Connect with us

National

Cicilline fends off challenger in R.I. primary

Election results yield mixed bag for marriage equality prospects

Published

on

Gay Rep. David Cicilline defeated his challenger in the Rhode Island Democratic primary on Tuesday. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Gay Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) defeated his challenger, businessman Anthony Gemma, to win the Democratic nomination to continue to represent Rhode Island’s 1st congressional district in the U.S. House in Tuesday’s primary.

Local media outlets called the race for Cicilline about an hour after polls closed at 8 p.m. in Rhode Island. With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Cicilline held 61 percent of the vote, compared to the 31 percent claimed by Gemma and 8 percent won by another candidate, Chris Young.

Cicilline faced criticism during the race — even though he’s running in a overwhelmingly “blue” state — as a result of financial difficulties facing the city of Providence, R.I., where Cicilline served as mayor before running for Congress.

A report commissioned by the City Council last year blamed Cicilline’s administration for a lack of transparency and for making a series of moves – like tapping into Providence’s rainy-day fund – without councilors’ approval. The lawmaker apologized in April, saying he should have been more forthright about the financial condition of the city.

Still, Cicilline retained support heading into the primary. The lawmaker was once again endorsed by the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund. In new campaign ads, former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who once held the seat now held by Cicilline, vouched for the out lawmaker’s commitment to public service.

Sexual orientation did come into play during the Democratic primary. According to the Associated Press, Anthony Sionni, an unpaid campaign staffer for the Gemma campaign, compared the openly gay lawmaker on Twitter to convicted child molester and former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, saying there’s “nothing wrong with smearing a liar, thief, crook, Sandusky copy cat.” The state Democratic Party had called for Gemma to fire Anthony Sionni, apologize to Cicilline and disavow the message. In response, a Gemma campaign spokesperson reportedly said the tweet was “inappropriate” and Sionni agreed to leave the campaign.

Cicilline was running against a primary opponent who largely self-financed his campaign. According to Federal Election Commission reports, 80 percent of the $315,000 that Gemma raised was from him contributing or lending his money to his own campaign. In comparison, all the $1.7 million that Cicilline raised for his campaign was the result of outside contributions.

But Cicilline isn’t out of the woods in his bid to retain his U.S. House seat. He’s facing a challenge in the general election from Republican Brendan Doherty, a retired high-ranking police officer and former superintendent of Rhode Island’s Department of Public Safety.

According to a poll published by Rhode Island’s WPRI late last month, 52 percent of Gemma supporters said they’d back Doherty in the general election if the Democratic challenger lost the primary. Compared to the $1.7 million that Cicilline has raised, Doherty has $1.1 million in total net receipts. About five percent, or $50,000, of Doherty’s net receipts are from self-financing.

Chuck Wolfe, the Victory Fund’s CEO, said the choice is clear on LGBT issues heading into the general election because Doherty supports the Defense of Marriage Act, an anti-gay law that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

“We’re pleased that Rhode Island Democrats have once again chosen David Cicilline to represent them in Congress,” Wolfe said. “Now voters will face a clear choice this November between a persistent champion for LGBT equality, and an opponent who supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which makes life harder for so many American families.”

The Victory Fund is citing the website Electful.com, which keeps track of candidates’ positions on issues, as the source for Doherty’s support for DOMA. On the other hand, Cicilline is an original co-sponsor of DOMA repeal legislation known as the Respect for Marriage Act.

The Democratic primary produced mixed results in terms of electing candidates who support marriage equality. One lesbian candidate, Laura Pisaturo, narrowly lost her bid to unseat a Democratic lawmaker who opposes same-sex marriage.

Many incumbent Democrats who support marriage equality fended off challenges from candidates who oppose it. Among those incumbents were State Sen. Ryan Pearson, State Rep. Arthur Handy, State Rep. Greg Amore, State Rep. Joseph Almeida, and State House Majority Whip Patrick O’Neill.

But in primaries in which pro-marriage equality challengers were running against incumbent Democrats who oppose it, the pro-LGBT side only won a single primary. Democrat Adam Satchell, a teacher and proponent of marriage equality, beat an incumbent Democrat who opposes same-sex marriage, State Sen. Michael Pinga.

Still, the outcome means a net gain of one vote in the State Senate at a time when legislation to enact same-sex marriage in the Ocean State is expected to advance next year.

In a competitive primary in State Senate District 29, incumbent State Sen. Michael McCaffrey, an opponent of marriage equality, won against Pisaturo, who was endorsed by the Victory Fund. McCaffrey had a narrow win against Pisaturo, taking 53 percent of the vote compared to Pisaturo’s 47 percent.

McCaffrey, chairs Rhode Island’s Senate Judiciary Committee, and, even though he’s a Democrat, has never allowed pending same-sex marriage legislation to advance in his committee. During a TV debate last month, McCaffrey said he “believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Ray Sullivan, campaign director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, said his organization is “incredibly proud” of the campaign Pisaturo waged despite her loss.

“We’re proud to have been a part of it,” Sullivan added. “She talked about issues that were important to people in that district, and if we had it to do all over again, we would absolutely stand with her.”

Asked whether marriage equality legislation can still advance, Sullivan said he intends to take McCaffrey “at his word” when the Democrat said during an earlier debate he’ll allow a vote on same-sex legislation in his committee despite his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“When we win a number of these races in the general election and we elect a pro-equality majority in the Senate in the general election, we expect Sen. McCaffrey to honor that commitment, and we look forward to scheduling a committee vote on marriage equality in the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Sullivan said.

In an interview with Washington Blade last week during the Democratic National Convention, Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, a supporter of marriage equality, said the election of Pisaturo would be “pivotal” in determining whether same-sex marriage legislation would be able to advance in the Rhode Island legislature.

Other Senate races had disappointing outcomes for marriage equality proponents. Same-sex marriage opponent State Sen. Marc Cote won his primary against challenger Lewis Pryeor, who supports same-sex marriage. Similarly, marriage equality opponent State Sen. Daniel DaPonte won over challenger and marriage equality supporter Roberto DaSilva.

One race in which there was no incumbent also yielded a loss for marriage equality supporters. In State Senate District 26, Gene Dyszlewski, who supports marriage equality, lost to Frank Lombardi, who opposes same-sex marriage.

In State Senate District 33, David Gorman, a Democratic supporter of marriage equality, lost to Leonidas Raptakis, a Democratic opponent of gay nuptials. But the result in that race is a wash in that district because the incumbent Republican, State Sen. Glenford Shibley, opposes marriage equality.

According to WPRI, a group known as People for Rhode Island’s Future spent $26,500 earlier this month to elect six pro-marriage equality candidates in the Democratic primary. That group reportedly received a $20,000 donation to make that happen from Tim Gill, a gay Denver-based entrepreneur and philanthropist known for working to advance marriage equality, as well as $15,000 from Esmond Harmsworth, a Newport, R.I., resident and founding partner of Boston literary agency Zachary Shuster Harmsworth Literary Agency.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Florida

AIDS Healthcare Foundation sues Fla. over ‘illegal’ HIV drug program cuts

Tens of thousands could lose access to medications

Published

on

(Photo by Catella via Bigstock)

Following the slashing of hundreds of thousands of dollars from Florida’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program, AIDS Healthcare Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Florida Department of Health over what it says was an illegal change to income eligibility thresholds for the lifesaving program.

The Florida Department of Health announced two weeks ago that it would make sweeping cuts to ADAP, dramatically changing how many Floridians qualify for the state-funded medical coverage — without using the formal process required to change eligibility rules. As a result, AHF filed a petition Tuesday in Tallahassee with the state’s Division of Administrative Hearings, seeking to prevent more than 16,000 Floridians from losing coverage.

The medications covered by ADAP work by suppressing HIV-positive people’s viral load — making the virus undetectable in blood tests and unable to be transmitted to others.

Prior to the eligibility change, the Florida Department of Health covered Floridians earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level — or $62,600 annually for an individual. Under the new policy, eligibility would be limited to those making no more than 130 percent of the federal poverty level, or $20,345 per year.

The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors estimates that more than 16,000 patients in Florida will lose coverage under the state’s ADAP because of this illegal change in department policy. Florida’s eligibility changes would also eliminate access to biktarvy, a widely used once-daily medication for people living with HIV/AIDS.

Under Florida law, when a state agency seeks to make a major policy change, it must either follow a formal rule-making process under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act or obtain direct legislative authorization.

AHF alleges the Florida Department of Health did neither.

Typically, altering eligibility for a statewide program requires either legislative action or adherence to a multistep rule-making process, including: publishing a Notice of Proposed Rule; providing a statement of estimated regulatory costs; allowing public comment; holding hearings if requested; responding to challenges; and formally adopting the rule. According to AHF, none of these steps occurred.

“Rule-making is not a matter of agency discretion. Each statement that an agency like the Department of Health issues that meets the statutory definition of a rule must be adopted through legally mandated rule-making procedures. Florida has simply not done so here,” said Tom Myers, AHF’s chief of public affairs and general counsel. “The whole point of having to follow procedures and rules is to make sure any decisions made are deliberate, thought through, and minimize harm. Floridians living with HIV and the general public’s health are at stake here and jeopardized by these arbitrary and unlawful DOH rule changes.”

AHF has multiple Ryan White CARE Act contracts in Florida, including four under Part B, which covers ADAP. More than 50 percent of people diagnosed with HIV receive assistance from Ryan White programs annually.

According to an AHF advocacy leader who spoke with the Washington Blade, the move appears to have originated at the state level rather than being driven by the federal government — a claim that has circulated among some Democratic officials.

“As far as we can tell, Congress flat-funded the Ryan White and ADAP programs, and the proposed federal cuts were ignored,” the advocacy leader told the Blade on the condition of anonymity. “None of this appears to be coming from Washington — this was initiated in Florida. What we’re trying to understand is why the state is claiming a $120 million shortfall when the program already receives significant federal funding. That lack of transparency is deeply concerning.”

Florida had the third-highest rate of new HIV infections in the nation in 2022, accounting for 11 percent of new diagnoses nationwide, according to KFF, a nonprofit health policy research organization.

During a press conference on Wednesday, multiple AHF officials commented on the situation, and emphasized the need to use proper methods to change something as important as HIV/AIDS coverage availability in the sunshine state. 

“We are receiving dozens, hundreds of calls from patients who are terrified, who are confused, who are full of anxiety and fear,” said Esteban Wood, director of advocacy, legislative affairs, and community engagement at AHF. “These are working Floridians — 16,000 people — receiving letters saying they have weeks left of medication that keeps them alive and costs upwards of $45,000 a year. Patients are asking us, ‘What are we supposed to do? How are we supposed to survive?’ And right now, we don’t have a good answer.”

“This decision was not done in the correct manner. County health programs, community-based organizations, providers across the state — none of them were consulted,” Wood added. “Today is Jan. 28, and we have just 32 days until these proposed changes take effect. Nearly half of the 36,000 people currently on ADAP could be disenrolled in just over a month.”

“Without this medication, people with HIV get sicker,” Myers said during the conference. “They end up in emergency rooms, they lose time at work, and they’re unable to take care of their families. Treatment adherence is also the best way to prevent new HIV infections — people who are consistently on these medications are non-infectious. If these cuts go through, you will have sicker people, more HIV infections, and ultimately much higher costs for the state.”

“Patients receiving care through Ryan White and ADAP have a 91 percent viral suppression rate, compared to about 60 percent nationally,” the advocacy leader added. “That’s as close to a functional cure as we can get, and it allows people to live healthy lives, work, and contribute to their communities. Blowing a hole in a program this successful puts lives at risk and sets a dangerous precedent. If Florida gets away with this, other states facing budget pressure could follow.”

The lawsuit comes days after the Save HIV Funding campaign pressed Congress to build bipartisan support for critical funding for people living with or vulnerable to HIV. In May of last year, President Donald Trump appeared to walk back his 2019 pledge to end HIV as an epidemic, instead proposing the elimination of HIV prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and housing services in his budget request to Congress.

House appropriators, led by the Republican majority, went further, calling for an additional $2 billion in cuts — including $525 million for medical care and support services for people living with HIV. 

While Senate appropriators ultimately chose to maintain level funding in their version of the spending bills, advocates feared final negotiations could result in steep cuts that would reduce services, increase new HIV infections, and lead to more AIDS-related deaths. The final spending package reflected a best-case outcome, with funding levels largely mirroring the Senate’s proposed FY26 allocations.

“What the state has done in unilaterally announcing these changes is not following its own rules,” Myers added. “There is a required process — rule-making, notice and comment, taking evidence — and none of that happened here. Before you cut 16,000 people off from lifesaving medication, you have to study the harms, ask whether you even have the authority to do it, and explore other solutions. That’s what this lawsuit is about.”

Continue Reading

National

Federal authorities arrest Don Lemon

Former CNN anchor taken into custody two weeks after Minn. church protest

Published

on

Don Lemon (Screenshot via YouTube)

Federal authorities on Thursday arrested former CNN anchor Don Lemon in Los Angeles.

CNN reported authorities arrested Lemon after 11 p.m. PT while in the lobby of a hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif., while he “was leaving for an event.” Lemon’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, in a statement said his client was in Los Angeles to cover the Grammy Awards.

Authorities arrested Lemon less than two weeks after he entered Cities Church in St. Paul, Minn., with a group of protesters who confronted a pastor who works for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (An ICE agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis woman who left behind her wife and three children. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents on Jan. 24 shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old nurse who worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs, in Minneapolis.)

Lemon insists he was simply covering the Cities Church protest that interrupted the service. A federal magistrate last week declined to charge the openly gay journalist in connection with the demonstration.

“Don Lemon was taken into custody by federal agents last night in Los Angeles, where he was covering the Grammy awards,” said Lowell in his statement. “Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done. The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable.”

“Instead of investigating the federal agents who killed two peaceful Minnesota protesters, the Trump Justice Department is devoting its time, attention and resources to this arrest, and that is the real indictment of wrongdoing in this case,” Lowell added. “This unprecedented attack on the First Amendment and transparent attempt to distract attention from the many crises facing this administration will not stand. Don will fight these charges vigorously and thoroughly in court.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi on X confirmed federal agents “at my direction” arrested Lemon and three others — Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy — “in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.”

Fort is also a journalist.

Lemon, who CNN fired in 2023, is expected to appear in court in Los Angeles on Friday.

“Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of a free society; it is the tool by which Americans access the truth and hold power to account. But Donald Trump and Pam Bondi are at war with that freedom — and are threatening the fundamentals of our democracy,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson on Friday in a statement. “Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were doing their jobs as reporters. Arresting them is not law enforcement it is an attack on the Constitution at a moment when truthful reporting on government power has never been more important. These are the actions of a despot, the tactics of a dictator in an authoritarian regime.”

Continue Reading

The White House

Expanded global gag rule to ban US foreign aid to groups that promote ‘gender ideology’

Activists, officials say new regulation will limit access to gender-affirming care

Published

on

President Donald Trump speaks at the 2025 U.N. General Assembly. The Trump-Vance administration has expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid to groups that promote "gender ideology." (Screenshot via YouTube)

The Trump-Vance administration has announced it will expand the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.”

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau in a memo, titled Combating Gender Ideology in Foreign Assistance, the Federal Register published on Jan. 27 notes  “previous administrations … used” U.S. foreign assistance “to fund the denial of the biological reality of sex, promoting a radical ideology that permits men to self-identify as women, indoctrinate children with radical gender ideology, and allow men to gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women.”

“Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being. It also threatens the wellbeing of children by encouraging them to undergo life-altering surgical and chemical interventions that carry serious risks of lifelong harms like infertility,” reads the memo. “The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women and children but, as an attack on truth and human nature, it harms every nation. It is the purpose of this rule to prohibit the use of foreign assistance to support radical gender ideology, including by ending support for international organizations and multilateral organizations that pressure nations to embrace radical gender ideology, or otherwise promote gender ideology.”

President Donald Trump on Jan. 28, 2025, issued an executive order — Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation — that banned federal funding for gender-affirming care for minors.

President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the global gag rule, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services.

Trump reinstated the rule during his first administration. The White House this week expanded the ban to include groups that support gender-affirming care and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

The expanded global gag rule will take effect on Feb. 26.

“None of the funds made available by this act or any other Act may be made available in contravention of Executive Order 14187, relating to Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, or shall be used or transferred to another federal agency, board, or commission to fund any domestic or international non-governmental organization or any other program, organization, or association coordinated or operated by such non-governmental organization that either offers counseling regarding sex change surgeries, promotes sex change surgeries for any reason as an option, conducts or subsidizes sex change surgeries, promotes the use of medications or other substances to halt the onset of puberty or sexual development of minors, or otherwise promotes transgenderism,” wrote Landau in his memo.

Landau wrote the State Department “does not believe taxpayer dollars should support sex-rejecting procedures, directly or indirectly for individuals of any age.”

“A person’s body (including its organs, organ systems, and processes natural to human development like puberty) are either healthy or unhealthy based on whether they are operating according to their biological functions,” reads his memo. “Organs or organ systems do not become unhealthy simply because the individual may experience psychological distress relating to his or her sexed body. For this reason, removing a patient’s breasts as a treatment for breast cancer is fundamentally different from performing the same procedure solely to alleviate mental distress arising from gender dysphoria. The former procedure aims to restore bodily health and to remove cancerous tissue. In contrast, removing healthy breasts or interrupting normally occurring puberty to ‘affirm’ one’s ‘gender identity’ involves the intentional destruction of healthy biological functions.”

Landau added there “is also lack of clarity about what sex-rejecting procedures’ fundamental aims are, unlike the broad consensus about the purpose of medical treatments for conditions like appendicitis, diabetes, or severe depression.”

“These procedures lack strong evidentiary foundations, and our understanding of long-term health impacts is limited and needs to be better understood,” he wrote. “Imposing restrictions, as this rule proposes, on sex-rejecting procedures for individuals of any age is necessary for the (State) Department to protect taxpayer dollars from abuse in support of radical ideological aims.”

Landau added the State Department “has determined that applying this rule to non-military foreign assistance broadly is necessary to ensure that its foreign assistance programs do not support foreign NGOs and IOs (international organizations) that promote gender ideology, and U.S. NGOs that provide sex-rejecting procedures, and to ensure the integrity of programs such as humanitarian assistance, gender-related programs, and more, do not promote gender ideology.”

“This rule will also allow for more foreign assistance funds to support organizations that promote biological truth in their foreign assistance programs and help the (State) Department to establish new partnerships,” he wrote.

The full memo can be found here.

Council for Global Equality Senior Policy Fellow Beirne Roose-Snyder on Wednesday said the expansion of the so-called global gag rule will “absolutely impact HIV services where we know we need to target services, to that there are non-stigmatizing, safe spaces for people to talk through all of their medical needs, and being trans is really important to be able to disclose to your health care provider so that you can get ARVs, so you can get PrEP in the right ways.” Roose-Snyder added the expanded ban will also impact access to gender-affirming health care, food assistance programs and humanitarian aid around the world.

“This rule is not about gender-affirming care at all,” she said during a virtual press conference the Universal Access Project organized.

“It is about really saying that if you want to take U.S. funds —   and it’s certainly not about gender-affirming care for children — it is if you want to take U.S. funds, you cannot have programs or materials or offer counseling or referrals to people who may be struggling with their gender identity,” added Roose-Snyder. “You cannot advocate to maintain your country’s own nondiscrimination laws around gender identity. It is the first place that we’ve ever seen the U.S. government define gender-affirming care, except they call it something a lot different than that.”

The Congressional Equality Caucus, the Democratic Women’s Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian and Pacific American Caucus, and the Congressional Black Caucus also condemned the global gag rule’s expansion.

“We strongly condemn this weaponization of U.S. foreign assistance to undermine human rights and global health,” said the caucuses in a statement. “We will not rest until we ensure that our foreign aid dollars can never be used as a weapon against women, people of color, or LGBTQI+ people ever again.”

Continue Reading

Popular