Connect with us

National

HRC scorecard shows drop in support for LGBT rights in Congress

Support for same-sex marriage measured for first time

Published

on

John Boehner, Speaker of the House, GOP, Republican, gay news, Washington Blade
Congress, gay news, Washington Blade

HRC’s troubling statistics show Congress is less supportive of LGBT issues than in 2010. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Support for LGBT equality declined significantly in Congress during the past two years compared to the previous two-year period, according to a Congressional Scorecard for the 112th Congress released on Thursday by the Human Rights Campaign.

The scorecard, which HRC has compiled for each two-year session of Congress since 1989, shows that the average score for members of the House of Representatives on LGBT issues dropped from 50.8 percent in the 111th Congress to 40 percent in the current Congress.

For the Senate, the HRC Scorecard shows a drop in support from 57.3 percent in the 111th Congress to 35 percent in the current 112th Congress.

“While we continue to make advancements towards equality in Washington, the 112th Congress has more anti-equality members set on halting our progress,” said HRC President Chad Griffin.

“Still, we continued pushing the envelope and made history with the first ever hearing and Senate Judiciary Committee approval of the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation repealing the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act,” Griffin said.

The HRC Scorecard evaluates all 435 House members and 100 senators based on a rating scale of 0 to 100 on a wide range of LGBT issues, including members’ co-sponsorship of pro-LGBT bills and their votes on bills or amendments deemed LGBT supportive or hostile to LGBT rights.

Similar to its Scorecard ratings of past years, the latest HRC Scorecard shows a breakdown of its ratings along party lines, with a majority of Democrats receiving the highest scores and most Republicans receiving low scores.

In the House, 115 members– all Democrats — received a perfect score of 100. Of the House members that received a “0” score, 211 are Republicans and four are Democrats.

In the Senate, 22 members received a 100 percent score – all Democrats. Of the Senators receiving a “0” score, 14 are Republicans and none are Democrats.

In a statement released Thursday, HRC said the Scorecard for the 112th Congress for the first time asked members of Congress whether they support the legal recognition of civil marriage for same-sex couples.

According to the Scorecard, 144 House members and 26 senators said they support civil marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. Of the House members expressing support for marriage equality, 143 are Democrats. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) was the only Republican House member to express support for same-sex marriage equality.

Of the 26 senators stating they support same-sex marriage equality, all are Democrats.

“While marriage-related issues can arise in Congress, the baseline question about where a senator or representative stands on this issue is of great importance to all fair-minded Americans,” HRC said in its statement accompanying the Scorecard.

However, HRC spokesperson Paul Guequierre told the Washington Blade that the answers lawmakers gave to the question on whether they support legalizing same-sex civil marriage was not included in the calculation of the scores assigned to House and Senate members.

Among House members representing D.C. area districts, Congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) received a score of 100.

Reps. Donna Edwards and Chris Van Hollen, all Democrats from Maryland, each received a 100 rating and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) received a 95 rating. Maryland Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin, both Democrats, each received a 100 rating.

In Virginia, Democratic U.S. Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb each received a 76 rating. Among Virginia’s D.C. area House members, Democrats Jim Moran and Gerald Connolly received a 100. Republican Frank Wolf received a rating of 15.

“LGBT equality was prominent in the 112th Congress, giving us great cause for optimism despite the fact that opponents of equality gained seats halting our progress,” said Allison Herwitt, HRC’s legislative director. “Yet while the American people move forward on these issues, the majority of Congress – particularly the House –continues to be out of touch.”

Among the legislation and votes HRC used to rate Senators and House members on its Congressional Scorecard were the following:

  • The Senate votes to confirm openly gay U.S. District Court judge nominee J. Paul Oetken and lesbian U.S. District Court judge nominee Alison Nathan.
  • Co-sponsorship of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which would ban private sector employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
  • Co-sponsorship of the Respect for Marriage Act, which calls for repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA that bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
  • Co-sponsorship of the Uniting American Families Act, which would provide equal immigration rights to foreign born same-sex partners of American citizens.
  • Co-sponsorship of the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligation Act, which would provide spousal health care and other benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
  • Senate vote on the Hutchinson Amendment to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which eliminated provisions from the bill that would have given domestic violence related protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced

One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.

NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.

John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.

The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.

Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.

Continue Reading

National

Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information

Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.

 “These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.

It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”

 The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question. 

A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit. 

While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.

 Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.   

“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.

 “Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says. 

Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”

 Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”

Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.

 “As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from  the Washington Blade. 

“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said. 

The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”

It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”

The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society. 

The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections

Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Published

on

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Screen capture: YouTube)

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.

While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”

“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.

The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.

Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.

Continue Reading

Popular