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 ā€” even though he’s running in a overwhelmingly “blue” state ā€” 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 ā€“ like tapping into Providenceā€™s rainy-day fund ā€“ without councilorsā€™ 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,Ā Anthony Sionni, an unpaid campaign staffer for the Gemma campaign, compared the openly gay lawmaker on Twitter toĀ convicted child molester and former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, saying there’s “nothing wrong with smearing a liar, thief, crook, Sandusky copy cat.”Ā The state Democratic Party had called forĀ GemmaĀ 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.

ā€œWeā€™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.ā€

The Victory Fund is citing the websiteĀ Electful.com, which keeps track of candidates’ positions on issues, as the source for Doherty’s support for DOMA.Ā 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.Ā McCaffrey had a narrow win against Pisaturo, taking 53 percent of the vote compared to Pisaturo’s 47 percent.

McCaffrey, chairs Rhode Islandā€™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, McCaffreyĀ said heĀ ā€œbelieves that marriage is between a man and a woman.ā€

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 toĀ 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 Islandā€™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 asĀ $15,000 from Esmond Harmsworth,Ā 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

U.S. Supreme Court

US Supreme Court rules Idaho to enforce gender care ban

House Bill 71 signed in 2023

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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 Idahoā€™s 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. 

Mondayā€™s 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.

Idaho Attorney General RaĆŗl Labrador
Idaho Attorney General RaĆŗl Labrador gives a speech at the Idaho GOP election night watch party at the Grove Hotel in Boise, Idaho, on Nov. 8, 2022. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun)

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 ā€œdoes not touch upon the constitutionalityā€ of HB 71. The groups called Mondayā€™s ruling an ā€œawful resultā€ for trans Idaho youth and their families.

ā€œTodayā€™s 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. ā€œNonetheless, todayā€™s 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 stateā€™s legal stance. 

ā€œThose suffering from gender dysphoria deserve love, support and medical care rooted in biological reality,ā€ Labrador said. ā€œDenying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids. No one has the right to harm children, and Iā€™m grateful that we, as the state, have the power ā€” and duty ā€” to protect them.ā€

Recap of Idahoā€™s HB 71, and what led to SCOTUS opinion

Mondayā€™s 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 Amendmentā€™s 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 courtā€™s 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 Circuitā€™s denial, the Idaho Attorney Generalā€™s Office in February sent an emergency motion to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Idaho Press reported. Mondayā€™s U.S. Supreme Court decision agrees with the stateā€™s request to enforce its ban on trans health care for minors, except for the two plaintiffs.

******************************************************************************************

Mia Maldonado

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 Stateā€™s newest nonprofit news organization delivering accountability journalism on state politics, health care, tax policy, the environment and more.

Weā€™re part of States Newsroom, the nationā€™s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Continue Reading

Kansas

Kansas governor vetoes ban on health care for transgender youth

Republican lawmakers have vowed to override veto

Published

on

Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed two abortion bills and a measure criminalizing transgender health care for minors. House and Senate Republican leaders responded with promises to seek veto overrides when the full Legislature returned to Topeka on April 26. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

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 didnā€™t 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 couldnā€™t be relied on to defend themselves in court.

ā€œTo be clear, this legislation tramples parental rights,ā€ Kelly said. ā€œThe 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.

ā€œThe governor has made it clear yet again that the radical left controls her veto pen,ā€ Masterson said. ā€œThis 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.

ā€œEvery 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. ā€œThis 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.

ā€œAdditionally, 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. ā€œThis 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 Kellyā€™s veto of the bill was a step too far to the left.

ā€œItā€™s a sad day for Kansas when the governorā€™s uncompromising support for abortion wonā€™t 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.

ā€œPlanned 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 ā€œCoercion 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 ā€œinvasive 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.

ā€œThere 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. ā€œThere 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 donā€™t 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 ā€œinterrogate 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 ā€œirrational fears of offending the for-profit pro-abortion lobby.ā€

******************************************************************************************

Tim Carpenter

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 nationā€™s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization, with reporting from every capital.

Continue Reading

Colorado

Five transgender, nonbinary ICE detainees allege mistreatment at Colo. detention center

Advocacy groups filed complaint with federal officials on April 9

Published

on

(Photo courtesy of GEO Group)

Five transgender and nonbinary people who are in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at a privately-run detention center in Colorado say they continue to suffer mistreatment.

The Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, the National Immigration Project and the American Immigration Council on April 9 filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Offices for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Immigration Detention Ombudsman and Inspector General and ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility on behalf of the detainees at the Aurora Contract Detention Facility near Denver.

Charlotte, one of the five complainants, says she spends up to 23 hours a day in her room. 

She says in the complaint that a psychiatrist has prescribed her medications for anxiety and depression, but “is in the dark about her actual diagnoses because they were not explained to her.” Myriah and Elsa allege they do not have regular access to hormones and other related health care.

Omar, who identifies as trans and nonbinary, in the complaint alleges they would “start hormone replacement therapy if they could be assured that they would not be placed in solitary confinement.” Other detainees in the complaint allege staff have also threatened to place them in isolation.

“They have been told repeatedly that, if they started therapy, they would be placed in ‘protective custody’ (solitary confinement) because the Aurora facility has no nonbinary or men’s transgender housing unit,” reads the complaint. “This is so, despite other trans men having been detained in Aurora in the past, so Omar is very likely receiving misinformation that is preventing them from accessing the treatment they require.”

Omar further alleges staffers told them upon their arrival that “they had to have a ‘boy part’ (meaning a penis) to be assigned to” the housing unit in which other trans people live. Other complainants say staff have also subjected them to degrading comments and other mistreatment because of their gender identity. 

“Victoria, Charlotte and Myriah are all apprehensive about a specific female guard who is assigned to the housing unit for transgender women at Aurora,” reads the complaint. “Victoria has experienced this guard peering at her through the glass on the door of her form. Charlotte, Myriah and the other women in her dorm experienced the same guard making fun of them after they complained that she had confiscated all of their personal hygiene products, like their toothbrushes and toothpaste, and replaced them with menstrual pads and tampons, which she knows they do not need.”

“She said something to them like, ‘If you were real women, you would need these things,'” reads the complaint. “The same guard told them that they had to ask her for their personal hygiene products when they wanted to use them, stripping them of their most basic agency.”

Victoria, who has been in ICE custody for more than two years, also says she does not have regular access to hormones. Victoria further claims poor food, lack of access to exercise and stress and anxiety because of her prolonged detention has caused has made her health deteriorate.

The GEO Group, a Florida-based company, operates the Aurora Contract Detention Facility.

Advocates for years have complained about the conditions for trans and nonbinary people in ICE custody and have demanded the agency release all of them.

Roxsana HernƔndez, a trans Honduran woman with HIV, on May 25, 2018, died in ICE custody in New Mexico. Her family in 2020 sued the federal government and the five private companies who were responsible for her care.

Johana “Joa” Medina Leon, a trans Salvadoran woman, on June 1, 2019, passed away at a Texas hospital four days after her release from ICE custody. Kelly GonzĆ”lez Aguilar, a trans Honduran woman, had been in ICE custody for more than two years until her release from the Aurora Contract Detention Center on July 14, 2020.

ICE spokesperson Steve Kotecki on Friday told the Blade there were 10 “self-identified transgender detainees” at the Aurora Contract Detention Center on April 11. The facility’s “transgendered units” can accommodate up to 87 trans detainees. 

A 2015 memorandum then-ICE Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Thomas Homan signed requires personnel to allow trans detainees to identify themselves based on their gender identity on data forms. The directive, among other things, also contains guidelines for a ā€œrespectful, safe and secure environmentā€ for trans detainees and requires detention facilities to provide them with access to hormone therapy and other trans-specific health care.

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is committed to ensuring that all those in its custody reside in safe, secure and humane environments,” said Kotecki. “ICE regularly reviews each case involving self-identified transgender noncitizens and determines on a case-by-case basis whether detention is warranted.”

The complaint, however, states this memo does not go far enough to protect trans and nonbinary detainees.

“ICE’s 2015 guidance has some significant flaws,” it reads. “It fails to provide meaningful remedies for policy violations. It does not acknowledge the challenges that nonbinary people face when imprisoned by ICE and the lack of such guidance explains why the needs of nonbinary people are largely misunderstood and unmet.”

“Further, the language used to describe people who are TNB is not inclusive and does not reflect terminology adopted by the community it is meant to describe,” adds the complaint. “Although this list is not exhaustive, it addresses some of the primary concerns voiced by the complaints.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular