Ensuring access to gender reassignment surgery for transgender inmates has emerged as a hot topic in the transgender rights movement amid recent developments in court cases filed on behalf of inmates.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said ensuring prisoners have access to gender reassignment surgery is “the same issue” as making sure private insurance pays for the procedure, which many providers refuse to cover.
“The priority is to get society to understand that this is medically necessary care and as such, it is illegal for employers not to have plans covering it because you’re discriminating against certain employees,” Keisling said. “It’s just as illegal, except it’s unconstitutional, to deny it to prisoners.”
Major medical and psychological groups, including the American Medical Association, have endorsed gender reassignment surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it has declined to hear a lawsuit filed on behalf of Massachusetts transgender inmate Michelle Kosilek, who was prescribed gender reassignment surgery in prison but then denied the procedure by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. As a result of being denied treatment, Kosilek has self-mutilated and has twice attempted suicide.
Kosilek has been serving a life sentence since the early 1990s, when she was convicted of murdering her spouse, Cheryl McCaul, by strangulation. Kosilek killed her spouse following an altercation after McCaul discovered Kosilek wearing women’s clothes.
The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals in an “en banc” ruling affirmed the state’s ability to deny her the procedure. Now that the Supreme Court has declined to hear the lawsuit, the case is at an apparent dead end and the appeals court ruling will be the final word on the matter.
Keisling said the Supreme Court had the opportunity to put the issue to rest by taking up the case.
“It’s hard to know what kind of reasoning they have for not granting cert,” Keisling said. “Sometimes it’s they don’t think it’s ripe, sometimes they don’t want to handle it, sometimes they don’t have enough time. We have no reason to know what it is, but for now the decision in the First Circuit stands.”
On the same day the Supreme Court indicated it wouldn’t hear the case, California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed a request before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to halt gender reassignment surgery for Michelle-Lael Norsworthy, a transgender inmate at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, Calif., as her case proceeds on appeal.
Norsworthy, who’s serving time for second-degree murder, was denied the procedure by the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, but granted gender reassignment surgery as a result of an order from U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar.
In both these cases, attorneys representing the transgender inmates say denying them the procedure constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Kellan Baker, a senior fellow at the LGBT project for the Center for American Progress, said ensuring access to gender reassignment surgery in prison is “a major priority” for transgender advocates across the country.
“The denial of medically necessary care to transgender people who are incarcerated is harmful on the individual level and also undermines the very real needs and basic humanity of transgender people everywhere,” Baker said. “Respecting a person’s identity should never come with a qualification.”
Ezra Young, an attorney at the New York-based law office of Jillian T. Weiss, has handled pro bono insurance appeals for transgender people for seven years and said there’s no reason to deny gender reassignment surgery for transgender people in prison or otherwise.
“I do not see a difference between seeking care for our incarcerated brothers and sisters and seeking care for folks through private and public insurance,” Young said. “Moreover, I do not believe that the promise of health equality for all trans folks is diminished by simultaneously pursuing coverage for incarcerated persons and those on the outside. In both cases, we have wide swaths of our community who are unable to access quality, safe, medically necessary care for no reason other than institutional, systemic, and deep-seated personal biases against trans people.”
Young sought to allay potential concerns among transgender people themselves that incarcerated individuals like Kosilek can obtain gender reassignment surgery at the taxpayer’s expense, but for the population, the procedure remains out of reach.
“I understand it is frustrating that a convicted murderer had a chance at getting the same medically necessary care that you need but currently can’t get in many places because of legal impediments and anti-trans bias,” Young said. “However, denying Kosilek and those like her access to medically necessary care will not make your journey any easier, and most definitely will not help us change the structural and institutional barriers that prevent all trans folks from living free from bias.”
Transgender people in prison who seek gender reassignment surgery must obtain it at taxpayer’s expense because incarcerated individuals don’t have access to personal finances. Estimates of the initial cost of the procedure for male-to-female transgender people range from $7,000 to $24,000, while estimates of the cost for female-to-male transgender people exceed $50,000.
It should be noted these expenses pale in comparison to the cost incurred by the state to fight granting the procedure to inmates through the appeals process.
Babs Siperstein, a New Jersey-based transgender advocate who’s a member of the Democratic National Committee, said she’s “come around” to believe transgender people in prison should have access to the procedure.
“As a small business owner, I pay medical insurance for myself, for my employees,” Siperstein said. “I look at people who are incarcerated and, say, ‘Hey! Why should they get more than me?’ But then I look at it [and say], ‘Hey! This is basic medical care. If we have to rely on physicians for what’s basic and necessary medical care, why shouldn’t we do it for everyone?”
The sense that granting prisoners access to gender reassignment surgery should be a priority is pervasive among transgender advocates. One group that has yet to weigh in on the issue is Log Cabin Republicans. Asked by the Blade about the position of the organization, Gregory Angelo, Log Cabin’s executive director, replied, “LCR has not taken a position on this issue at the present time.”
High-profile Dems oppose procedure for inmates
Now that many high-profile Democrats, such as President Obama, have “evolved” to support the once highly contentious idea of same-sex marriage, transgender rights issues have begun to command more attention. But that doesn’t necessarily mean otherwise progressive Democrats support gender reassignment surgery for inmates.
When running for U.S. Senate in 2012, progressive champion Elizabeth Warren was asked during a radio interview about a lower court ruling granting Kosilek gender reassignment surgery and she replied, “I have to say, I don’t think it’s a good use of taxpayer dollars.” Her Senate office hasn’t responded to multiple requests from the Washington Blade over the course of this year on whether her views have since changed.
Meanwhile, Harris, who’s considered a champion of LGBT rights in California, has elected to appeal on behalf of her state a court order granting gender reassignment surgery for a transgender inmate. The attorney general takes this action as she pursues the Democratic nomination to succeed Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in the U.S. Senate.
Siperstein said she’s “extremely disappointed” Harris has sought to appeal this decision as she continues to seek public office and questioned the candidate’s commitment to transgender rights.
“I would think that any political candidate, or any public servant, that would fight to prevent basic and necessary medical treatment for any person would be incompetent to serve,” Siperstein said. “How can you trust any public servant, any elected official, who fights to prevent basic and necessary medical service for any person? Who’s next?”
The attorney general’s office has insisted Harris is appealing the order on behalf of a decision made by other state officials, but her obligations as California’s top attorney haven’t stopped her before from seeking alternative means to protect LGBT rights. Harris refused to defend Prop 8 before the Supreme Court, which resulted in a decision by the court letting a lower court decision stand restoring marriage equality to the state.
More recently, Harris requested a court order to allow her to refuse to certify a ballot measure that would make gay sex a crime punishable by death, even though attorneys general in California are required to provide an official title and summary for proposed initiatives.
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, said Harris’ decision to defend withholding gender reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate is her own choice.
“Even where the decision is made to defend an unconstitutional practice, there’s nothing that dictates the tactics of that defense, particularly once a court has found there are likely ongoing constitutional violations,” Davidson said. “The choice to appeal a preliminary court order and to seek to delay its implementation is just that — a choice. It’s also a very unfortunate one, given that what is at stake here is potentially life-saving treatment that is widely recognized as medically necessary for some people suffering from gender dysphoria.”
Amid continued opposition from public officials to granting gender reassignment surgery to transgender inmates, Keisling said more education on the issue is necessary.
“We haven’t made this one clear yet, but the principles are pretty rock solid here,” Keisling said. “It is illegal to deny prisoners health care. If a prisoner breaks their leg, you have to set it, if they get cancer, you have to treat it, and it is almost unanimously agreed upon by modern medicine that the medical treatments we’re talking about are medically necessary. So, it’s obvious that they don’t think Michelle Kosilek is a particularly sympathetic character, or that Chelsea Manning is a particularly sympathetic character, but that’s not about whether it’s right or not.”
On the similar legal track as efforts to ensure transgender inmates have access to gender reassignment surgery is litigation seeking hormone treatment for trans people who are incarcerated.
Following a lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of Ashley Diamond, a transgender inmate, the Georgia Department of Correction announced a new policy to diagnose and treat inmates with the condition. The U.S. Justice Department intervened in the case, filing a brief stating the Eighth Amendment mandates individualized assessment and care for gender dysphoria.
A higher-profile case is that of Chelsea Manning, who’s serving a 35-year sentence in military prison for leaking thousands of pages of top secret documents while serving in the U.S. Army. Following a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Fort Leavenworth in Kansas elected to provide Manning hormone treatment during her incarceration — an apparent first for military prison in the United States.
Although legal challenges for inmates seeking gender reassignment surgery remain difficult and, in at least one case, has reached a dead end, Keisling said she envisions victory at some point as a result of one lawsuit or another.
“The LGBT movement has some of the best legal minds in the country, and they’re going to keep bringing these suits and they’re going to win, and people will or won’t be ashamed of themselves later,” Keisling said. “But this is about a pretty straightforward thing, this is just settled law, you can’t withhold medical treatment from prisoners no matter what they did whether you were a shoplifter, or smoked a joint, or murder somebody.”
Honoring the legacy of New Orleans’ 1973 UpStairs Lounge fire
Why the arson attack that killed 32 gay men still resonates 50 years later
On June 23 of last year, I held the microphone as a gay man in the New Orleans City Council Chamber and related a lost piece of queer history to the seven council members. I told this story to disabuse all New Orleanians of the notion that silence and accommodation, in the face of institutional and official failures, are a path to healing.
The story I related to them began on a typical Sunday night at a second-story bar on the fringe of New Orleans’ French Quarter in 1973, where working-class men would gather around a white baby grand piano and belt out the lyrics to a song that was the anthem of their hidden community, “United We Stand” by the Brotherhood of Man.
“United we stand,” the men would sing together, “divided we fall” — the words epitomizing the ethos of their beloved UpStairs Lounge bar, an egalitarian free space that served as a forerunner to today’s queer safe havens.
Around that piano in the 1970s Deep South, gays and lesbians, white and Black queens, Christians and non-Christians, and even early gender minorities could cast aside the racism, sexism, and homophobia of the times to find acceptance and companionship for a moment.
For regulars, the UpStairs Lounge was a miracle, a small pocket of acceptance in a broader world where their very identities were illegal.
On the Sunday night of June 24, 1973, their voices were silenced in a murderous act of arson that claimed 32 lives and still stands as the deadliest fire in New Orleans history — and the worst mass killing of gays in 20th century America.
As 13 fire companies struggled to douse the inferno, police refused to question the chief suspect, even though gay witnesses identified and brought the soot-covered man to officers idly standing by. This suspect, an internally conflicted gay-for-pay sex worker named Rodger Dale Nunez, had been ejected from the UpStairs Lounge screaming the word “burn” minutes before, but New Orleans police rebuffed the testimony of fire survivors on the street and allowed Nunez to disappear.
As the fire raged, police denigrated the deceased to reporters on the street: “Some thieves hung out there, and you know this was a queer bar.”
For days afterward, the carnage met with official silence. With no local gay political leaders willing to step forward, national Gay Liberation-era figures like Rev. Troy Perry of the Metropolitan Community Church flew in to “help our bereaved brothers and sisters” — and shatter officialdom’s code of silence.
Perry broke local taboos by holding a press conference as an openly gay man. “It’s high time that you people, in New Orleans, Louisiana, got the message and joined the rest of the Union,” Perry said.
Two days later, on June 26, 1973, as families hesitated to step forward to identify their kin in the morgue, UpStairs Lounge owner Phil Esteve stood in his badly charred bar, the air still foul with death. He rebuffed attempts by Perry to turn the fire into a call for visibility and progress for homosexuals.
“This fire had very little to do with the gay movement or with anything gay,” Esteve told a reporter from The Philadelphia Inquirer. “I do not want my bar or this tragedy to be used to further any of their causes.”
Conspicuously, no photos of Esteve appeared in coverage of the UpStairs Lounge fire or its aftermath — and the bar owner also remained silent as he witnessed police looting the ashes of his business.
“Phil said the cash register, juke box, cigarette machine and some wallets had money removed,” recounted Esteve’s friend Bob McAnear, a former U.S. Customs officer. “Phil wouldn’t report it because, if he did, police would never allow him to operate a bar in New Orleans again.”
The next day, gay bar owners, incensed at declining gay bar traffic amid an atmosphere of anxiety, confronted Perry at a clandestine meeting. “How dare you hold your damn news conferences!” one business owner shouted.
Ignoring calls for gay self-censorship, Perry held a 250-person memorial for the fire victims the following Sunday, July 1, culminating in mourners defiantly marching out the front door of a French Quarter church into waiting news cameras. “Reverend Troy Perry awoke several sleeping giants, me being one of them,” recalled Charlene Schneider, a lesbian activist who walked out of that front door with Perry.
Esteve doubted the UpStairs Lounge story’s capacity to rouse gay political fervor. As the coroner buried four of his former patrons anonymously on the edge of town, Esteve quietly collected at least $25,000 in fire insurance proceeds. Less than a year later, he used the money to open another gay bar called the Post Office, where patrons of the UpStairs Lounge — some with visible burn scars — gathered but were discouraged from singing “United We Stand.”
New Orleans cops neglected to question the chief arson suspect and closed the investigation without answers in late August 1973. Gay elites in the city’s power structure began gaslighting the mourners who marched with Perry into the news cameras, casting suspicion on their memories and re-characterizing their moment of liberation as a stunt.
When a local gay journalist asked in April 1977, “Where are the gay activists in New Orleans?,” Esteve responded that there were none, because none were needed. “We don’t feel we’re discriminated against,” Esteve said. “New Orleans gays are different from gays anywhere else… Perhaps there is some correlation between the amount of gay activism in other cities and the degree of police harassment.”
An attitude of nihilism and disavowal descended upon the memory of the UpStairs Lounge victims, goaded by Esteve and fellow gay entrepreneurs who earned their keep via gay patrons drowning their sorrows each night instead of protesting the injustices that kept them drinking.
Into the 1980s, the story of the UpStairs Lounge all but vanished from conversation — with the exception of a few sanctuaries for gay political debate such as the local lesbian bar Charlene’s, run by the activist Charlene Schneider.
By 1988, the 15th anniversary of the fire, the UpStairs Lounge narrative comprised little more than a call for better fire codes and indoor sprinklers. UpStairs Lounge survivor Stewart Butler summed it up: “A tragedy that, as far as I know, no good came of.”
Finally, in 1991, at Stewart Butler and Charlene Schneider’s nudging, the UpStairs Lounge story became aligned with the crusade of liberated gays and lesbians seeking equal rights in Louisiana. The halls of power responded with intermittent progress. The New Orleans City Council, horrified by the story but not yet ready to take its look in the mirror, enacted an anti-discrimination ordinance protecting gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and public accommodations that Dec. 12 — more than 18 years after the fire.
“I believe the fire was the catalyst for the anger to bring us all to the table,” Schneider told The Times-Picayune, a tacit rebuke to Esteve’s strategy of silent accommodation. Even Esteve seemed to change his stance with time, granting a full interview with the first UpStairs Lounge scholar Johnny Townsend sometime around 1989.
Most of the figures in this historic tale are now deceased. What’s left is an enduring story that refused to go gently. The story now echoes around the world — a musical about the UpStairs Lounge fire recently played in Tokyo, translating the gay underworld of the 1973 French Quarter for Japanese audiences.
When I finished my presentation to the City Council last June, I looked up to see the seven council members in tears. Unanimously, they approved a resolution acknowledging the historic failures of city leaders in the wake of the UpStairs Lounge fire.
Council members personally apologized to UpStairs Lounge families and survivors seated in the chamber in a symbolic act that, though it could not bring back those who died, still mattered greatly to those whose pain had been denied, leaving them to grieve alone. At long last, official silence and indifference gave way to heartfelt words of healing.
The way Americans remember the past is an active, ongoing process. Our collective memory is malleable, but it matters because it speaks volumes about our maturity as a people, how we acknowledge the past’s influence in our lives, and how it shapes the examples we set for our youth. Do we grapple with difficult truths, or do we duck accountability by defaulting to nostalgia and bluster? Or worse, do we simply ignore the past until it fades into a black hole of ignorance and indifference?
I believe that a factual retelling of the UpStairs Lounge tragedy — and how, 50 years onward, it became known internationally — resonates beyond our current divides. It reminds queer and non-queer Americans that ignoring the past holds back the present, and that silence is no cure for what ails a participatory nation.
Silence isolates. Silence gaslights and shrouds. It preserves the power structures that scapegoat the disempowered.
Solidarity, on the other hand, unites. Solidarity illuminates a path forward together. Above all, solidarity transforms the downtrodden into a resounding chorus of citizens — in the spirit of voices who once gathered ‘round a white baby grand piano and sang, joyfully and loudly, “United We Stand.”
Robert W. Fieseler is a New Orleans-based journalist and the author of “Tinderbox: the Untold Story of the Up Stairs Lounge Fire and the Rise of Gay Liberation.”
New Supreme Court term includes critical LGBTQ case with ‘terrifying’ consequences
Business owner seeks to decline services for same-sex weddings
The U.S. Supreme Court, after a decision overturning Roe v. Wade that still leaves many reeling, is starting a new term with justices slated to revisit the issue of LGBTQ rights.
In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court will return to the issue of whether or not providers of custom-made goods can refuse service to LGBTQ customers on First Amendment grounds. In this case, the business owner is Lorie Smith, a website designer in Colorado who wants to opt out of providing her graphic design services for same-sex weddings despite the civil rights law in her state.
Jennifer Pizer, acting chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, said in an interview with the Blade, “it’s not too much to say an immeasurably huge amount is at stake” for LGBTQ people depending on the outcome of the case.
“This contrived idea that making custom goods, or offering a custom service, somehow tacitly conveys an endorsement of the person — if that were to be accepted, that would be a profound change in the law,” Pizer said. “And the stakes are very high because there are no practical, obvious, principled ways to limit that kind of an exception, and if the law isn’t clear in this regard, then the people who are at risk of experiencing discrimination have no security, no effective protection by having a non-discrimination laws, because at any moment, as one makes their way through the commercial marketplace, you don’t know whether a particular business person is going to refuse to serve you.”
The upcoming arguments and decision in the 303 Creative case mark a return to LGBTQ rights for the Supreme Court, which had no lawsuit to directly address the issue in its previous term, although many argued the Dobbs decision put LGBTQ rights in peril and threatened access to abortion for LGBTQ people.
And yet, the 303 Creative case is similar to other cases the Supreme Court has previously heard on the providers of services seeking the right to deny services based on First Amendment grounds, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In both of those cases, however, the court issued narrow rulings on the facts of litigation, declining to issue sweeping rulings either upholding non-discrimination principles or First Amendment exemptions.
Pizer, who signed one of the friend-of-the-court briefs in opposition to 303 Creative, said the case is “similar in the goals” of the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation on the basis they both seek exemptions to the same non-discrimination law that governs their business, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, and seek “to further the social and political argument that they should be free to refuse same-sex couples or LGBTQ people in particular.”
“So there’s the legal goal, and it connects to the social and political goals and in that sense, it’s the same as Masterpiece,” Pizer said. “And so there are multiple problems with it again, as a legal matter, but also as a social matter, because as with the religion argument, it flows from the idea that having something to do with us is endorsing us.”
One difference: the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation stemmed from an act of refusal of service after owner, Jack Phillips, declined to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple for their upcoming wedding. No act of discrimination in the past, however, is present in the 303 Creative case. The owner seeks to put on her website a disclaimer she won’t provide services for same-sex weddings, signaling an intent to discriminate against same-sex couples rather than having done so.
As such, expect issues of standing — whether or not either party is personally aggrieved and able bring to a lawsuit — to be hashed out in arguments as well as whether the litigation is ripe for review as justices consider the case. It’s not hard to see U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sought to lead the court to reach less sweeping decisions (sometimes successfully, and sometimes in the Dobbs case not successfully) to push for a decision along these lines.
Another key difference: The 303 Creative case hinges on the argument of freedom of speech as opposed to the two-fold argument of freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise in the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation. Although 303 Creative requested in its petition to the Supreme Court review of both issues of speech and religion, justices elected only to take up the issue of free speech in granting a writ of certiorari (or agreement to take up a case). Justices also declined to accept another question in the petition request of review of the 1990 precedent in Smith v. Employment Division, which concluded states can enforce neutral generally applicable laws on citizens with religious objections without violating the First Amendment.
Representing 303 Creative in the lawsuit is Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has sought to undermine civil rights laws for LGBTQ people with litigation seeking exemptions based on the First Amendment, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote in a Sept. 12 legal brief signed by her and other attorneys that a decision in favor of 303 Creative boils down to a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.
“Colorado and the United States still contend that CADA only regulates sales transactions,” the brief says. “But their cases do not apply because they involve non-expressive activities: selling BBQ, firing employees, restricting school attendance, limiting club memberships, and providing room access. Colorado’s own cases agree that the government may not use public-accommodation laws to affect a commercial actor’s speech.”
Pizer, however, pushed back strongly on the idea a decision in favor of 303 Creative would be as focused as Alliance Defending Freedom purports it would be, arguing it could open the door to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people.
“One way to put it is art tends to be in the eye of the beholder,” Pizer said. “Is something of a craft, or is it art? I feel like I’m channeling Lily Tomlin. Remember ‘soup and art’? We have had an understanding that whether something is beautiful or not is not the determining factor about whether something is protected as artistic expression. There’s a legal test that recognizes if this is speech, whose speech is it, whose message is it? Would anyone who was hearing the speech or seeing the message understand it to be the message of the customer or of the merchants or craftsmen or business person?”
Despite the implications in the case for LGBTQ rights, 303 Creative may have supporters among LGBTQ people who consider themselves proponents of free speech.
One joint friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court, written by Dale Carpenter, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, and Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment legal scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, argues the case is an opportunity to affirm the First Amendment applies to goods and services that are uniquely expressive.
“Distinguishing expressive from non-expressive products in some contexts might be hard, but the Tenth Circuit agreed that Smith’s product does not present a hard case,” the brief says. “Yet that court (and Colorado) declined to recognize any exemption for products constituting speech. The Tenth Circuit has effectively recognized a state interest in subjecting the creation of speech itself to antidiscrimination laws.”
Oral arguments in the case aren’t yet set, but may be announced soon. Set to defend the state of Colorado and enforcement of its non-discrimination law in the case is Colorado Solicitor General Eric Reuel Olson. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would grant the request to the U.S. solicitor general to present arguments before the justices on behalf of the Biden administration.
With a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that has recently scrapped the super-precedent guaranteeing the right to abortion, supporters of LGBTQ rights may think the outcome of the case is all but lost, especially amid widespread fears same-sex marriage would be next on the chopping block. After the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 303 Creative in the lawsuit, the simple action by the Supreme Court to grant review in the lawsuit suggests they are primed to issue a reversal and rule in favor of the company.
Pizer, acknowledging the call to action issued by LGBTQ groups in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, conceded the current Supreme Court issuing the ruling in this case is “a terrifying prospect,” but cautioned the issue isn’t so much the makeup of the court but whether or not justices will continue down the path of abolishing case law.
“I think the question that we’re facing with respect to all of the cases or at least many of the cases that are in front of the court right now, is whether this court is going to continue on this radical sort of wrecking ball to the edifice of settled law and seemingly a goal of setting up whole new structures of what our basic legal principles are going to be. Are we going to have another term of that?” Pizer said. “And if so, that’s terrifying.”
Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign
Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund
Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman and veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, is to become the next president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading LGBTQ group announced on Tuesday.
Robinson is set to become the ninth president of the Human Rights Campaign after having served as executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and more than 12 years of experience as a leader in the progressive movement. She’ll be the first Black, queer woman to serve in that role.
“I’m honored and ready to lead HRC — and our more than three million member-advocates — as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,” Robinson said. “This is a pivotal moment in our movement for equality for LGBTQ+ people. We, particularly our trans and BIPOC communities, are quite literally in the fight for our lives and facing unprecedented threats that seek to destroy us.”
The next Human Rights Campaign president is named as Democrats are performing well in polls in the mid-term elections after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving an opening for the LGBTQ group to play a key role amid fears LGBTQ rights are next on the chopping block.
“The overturning of Roe v. Wade reminds us we are just one Supreme Court decision away from losing fundamental freedoms including the freedom to marry, voting rights, and privacy,” Robinson said. “We are facing a generational opportunity to rise to these challenges and create real, sustainable change. I believe that working together this change is possible right now. This next chapter of the Human Rights Campaign is about getting to freedom and liberation without any exceptions — and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.”
The Human Rights Campaign announces its next president after a nearly year-long search process after the board of directors terminated its former president Alphonso David when he was ensnared in the sexual misconduct scandal that led former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign. David has denied wrongdoing and filed a lawsuit against the LGBTQ group alleging racial discrimination.
Trial for man charged with assaulting gay men in D.C. park postponed for third time
UNAIDS to commemorate Zero Discrimination Day’s 10th anniversary
D.C. ceremony welcomes affirming church as ‘full standing’ UCC congregation
Va. lieutenant governor misgenders Danica Roem
Argentina’s former special envoy for LGBTQ rights criticizes new government
Okla. lawmaker describes LGBTQ people as ‘filth’
Nex Benedict honored at D.C. candlelight vigil
Press secretary addresses ‘gut-wrenching’ death of Nex Benedict from the briefing room
Kenyan advocacy groups join fight against femicide
Police release Nex Benedict bodycam footage
Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast
Oklahoma4 days ago
Okla. lawmaker describes LGBTQ people as ‘filth’
District of Columbia5 days ago
Nex Benedict honored at D.C. candlelight vigil
The White House5 days ago
Press secretary addresses ‘gut-wrenching’ death of Nex Benedict from the briefing room
Africa5 days ago
Kenyan advocacy groups join fight against femicide