said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

D.C. Council gives first approval to amended PrEP insurance bill

Removes weakening language after concerns raised by AIDS group

Published

on

‘This is a win in the fight against HIV/AIDS,’ said Council member Zachary Parker. (File photo courtesy of Earline Budd)

The D.C. Council voted unanimously on Feb. 3 to approve a bill on its first of two required votes that requires health insurance companies to cover the costs of HIV prevention or PrEP drugs for D.C. residents at risk for HIV infection.

 The vote to approve the PrEP D.C. Amendment Act came immediately after the 13-member Council voted unanimously again to approve an amendment that removed language in the bill added last month by the Council’s Committee on Health that would require insurers to fully cover only one PrEP drug.

The amendment, introduced jointly by Council members Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), who first introduced the bill in February 2025, and Christina Henderson (I-At-Large), who serves as chair of the Health Committee, requires insurers to cover all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved PrEP drugs.  

Under its rules, the D.C. Council must vote twice to approve all legislation, which must be signed by the D.C. mayor and undergo a 30-day review by Congress before it takes effect as a D.C. law.

Given its unanimous “first reading” vote of approval on Feb. 3, Parker told the Washington Blade he was certain the Council would approve the bill on its second and final vote expected in about two weeks.

Among those who raised concerns about the earlier version of the bill was Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, who sent messages to all 13 Council members urging them to remove the language added by the Committee on Health requiring insurers to cover just one PrEP drug.

The change made by the committee, Schmidt told Council members, “would actually reduce PrEP options for D.C. residents that are required by current federal law, limit patient choice, and place D.C. behind states that have enacted HIV prevention policies designed to remain in effect regardless of any federal changes.”

Schmid told the Washington Blade that although coverage requirements for insurers are currently provided through coverage standards recommended in the U.S. Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, AIDS advocacy organizations have called on D.C. and states to pass their own legislation requiring insurance coverage of PrEP in the event that the federal policies are weakened or removed by the Trump administration, which has already reduced or ended federal funding for HIV/AIDS-related programs.

“The sticking point was the language in the markup that insurers only had to cover one regimen of PrEP,” Parker told the Blade in a phone interview the night before the Council vote. “And advocates thought that moved the needle back in terms of coverage access, and I agree with them,” he said.

In anticipation that the Council would vote to approve the amendment and the underlying bill, Parker, the Council’s only gay member, added, “I think this is a win for our community. And this is a win in the fight against HIV/AIDS.”

During the Feb. 3 Council session, Henderson called on her fellow Council members to approve both the amendment she and Parker had introduced and the bill itself. But she did not say why her committee approved the changes that advocates say weakened the bill and that her and Parker’s amendment would undo. Schmid speculated that pressure from insurance companies may have played a role in the committee change requiring coverage of only one PrEP drug. 

“My goal for advancing the ‘PrEP DC Amendment Act’ is to ensure that the District is building on the progress made in reducing new HIV infections every year,” Henderson said in a statement released after the Council vote. “On Friday, my office received concerns from advocates and community leaders about language regarding PrEP coverage,” she said.

“My team and I worked with Council member Parker, community leaders, including the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute and Whitman-Walker, and the Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking, to craft a solution that clarifies our intent and provides greater access to these life-saving drugs for District residents by reducing consumer costs for any PrEP drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” her statement concludes.

In his own statement following the Council vote, Schmid thanked Henderson and Parker for initiating the amendment to improve the bill. “This will provide PrEP users with the opportunity to choose the best drug that meets their needs,” he said. “We look forward to the bill’s final reading and implementation.”

Continue Reading

Maryland

4th Circuit dismisses lawsuit against Montgomery County schools’ pronoun policy

Substitute teacher Kimberly Polk challenged regulation in 2024

Published

on

(Photo by Sergei Gnatuk via Bigstock)

A federal appeals court has ruled Montgomery County Public Schools did not violate a substitute teacher’s constitutional rights when it required her to use students’ preferred pronouns in the classroom.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision it released on Jan. 28 ruled against Kimberly Polk.

The policy states that “all students have the right to be referred to by their identified name and/or pronoun.”

“School staff members should address students by the name and pronoun corresponding to the gender identity that is consistently asserted at school,” it reads. “Students are not required to change their permanent student records as described in the next section (e.g., obtain a court-ordered name and/or new birth certificate) as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their identified name. To the extent possible, and consistent with these guidelines, school personnel will make efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the student’s transgender status.”

The Washington Post reported Polk, who became a substitute teacher in Montgomery County in 2021, in November 2022 requested a “religious accommodation, claiming that the policy went against her ‘sincerely held religious beliefs,’ which are ‘based on her understanding of her Christian religion and the Holy Bible.’”

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in January 2025 dismissed Polk’s lawsuit that she filed in federal court in Beltsville. Polk appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Norton hailed as champion of LGBTQ rights

D.C. congressional delegate to retire after 36 years in U.S. House

Published

on

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton announced she will not seek re-election; her term ends January 2027. (Washington Blade file photo by Drew Brown)

LGBTQ rights advocates reflected on D.C. Congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton’s longstanding advocacy and support for LGBTQ rights in Congress following her decision last month not to run for re-election this year. 

Upon completing her current term in office in January 2027, Norton, a Democrat, will have served 18 two-year terms and 36 years in her role as the city’s non-voting delegate to the U.S. House.

LGBTQ advocates have joined city officials and community leaders in describing Norton as a highly effective advocate for D.C. under the city’s limited representation in Congress where she could not vote on the House floor but stood out in her work on House committees and moving, powerful speeches on the House floor.

 “During her more than three decades in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton has been a champion for the District of Columbia and the LGBTQ+ community,” said David Stacy, vice president of government affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, the D.C.-based national LGBTQ advocacy organization.

“When Congress blocked implementation of D.C.’s domestic partnership registry, Norton led the fight to allow it to go into effect,” Stacey said. “When President Bush tried to ban marriage equality in every state and the District, Norton again stood up in opposition. And when Congress blocked HIV prevention efforts, Norton worked to end that interference in local control,” he said.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) (Washington Blade photo by Jeff Surprenant)

In reflecting the sentiment of many local and national LGBTQ advocates familiar with Norton’s work, Stacy added, “We have been lucky to have such an incredible champion. As her time in Congress comes to an end, we honor her extraordinary impact in the nation’s capital and beyond by standing together in pride and gratitude.”

Norton has been among the lead co-sponsors and outspoken supporters of LGBTQ rights legislation introduced in Congress since first taking office, including the currently pending Equality Act, which would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Activists familiar with Norton’s work also point out that she has played a lead role in opposing and helping to defeat anti-LGBTQ legislation. In 2018, Norton helped lead an effort to defeat a bill called the First Amendment Defense Act introduced by U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), which Norton said included language that could “gut” D.C.’s Human Rights Act’s provisions banning LGBTQ discrimination.

Norton pointed to a provision in the bill not immediately noticed by LGBTQ rights organizations that would define D.C.’s local government as a federal government entity and allow potential discrimination against LGBTQ people based on a “sincerely held religious belief.”

“This bill is the latest outrageous Republican attack on the District, focusing particularly on our LGBT community and the District’s right to self-government,” Norton said shortly after the bill was introduced. “We will not allow Republicans to discriminate against the LGBT community under the guise of religious liberty,” she said. Records show supporters have not secured the votes to pass it in several congressional sessions.

In 2011, Norton was credited with lining up sufficient opposition to plans by some Republican lawmakers to attempt to overturn D.C.’s same-sex marriage law, that the Council passed and the mayor signed in 2010.   

In 2015, Norton also played a lead role opposing attempts by GOP members of  Congress to overturn another D.C. law protecting LGBTQ students at religious schools, including the city’s Catholic University, from discrimination such as the denial of providing meeting space for an LGBTQ organization.

More recently, in 2024 Norton again led efforts to defeat an attempt by Republican House members to amend the D.C. budget bill that Congress must pass to eliminate funding for the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs and to prohibit the city from using its funds to enforce the D.C. Human Rights Act in cases of discrimination against transgender people.

“The Republican amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to enforce anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination regulations and the amendment to defund the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs are disgraceful attempts, in themselves, to discriminate against D.C.’s LGBTQ+ community while denying D.C. residents the limited governance over their local affairs to which they are entitled,” Norton told the Washington Blade.

In addition to pushing for LGBTQ supportive laws and opposing anti-LGBTQ measures Norton has spoken out against anti-LGBTQ hate crimes and called on the office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. in 2020 to more aggressively prosecute anti-LGBTQ hate crimes.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton marches in the 1995 AIDS Walk. (Washington Blade archive photo by Clint Steib)

“There is so much to be thankful for Eleanor Holmes Norton’s many years of service to all the citizens and residents of the District of Columbia,” said John Klenert, a member of the board of the LGBTQ Victory Fund. “Whether it was supporting its LGBTQ+ people for equal rights, HIV health issues, home rule protection, statehood for all 700,000 people, we could depend on her,” he said.

Ryan Bos, executive director of Capital Pride Alliance, the group that organizes D.C.’s annual LGBTQ Pride events, called Norton a “staunch” LGBTQ community ally and champion for LGBTQ supportive legislation in Congress.

“For decades, Congresswoman Norton has marched in the annual Capital Pride Parade, showing her pride and using her platform to bring voice and visibility in our fight to advance civil rights, end discrimination, and affirm the dignity of all LGBTQ+ people” Bos said. “We will be forever grateful for her ongoing advocacy and contributions to the LGBTQ+ movement.”

Howard Garrett, president of D.C.’s Capital Stonewall Democrats, called Norton a “consistent and principled advocate” for equality throughout her career. “She supported LGBTQ rights long before it was politically popular, advancing nondiscrimination protections and equal protection under the law,” he said.

“Eleanor was smart, tough, and did not suffer fools gladly,” said Rick Rosendall, former president of the D.C. Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance. “But unlike many Democratic politicians a few decades ago who were not reliable on LGBTQ issues, she was always right there with us,” he said. “We didn’t have to explain our cause to her.”

Longtime D.C. gay Democratic activist Peter Rosenstein said he first met Norton when she served as chair of the New York City Human Rights Commission. “She got her start in the civil rights movement and has always been a brilliant advocate for equality,” Rosenstein said.

“She fought for women and for the LGBTQ community,” he said. “She always stood strong with us in all the battles the LGBTQ community had to fight in Congress. I have been honored to know her, thank her for her lifetime of service, and wish her only the best in a hard-earned retirement.”

Continue Reading

Popular