National
Pelosi, Hoyer rebuke Boehner for defending DOMA in veteran case
BLAG set to intervene on behalf of anti-gay portions of Title 38 for first time
House Democratic leaders are continuing to criticize Speaker John Boehner for defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court and accuse him of going beyond his existing authority ahead of his planned intervention in a lesbian veteran’s litigation against the statute.
In a letter dated March 30, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) write to the speaker to express concern about Boehner intervening on behalf of DOMA in the case of Cooper-Harris v. United States.
āThis latest decision not only ignores the civil rights of LGBT Americans but opens a new, direct assault on veterans,ā Pelosi and Hoyer write. āThe men and women of our Armed Forces serve with courage and dignity on behalf of our safety and security. They risk their lives for the country they love ā and they should not face prejudice at home because of whom they love. These brave soldiers deserve nothing less than our gratitude, our respect, and the benefits they have earned in battle.ā
On Feb. 1, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed the lawsuit against DOMA in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of Tracey Cooper-Harris, who’s seekingĀ benefits as a disabled Army veteran her spouse, Maggie Cooper-Harris. The two were married in California in 2008 before Proposition 8 took effect.
Boehner’s attorney’s has yet to file the intervention, but the Washington Blade has obtained documents revealing their intent to intervene in the lawsuit. Informed sources are expecting a formal filing of the intervention next week.
Boehner will be defending not just DOMA in court, but Title 38, a law governing veteran benefits that as written precludes same-sex married couples from obtaining benefits. It’s the first time the speaker has elected to defend this statute in addition to DOMA.
In a letter last month, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder notified Congress that the Obama administration would no longer defend portions of Title 38 related to same-sex couples as it has with DOMA.
It’s taking on defense of Title 38 that Pelosi and Hoyer belief are beyond Boehner’s authority. In the letter, the lawmakers request a formal Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group vote on defending Title 38 and ask that any extension of the existing legal contract receive prior examination by the Committee on House Administration and the House Ethics Committee.
Brendan Buck, a Boehner spokesperson, issued a statement saying the speaker’s intervention in the case against Title 38 is aligned with House rules.
“It was determined through consultations with each office ā the process used to make such decisions regularly under then-Speaker Pelosi ā that a majority of the BLAG believes the constitutionality of this statute, which the Attorney General described as ‘identical in material respect to the language of Section 3 of DOMA,’ should be determined by the judicial branch, not through a unilateral decree of the President,” Buck said.
Tracey Cooper-Harris wasĀ diagnosed in 2010 with multiple sclerosis, and the Department of Veterans Affairs has determined is connected to her military service in Iraq and Afghanistan, She’s been receiving disability benefits as a veteran, but is unable to receive spousal benefits that she would otherwise be entitled to if she were in an opposite-sex marriage. Among them are disability benefits meant to ensure the financial stability of spouses.
Christine Sun, deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said her organization is pleased House Democratic leaders are taking interest in its lawsuit.
“We are pleased that Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are getting involved in the Cooper-Harris case and standing with veterans,” Sun said. āIt is astonishing that Rep. John Boehner and his colleagues are continuing this shameful crusade against our brave men and women in uniform and is nothing short of disgusting.ā
After the Obama administration announced that it would no longer defend DOMA in court last year, Boehner directed House General Counsel Kerry Kircher to defend the statute after BLAG voted 3-2 on a party-line basis to take up defense of the law.
According to Leader Pelosi’s office, the Cooper-Harris case marks the 12th time Boehner has intervened to defend. Earlier this week, officials testified this week that House defense of DOMA thus far has cost $742,000, although Boehner hasĀ raised the cost capĀ to $1.5 million.
The full text of Pelosi and Hoyer’s letter to Boehner follows:
March 30, 2012
The Honorable John Boehner
Speaker of the House of Representatives
United States Capitol
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Today, we were notified that the House, through outside counsel acting at your direction, has decided to intervene in a case challenging the constitutionality of laws denying federal benefits to military spouses on the basis of their sexual orientation.Ā As members of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), who were not consulted prior to this unwise decision, we strongly object to spending taxpayer money to intervene in this case against a decorated veteran, Tracey Cooper-Harris, and her spouse, Maggie Cooper-Harris.Ā This decision clearly exceeds the scope of the original BLAG authorization, with which we initially disagreed.
This intervention once again puts the House of Representatives on the wrong side of the future ā supporting discrimination, unfairness, and the denial of basic equality to all Americans.Ā We have objected to prior decisions by the House Republican BLAG members to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to defend discrimination.Ā This latest decision not only ignores the civil rights of LGBT Americans but opens a new, direct assault on veterans. Ā The men and women of our Armed Forces serve with courage and dignity on behalf of our safety and security.Ā They risk their lives for the country they love ā and they should not face prejudice at home because of whom they love.Ā These brave soldiers deserve nothing less than our gratitude, our respect, and the benefits they have earned in battle.
The plaintiffs inĀ Cooper-Harris v. U.S.Ā argue that federal law, including Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. Ā§ 7, and portions of the Veteranās Benefits title of the United States Code, 38 U.S.C. Ā§ 101(3) and (31), denies them equal protection under the law by failing to uphold our promises to our servicemembers to care for them and their families. Ā We agree, and note that the U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that Section 3 of DOMA ā as well as the definitional portions in Title 38 dealing with military and veteransā benefits ā ācannot be constitutionally applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law.āĀ We applaud the decision of the Attorney General against defending indefensible discrimination.
Federal district courts have already deemed DOMA unconstitutional, and the Justice Department will not defend the law.Ā We call upon the Republican members of the BLAG to rescind your unilateral decision to expand your defense of DOMA to cases involving veterans.Ā If you insist upon continuing this costly and wasteful use of hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds, we request: (a) a formal vote of the BLAG on extending your defense of discrimination to veterans and their families, and (b) any extension of the existing legal contract, any new contract, and any additional expenditure of public funds on behalf of outside counsel receive full prior examination by the Committee on House Administration and the House Ethics Committee.
We look forward to receiving your response to this and the several previous letters from House Democrats on this subject.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
NANCY PELOSIĀ Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā STENY H. HOYER
Democratic LeaderĀ Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Democratic Whip
The U.S. has granted asylum to a Guatemalan LGBTQ activist who fled his country in 2019.
Estuardo Cifuentes and his partner ran a digital marketing and advertising business in Guatemala City.
He previously told the Washington Blade that gang members extorted from them. Cifuentes said they closed their business after they attacked them.
Cifuentes told the Blade that Guatemalan police officers attacked him in front of their home when he tried to kiss his partner. Cifuentes said the officers tried to kidnap him and one of them shot at him. He told the Blade that authorities placed him under surveillance after the incident and private cars drove past his home.
Cifuentes arrived in Matamoros, a Mexican border city that is across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas, in June 2019. He asked for asylum in the U.S. based on the persecution he suffered in Guatemala because of his sexual orientation.
The Trump administration forced Cifuentes to pursue his asylum case from Mexico under its Migrant Protection Protocols program that became known as the “remain in Mexico” policy.
Cifuentes while in Matamoros ran Rainbow Bridge Asylum Seekers, a program for LGBTQ asylum seekers and migrants that the Resource Center Matamoros, a group that provides assistance to asylum seekers and migrants in the Mexican border city, helped create.
The Biden-Harris administration in January 2021 suspended enrollment in MPP. Cifuentes entered the U.S. on March 3, 2021.
“We are profoundly relieved and grateful that my husband and I have been officially recognized as asylees in the United States,” Cifuentes told the Blade on Monday in an email. “This result marks the end of a long and painful fight against the persecution that we faced in Guatemala because of our sexual orientation.”
Vice President Kamala Harris is among those who have said discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation are among the root causes of migration from Guatemala and other countries in Central America.
Cifuentes is now the client services manager for Lawyers for Good Government’s Project CorazĆ³n, a campaign that works “hard to reunite and defend the rights of families impacted by inhumane immigration policies.” He told the Blade he will continue to help LGBTQ asylum seekers and migrants.
“In this new chapter of our lives, we pledge to work hard to support others in similar situations and to contribute to the broader fight for the rights and acceptance of the LGBTQ+ migrant community,” said Cifuentes. “We are hopeful that our story will serve as a call to action to confront and end persecution based on gender identity and sexual orientation.”
U.S. Supreme Court
US Supreme Court rules Idaho to enforce gender care ban
House Bill 71 signed in 2023
BY MIA MALDONADO | The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed Idaho to enforce House Bill 71, a law banning Idaho youth from receiving gender-affirming care medications and surgeries.
In an opinion issued Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the state of Idahoās request to stay the preliminary injunction, which blocked the law from taking effect. This means the preliminary injunction now only applies to the plaintiffs involved in Poe v. Labrador ā a lawsuit brought on by the families of two transgender teens in Idaho who seek gender-affirming care.
Mondayās Supreme Court decision enforces the gender-affirming care ban for all other trans youth in Idaho as the lawsuitĀ remains ongoing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho, both of whom represent the plaintiffs, said in a press release Monday that the ruling ādoes not touch upon the constitutionalityā of HB 71. The groups called Mondayās ruling an āawful resultā for trans Idaho youth and their families.
āTodayās ruling allows the state to shut down the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption,ā the organizations said in the press release. āNonetheless, todayās result only leaves us all the more determined to defeat this law in the courts entirely, making Idaho a safer state to raise every family.ā
Idaho Attorney General RaĆŗl Labrador in a press release said the state has a duty to protect and support all children, and that he is proud of the stateās legal stance.
āThose suffering from gender dysphoria deserve love, support and medical care rooted in biological reality,ā Labrador said. āDenying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids. No one has the right to harm children, and Iām grateful that we, as the state, have the power ā and duty ā to protect them.ā
Recap of Idahoās HB 71, and what led to SCOTUS opinion
Mondayās Supreme Court decision traces back to when HB 71 was signed into law in April 2023.
The law makes it a felony punishable for up to 10 years for doctors to provide surgeries, puberty-blockers and hormones to trans people under the age of 18. However, gender-affirming surgeries are not and were not performed among Idaho adults or youth before the bill was signed into law, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported.
One month afterĀ it was signed into law, the families of two trans teens sued the state in a lawsuit alleging the bill violates the 14th Amendmentās guarantee of equal protection under the law.
In late December, just days before the law was set to take effect in the new year, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill blocked the law from taking effect under a preliminary injunction. In his decision, he said he found the families likely to succeed in their challenge.
The state of Idaho responded by appealing the district courtās preliminary injunction decision to the Ninth Circuit, to which the Ninth Circuit denied. The state of Idaho argued the court should at least enforce the ban for everyone except for the plaintiffs.
After the Ninth Circuitās denial, the Idaho Attorney Generalās Office in February sent an emergency motion to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Idaho Press reported. Mondayās U.S. Supreme Court decision agrees with the stateās request to enforce its ban on trans health care for minors, except for the two plaintiffs.
******************************************************************************************
Mia Maldonado joined the Idaho Capital Sun after working as a breaking news reporter at the Idaho Statesman covering stories related to crime, education, growth and politics. She previously interned at the Idaho Capital Sun through the Voces Internship of Idaho, an equity-driven program for young Latinos to work in Idaho news. Born and raised in Coeur d’Alene, Mia moved to the Treasure Valley for college where she graduated from the College of Idaho with a bachelor’s degree in Spanish and international political economy.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding piece was previously published by the Idaho Capital Sun and is republished with permission.
The Idaho Capital Sun is the Gem Stateās newest nonprofit news organization delivering accountability journalism on state politics, health care, tax policy, the environment and more.
Weāre part of States Newsroom, the nationās largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
Kansas
Kansas governor vetoes ban on health care for transgender youth
Republican lawmakers have vowed to override veto
BY TIM CARPENTERĀ | Gov. Laura Kelly flexed a veto pen to reject bills Friday prohibiting gender identity health care for transgender youth, introducing a vague crime of coercing someone to have an abortion and implementing a broader survey of women seeking abortion that was certain to trigger veto override attempts in the Republican-led House and Senate.
The decisions by the Democratic governor to use her authority to reject these health and abortion rights bills didnāt come as a surprise given her previous opposition to lawmakers intervening in personal decisions that she believed ought to remain the domain of families and physicians.
Kelly saidĀ Senate Bill 233, which would ban gender-affirming care for trans minors in Kansas, was an unwarranted attack on a small number of Kansans under 18. She said the bill was based on a politically distorted belief the Legislature knew better than parents how to raise their children.
She said it was neither a conservative nor Kansas value to block medical professionals from performing surgery or prescribing puberty blockers for their patients. She said stripping doctors of their licenses for serving health interests of patients was wrong. Under the bill, offending physicians could be face lawsuits and their professional liability insurance couldnāt be relied on to defend themselves in court.
āTo be clear, this legislation tramples parental rights,ā Kelly said. āThe last place that I would want to be as a politician is between a parent and a child who needed medical care of any kind. And, yet, that is exactly what this legislation does.ā
Senate President Ty Masterson (R-Andover) and House Speaker Dan Hawkins (R-Wichita) responded to the governor by denouncing the vetoes and pledging to seek overrides when legislators returned to the Capitol on April 26. The trans bill was passed 27-13 in the Senate and 82-39 in the House, suggesting both chambers were in striking distance of a two-thirds majority necessary to thwart the governor.
āThe governor has made it clear yet again that the radical left controls her veto pen,ā Masterson said. āThis devotion to extremism will not stand, and we look forward to overriding her vetoes when we return in two weeks.ā
Cathryn Oakley, senior director of the Human Rights Campaign, said the ban on crucial, medically necessary health care for trans youth was discriminatory, designed to spread dangerous misinformation and timed to rile up anti-LGBTQ activists.
āEvery credible medical organization ā representing over 1.3 million doctors in the United States ā calls for age-appropriate, gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary people,ā Oakley said. āThis is why majorities of Americans oppose criminalizing or banning gender-affirming care.ā
Abortion coercion
Kelly also vetoed House Bill 2436 that would create the felony crime of engaging in physical, financial or documentary coercion to compel a girl or woman to end a pregnancy despite an expressed desire to carry the fetus to term. It was approved 27-11 in the Senate and 82-37 in the House, again potentially on the cusp of achieving a veto override.
The legislation would establish sentences of one year in jail and $5,000 fine for those guilty of abortion coercion. The fine could be elevated to $10,000 if the adult applying the pressure was the fetusesā father and the pregnant female was under 18. If the coercion was accompanied by crimes of stalking, domestic battery, kidnapping or about 20 other offenses the prison sentence could be elevated to 25 years behind bars.
Kelly said no one should be forced to undergo a medical procedure against their will. She said threatening violence against another individual was already a crime in Kansas.
āAdditionally, I am concerned with the vague language in this bill and its potential to intrude upon private, often difficult, conversations between a person and their family, friends and health care providers,ā the governor said. āThis overly broad language risks criminalizing Kansans who are being confided in by their loved ones or simply sharing their expertise as a health care provider.ā
Hawkins, the House Republican leader, said coercion was wrong regardless of the circumstances and Kellyās veto of the bill was a step too far to the left.
āItās a sad day for Kansas when the governorās uncompromising support for abortion wonāt even allow her to advocate for trafficking and abuse victims who are coerced into the procedure,ā Hawkins said.
Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, said HB 2436 sought to equate abortion with crime, perpetuate false narratives and erode a fundamental constitutional right to bodily autonomy. The bill did nothing to protect Kansas from reproductive coercion, including forced pregnancy or tampering with birth control.
āPlanned Parenthood Great Plains Votes trusts patients and stands firmly against any legislation that seeks to undermine reproductive rights or limit access to essential health care services,ā Wales said.
Danielle Underwood, spokeswoman for Kansas for Life, said āCoercion Kellyā demonstrated with this veto a lack of compassion for women pushed into an abortion.
The abortion survey
The House and Senate approved a bill requiring more than a dozen questions be added to surveys of women attempting to terminate a pregnancy in Kansas. Colorful debate in the House included consideration of public health benefits of requiring interviews of men about reasons they sought a vasectomy birth control procedure or why individuals turned to health professionals for treatment of erectile dysfunction.
House Bill 2749 adopted 81-39 in the House and 27-13 in the Senate would require the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to produce twice-a-year reports on responses to the expanded abortion survey. The state of Kansas cannot require women to answer questions on the survey.
Kelly said in her veto message the bill was āinvasive and unnecessaryā and legislators should have taken into account rejection in August 2022 of a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would have set the stage for legislation further limiting or ending access to abortion.
āThere is no valid medical reason to force a woman to disclose to the Legislature if they have been a victim of abuse, rape or incest prior to obtaining an abortion,ā Kelly said. āThere is also no valid reason to force a woman to disclose to the Legislature why she is seeking an abortion. I refuse to sign legislation that goes against the will of the majority of Kansans who spoke loudly on Aug. 2, 2022. Kansans donāt want politicians involved in their private medical decisions.ā
Wales, of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, said the bill would have compelled health care providers to āinterrogate patients seeking abortion careā and to engage in violations of patient privacy while inflicting undue emotional distress.
Hawkins, the Republican House speaker, said the record numbers of Kansas abortions ā the increase has been driven by bans or restrictions imposed in other states ā was sufficient to warrant scrutiny of KDHE reporting on abortion. He also said the governor had no business suppressing reporting on abortion and criticized her for tapping into āirrational fears of offending the for-profit pro-abortion lobby.ā
******************************************************************************************
Tim Carpenter has reported on Kansas for 35 years. He covered the Capitol for 16 years at the Topeka Capital-Journal and previously worked for the Lawrence Journal-World and United Press International.
The preceding story was previously published by the Kansas Reflector and is republished with permission.
******************************************************************************************
The Kansas Reflector is a nonprofit news operation providing in-depth reporting, diverse opinions and daily coverage of state government and politics. This public service is free to readers and other news outlets. We are part of States Newsroom: the nationās largest state-focused nonprofit news organization, with reporting from every capital.
-
Africa3 days ago
Congolese lawmaker introduces anti-homosexuality bill
-
Colorado5 days ago
Five transgender, nonbinary ICE detainees allege mistreatment at Colo. detention center
-
World3 days ago
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe and Asia
-
Real Estate5 days ago
Boosting your rental propertyās curb appeal