National
In 2012 election, are women the new gay?
GOP attacks on Planned Parenthood, contraception take center stage
National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill (photo by NOW via wikimedia.org)
Move over gays. The dominant social issue heading into the 2012 election isn’t marriage or “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but a topic many thought was resolved decades ago: women’s rights.
Republican presidential candidates rail against Planned Parenthood; the Senate votes on allowing employers to opt out of providing birth control coverage; and Republicans derail legislation aimed at helping women who are victims of domestic violence. As a result, some are asking: Are women the new gay?
Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, said women’s rights have become the No. 1 social issue — creating a “truly unprecedented war against women” — because of the Tea Party’s success in the 2010 elections.
“In addition to health care services, this war on women really includes repeated efforts by conservative lawmakers to slash social programs, like Head Start and after-school programs and family planning centers as well as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security,” O’Neill said. “These are all programs that women disproportionately rely on.”
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said women’s issues are a prominent part of public discourse in 2012, but not in a way that separates them from LGBT rights or other social issues.
“There are many women who are lesbian, bisexual and transgender,” Carey said. “If you look at Planned Parenthood, we know that many members of the LGBT community rely on Planned Parenthood for health services, so even if we’re looking at the attacks on Planned Parenthood — these are not separate from the attacks on our own community.”
Republican presidential candidates have criticized President Obama for instituting a regulation requiring employers — even religious organizations — to provide birth control as part of insurance coverage to female employees. In February, the rule was amended so companies with a moral objection could opt out of such coverage, but in their stead, the private insurers with which the employers contracted would have to offer contraception.
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has railed against the change as an affront to religious liberty and attacked contraception, saying it leads to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies.
Santorum articulated his views in an interview with a conservative blogger last fall before he became a strong contender in the presidential race.
“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about is, I think, the dangers of contraceptives in this country,” Santorum said. “The whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Contraception’s OK.’ It is not OK. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
Romney, viewed as a more moderate candidate in the race, has also articulated his views on women’s issues, telling a local reporter in Missouri earlier this month that he would “get rid” of Planned Parenthood.
“Of course you get rid of Obamacare, that’s the easy one, but there are others,” Romney said. “Planned Parenthood, we’re going to get rid of that.”
Romney campaign strategist Eric Fehrnstrom later clarified the former Massachusetts governor was talking about cutting federal funding for the organization.
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has joined the attacks related to contraception. On Feb. 29, he called Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” after she gave congressional testimony in support of mandating health insurers to cover contraceptive costs.
“It makes her a slut, right?” Limbaugh said. “It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”
Obama personally called Fluke to express solidarity with her after Limbaugh made the remarks. After advertisers began withdrawing from Limbaugh’s show, he apologized, saying his “insulting word choices” were meant to be “humorous.”
Planned Parenthood has taken the brunt of attacks as women’s issues have come to the forefront. In January, the Susan G. Komen organization, the largest breast cancer organization in the country, cut funding to Planned Parenthood after conservative Karen Handel was named senior vice president for public policy.
A public backlash ensued in which Planned Parenthood received nearly $1 million in donations — more than the $600,000 a year that Komen had contributed each year. The next month, Komen’s board of directors apologized, issuing a statement pledging, “to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants.” Handel resigned a few days later.
The emphasis on women’s issues doesn’t mean Republican hopefuls haven’t addressed LGBT issues in their campaigns. Santorum and Romney back a Federal Marriage Amendment and have pledged to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
Still, the discussion of LGBT rights this year hasn’t been as high profile or drawn as much media attention as women’s rights.
And it’s a far cry from 2004 when the issue of same-sex marriage was center stage in the presidential election. The legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to marry gay couples prompted both Democratic candidate John Kerry and former President George W. Bush to repeatedly declare their opposition to same-sex marriage. Bush made support for a Federal Marriage Amendment a cornerstone of his campaign.
Whether women’s issues will remain on the front-burner of the presidential campaign remains to be seen.
O’Neill said she thinks Republicans will drop women’s issues as a point of contention once they settle on Romney as their nominee.
“Mitt Romney is going to run to the center as hard as he can, and he’s going to run away as hard as he can from women’s issues because he gets that this war on women is a losing war for his party,” O’Neill said.
Moreover, LGBT rights might return to the forefront as voters in as many as five states — Minnesota, North Carolina, Maine, Washington and Maryland — take up the issue of same-sex marriage at the ballot.
Carey said she doesn’t want LGBT people to think they’re “off the hook” in the 2012 election because these issues will be coming up soon.
“I have no doubt that as the marriage amendments around the country start heating up, even more than they are now, we might have a similar conversation a few months from now saying, ‘Wow, the dominant conservation in the presidential election has become the marriage amendments,'” Carey said.
The emphasis on women’s issues isn’t just occurring in the national presidential contest; it can be seen at the state level as well.
In Virginia, Gov. Bob McDonnell signed legislation requiring women to have ultrasound exams before electing to have an abortion. The initial bill called for a vaginally invasive form of the examination, but was changed following protests.
At the same time, an anti-gay adoption bill that would allow private adoption agencies to discriminate in placements conflicting with their religious or moral beliefs, including on the basis of sexual orientation, is awaiting McDonnell’s signature.
In some instances, controversy over women’s rights issues has had a direct impact on LGBT issues.
On March 1, the Senate narrowly agreed by a vote of 51-48 to table a measure known as the “Blunt amendment.” Sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the measure was aimed at allowing not only religious groups but any employer with moral objections to opt out of contraception coverage for employees.
Retiring Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to table the amendment. Other Republicans considered to be moderates — such as Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)— voted with their caucus. Democrats joining Republicans were Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).
But the amendment was seen as having an impact on LGBT people because its broad language could have also affected the health care services LGBT people receive. According to the Task Force, the measure could have allowed an employer to deny a gay man treatment for HIV/AIDS, hormone therapy for a transgender person or in-vitro fertilization for a lesbian couple.
The same could be said for the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, legislation before the Senate that would extend and strengthen programs working to combat domestic violence. A vote on the bill, which was reported out by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, is being held up by Republicans.
On March 15, a group of mostly women senators took to the Senate floor to decry Republican obstructionism, saying its passage is necessary to fund programs to help women who are victims of violence or sexual assault. Sen. Barbara Mikuski (D-Md.) was among the lawmakers who spoke out.
“We’ve got to remember our communities and our families, and I think if you’re beaten and abused, you should be able to turn to your government to either be rescued and put you on the path, and also to have those very important programs early on to do prevention and intervention,” Mikulski said.
But the VAWA reauthorization also impacts the LGBT community because it has language extending protections to people in same-sex relationships who are victims of domestic violence.
The bill would make grants available for programs providing services to LGBT victims of domestic violence. Additionally, the bill contains non-discrimination language prohibiting VAWA grantees from discriminating against LGBT people.
These enumerated protections are among the reasons Republicans are blocking the bill from a Senate vote. During the committee markup of the bill, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) voiced opposition to language protecting undocumented immigrants and expanding powers of Indian tribes as well as provisions for LGBT people.
“I agree that shelters and other grant recipients should provide services equally to everyone, but advocates of this provision haven’t produced data that shelters have refused to provide services for these reasons,” Grassley said. “The provision is a solution in search of a problem.”
Data exists showing that LGBT people are victims of domestic violence and suffer from discrimination when seeking help at shelters. According to a 2010 report from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 44.6 percent of LGBT domestic violence survivors were turned away by a shelter and 54.4 percent of LGBT survivors seeking an order of protection were denied help.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) articulated the need for LGBT provisions in VAWA reauthorization during her speech, saying opponents refuse to support the bill because of these expanded protections.
“In my view, these are improvements,” Feinstein said. “Domestic violence is domestic violence. I ask my friends on the other side, if the victim is in a same-sex relationship, is the violence any less real? Is the danger any less real because you happen to be gay or lesbian? I don’t think so.”
On Wednesday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) and other House Democrats were set to introduce their version of VAWA reauthorization. Like the Senate bill, the House Democrats’ version of the legislation was slated to have enumerated LGBT protections.
The Task Force’s Carey said the joint impact of these measures on women and LGBT people demonstrates the interconnectedness of the two communities.
“What we know, and I think society has learned over the past 40 years is that LGBT people are part and parcel of every other community in this country,” Carey said. “The Blunt amendment and the Violence Against Women Act are two specific examples of where our fates are tied.”
Progressive activists say the takeaway is that the LGBT community and women’s rights advocates should work together in the 2012 election as part of a broader coalition to protect their interests.
Hilary Rosen, a lesbian D.C.-based Democratic activist, also said the new attention to women’s issues demonstrates the need for the progressive coalition to stand together in the election.
“I think it means there is a great alliance forming — more important than in any recent election — among women, LGBT, Latinos and others depending on continued social progress in this country,” Rosen said. “Romney has declared he is going to be the ‘Etch-a-Sketch’ candidate, which means he doubles down on oppositon to all of us.”
Carey emphasized the importance of all elements of the progressive community standing together with women.
“One, we have shared opponents and shared future, and two, we are women, too,” Carey said. “Two, speaking as a lesbian myself, it’s hard to discern if there’s an attack on women, I can’t just put away my lesbian self for the night.”
National
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
Administration criticizes National Museum of American History
The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.
According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.
Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.
“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.
The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.
The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.
The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”
The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.
It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”
Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”
On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.
In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.
House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”
In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.
Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.
“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.
Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.
It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.
An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)
National
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs
A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.
News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.
Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.
Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.
A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.
Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.
“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.”
Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.
Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.
“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,” Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.
Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.
In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.
“Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.
It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end.
“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.
“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes.
Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.
National
At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) among speakers
Uncloseted Media published this article on July 23.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | Earlier this month, hundreds of people filled a conference room in San Diego. These included Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brian Christine, OpenAI executive Dean Ball, and the attorneys general of West Virginia and Idaho.
They all came together for Alliance Defending Freedom’s 2026 Summit. The Christian legal group, also a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group, described the event as a “gathering of leaders from many different spheres, including law, public policy, media, business, education, and Christian leadership.”
Johnson — who has said that “homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and … society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle” — was a featured speaker.
In his speech, he seemed unconcerned with the separation of church and state: “It is so encouraging to Kelly and I to be among friends and fellow warriors for this cause and people who understand that God is not done with America yet. … ADF’s on the very tip of the spear, front line, defending those very truths and keeping the door open for the spread of the Gospel. This is our moment. I’m telling you, I believe the next season … is going to be the greatest season of this ministry since its inception.”
That ministry is one that has espoused aggressively anti-LGBTQ views since its inception in the early 1990s. It was co-founded by a group of evangelical men, including Alan Sears, who co-authored a book called “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” Since then, ADF has opposed gay marriage and supported bans on gay sex and on gender-affirming care for minors.
After helping overturn Roe v. Wade, ADF lawyers have led key victories at the Supreme Court. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, SCOTUS ruled that a website designer could refuse service to gay weddings. And this year they convinced the Court to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy and to uphold state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams.
At the summit, ADF President Kristen Waggoner, who has promoted conversion therapists and consistently misgenders trans people, interviewed these states’ attorneys general.
“The lawyers who were defending women’s sports were among the best I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey told Waggoner.
Similar to Johnson, Trump’s Assistant Secretary of Health Christine showed his commitment to governing based on conservative Christianity. He gave a Bible-thumping speech against gender transition and trans healthcare, saying that it “contradicts … the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself. For Genesis 1:27 informs us that God created man in his own image. … Male and female” He also said the “complementary relationship between man and woman is divine” and advocated for youth with gender dysphoria to receive care from a pastor.
All of these remarks from politicians made me think of the interview I published earlier this week with Pete Hegseth’s pastor, Doug Wilson. He wants a Christian theocracy in America and told me that: both the perpetrator and the victim should be disciplined in some cases of marital rape; that transgender people are “sad;” that execution is justifiable for certain homosexual acts; and that gay sex should be illegal.
The ADF Summit is glossy and polished. And while its messaging may be less explicit than Pastor Wilson’s, the track record of the organizations shows they have the exact same desires. They’re just deeply strategic in what they say and when and how they say it.
I believe the political power players who attended this year’s summit know this. They know they are endorsing an organization whose members have essentially called for the illegalization of most — if not all ‚ forms of queer behavior and presentation.
In the last few years, these perspectives have become increasingly embedded in the highest rooms of the federal government and they have been effective in stripping away LGBTQ rights. Wilson, who just installed a full-time pastor in Washington to lead services, says there are 10 to 20 government officials who align with his church’s ideology.
It is vital for Americans to keep their eyes wide open to the ultimate goal of groups like ADF: to create a United States that leaves LGBTQ people without rights and that pushes us back in the closet.
PHOTOS: Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade
Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade draws hundreds of thousands
Should I divorce my catty gay friend group?
Poland’s top court rejects recognition of same-sex marriages from other EU countries
PHOTOS: Lambda Legal in the Pines
Officials raise troubling concerns about Rehoboth mayoral candidate Suzanne Goode
We must not scapegoat refugees after Berlin Pride terrorist attack
US official protested at 2026 International AIDS Conference
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
‘Heated Rivalry’ star takes it off in new ads for Under Armour
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days agoOfficials raise troubling concerns about Rehoboth mayoral candidate Suzanne Goode
-
Germany5 days ago
We must not scapegoat refugees after Berlin Pride terrorist attack
-
Brazil4 days ago
US official protested at 2026 International AIDS Conference
-
National5 days ago
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
