The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to pass the annual military appropriations bill with a rider that would prohibit the children of U.S. service members from accessing gender-affirming health treatments under the Pentagon’s TRICARE program.

After clearing the floor vote with a comfortable margin of 281-140, the bill’s future is uncertain provided that Senate Democrats are unlikely to move on a National Defense Authorization Act that contains a discriminatory, partisan policy advanced by House Republican leadership and President Joe Biden promising to veto any legislation that targets transgender rights.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reportedly insisted on amending the NDAA to add the anti-trans policy after a final version of the bill had already been negotiated by the chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees over the weekend, earning a sharply worded rebuke from the later committee’s top Democrat, U.S. Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.).

“Blanketly denying health care to people who clearly need it, just because of a biased notion against transgender people, is wrong,” the congressman wrote. Johnson is “pandering to the most extreme elements o this party to ensure that he retains his speakership,” he said, and in the process the GOP leader has upended “what had been a bipartisan process.”

Just after the NDAA was passed, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson shared a statement with the Washington Blade.

“Military servicemembers and their families wake up every day and sacrifice more than most of us will ever understand. Those families protect our right to live freely and with dignity — they deserve that same right, and the freedom to access the care their children need.

Today, politicians in the House betrayed our nation’s promise to those who serve. Not since the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ passed almost 30 years ago has an anti-LGBTQ+ policy been enshrined into federal law.

For the thousands of families impacted, this isn’t about politics. It’s about young people who deserve our support. Those who have courageously stepped up to serve this country should never have their families used as bargaining chips.

Now, the Senate has the opportunity to reject this and any bill that includes these dangerous anti-trans, anti-military family provisions, and remember the fundamental promise of our democracy: That everyone deserves dignity, respect, and the right to healthcare.”

Thirty-three current and former employees of an LGBTQ news website in the U.K. have accused its publisher and husband of sexual harassment and misconduct.

The BBC on Tuesday reported “several” former PinkNews staffers saw Chief Operating Officer Anthony James “kissing and touching a junior colleague who they saw appeared too drunk to consent” outside of a London pub after a company event.

James’s husband, Benjamin Cohen, founded PinkNews in 2005.

The BBC reported the current and former staffers with whom it spoke said “a culture of heavy drinking led to instances when” Cohen and James “behaved inappropriately towards younger male employees.”

Stephan Kyriacou, who worked at PinkNews from 2019-2021, told the BBC that Cohen slapped him on his butt at a Christmas party.

“I just shut down for a minute. I didn’t know what to say. I was in shock,” Kyriacou told the BBC. “I remember turning to my friends and saying, ‘What the hell just happened?'”

The BBC spoke with PinkNews staffers who said “they were shouted at and belittled by Mr. Cohen, and that there was a ‘toxic’ culture at the company. Others said they saw “misogynistic” behavior.

Neither Cohen, nor James spoke with the BBC. The Washington Blade has reached out to PinkNews for comment.

Media reports indicate Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS (National Health Service) Foundation suspended James, who is a doctor, from his job after the allegations against him and Cohen became public.

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that SB 99, a 2023 Montana law that bans life-saving gender-affirming care for transgender youth, is unconstitutional under the Montana Constitution’s privacy clause, which prohibits government intrusion into private medical decisions. This ruling will allow Montana communities and families to continue accessing medical treatments for transgender minors with gender dysphoria, the ACLU announced in a statement.

 “I will never understand why my representatives are working to strip me of my rights and the rights of other transgender kids,” Phoebe Cross, a 17-year-old transgender boy told the ACLU. “Just living as a trans teenager is difficult enough, the last thing me and my peers need is to have our rights taken away.”

“Fortunately, the Montana Supreme Court understands the danger of the state interfering with critical healthcare,” said Lambda Legal Counsel Kell Olson. “Because Montana’s constitutional protections are even stronger than their federal counterparts, transgender youth in Montana can sleep easier tonight knowing that they can continue to thrive for now, without this looming threat hanging over their heads.”

“We are so thankful for this opportunity to protect trans youth, their families, and their medical providers from this baseless and dangerous law,” said Malita Picasso, Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Every day that transgender Montanans are able to access this care is a critical and life-saving victory. We will never stop fighting until every transgender person has the care and support they need to thrive.”

“Today’s ruling permits our clients to breathe a sigh of relief,” said Akilah Deernose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Montana. “But the fight for trans rights is far from over. We will continue to push for the right of all Montanans, including those who are transgender, to be themselves and live their lives free of intrusive government interference.”

The Court found that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their privacy claim, holding: “The Legislature did not make gender-affirming care unlawful. Nor did it make the treatments unlawful for all minors. Instead, it restricted a broad swath of medical treatments only when sought for a particular purpose. The record indicates that Provider Plaintiffs, or other medical professionals providing gender-affirming care, are recognized as competent in the medical community to provide that care.[T]he law puts governmental regulation in the mix of an individual’s fundamental right ‘to make medical judgments affecting her or his bodily integrity and health in partnership with a chosen health care provider.’

Two justices filed a concurrence arguing that the Court should also clarify that discrimination on the basis of transgender status is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Montana’s Equal Protection Clause, the ACLU reported.