Connect with us

National

Alabama, Tennessee governors sign anti-LGBT bills

Measures target families, trans residents

Published

on

Gov. Kay Ivey (R-Ala.) signed an anti-LGBT adoption bill. (Photo by Fort Rucker; courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

Governors in Alabama and Tennessee have signed into law a pair of measures that could allow discrimination against LGBT families seeking to adopt a child or jeopardize their ability to obtain state benefits.

In Alabama, Gov. Kay Ivey signed into law on Wednesday House Bill 24, which is titled the “Child Placing Agency Inclusion Act,” but instead of encouraging child placement it would permit agencies to deny placement of children into LGBT households.

The new law allows child placement agencies, which often are religious-affiliated groups, such as Catholic adoption agencies, to deny placement in LGBT-headed homes.

According to AL.com, Ivey said she signed HB24 into law to ensure faith-adoption agencies can continue to work in the state.

“I ultimately signed House Bill 24 because it ensures hundreds of children can continue to find ‘forever homes’ through religiously affiliated adoption agencies,” Ivey reportedly said. “This bill is not about discrimination, but instead protects the ability of religious agencies to place vulnerable children in a permanent home.”

The bill was approved by the Senate on Wednesday by a 23-9 vote and by the House in March by a 60-14 vote. After Senate passage of HB24, the House gave final approval of the measure by a vote of 87-0, with six abstentions, to concur with a change made by the upper chamber of the legislature.

Ivey’s signature was expected. Eileen Jones, an Ivey spokesperson, told the Washington Blade last month her boss “plans to sign it pending a legal review.”

Kasey Suffredini, chief programs officer for Freedom for All Americans, was among those who criticized Ivey for signing the bill in a statement.

“The first priority of lawmakers should be the safety and wellbeing of children, especially those who are in need of safe and loving homes,” Suffredini said. “It is shameful that Gov. Ivey and lawmakers in Alabama would jeopardize those chances in order to advance discrimination against LGBT people.”

Also criticizing Ivey was Alex Smith, board chair of Equality Alabama, who said in a statement the governor was breaking her promise to usher in a new style of government after succeeding former Gov. Robert Bentley following his resignation amid scandal.

“When she was sworn in as governor, Kay Ivey promised her administration would be a breath of a fresh air from the scandals of the Bentley era, and we hoped she wouldn’t start her administration by approving shameful discriminatory legislation that ultimately does the most harm to children looking for loving homes,” Smith said. “Unfortunately, Gov. Ivey put special interests ahead of the welfare of Alabama children.”

In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Haslam signed into law on Friday House Bill 1111, which requires undefined words in Tennessee state law, such as gender pronouns, be enforced under their “natural” meaning. That could set up the state for conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide if Tennessee implements a new law to deny benefits to same-sex couples.

In a statement defending his decision to sign the law, Haslam was consistent with principles on which the judiciary rely, denying the measure would conflict with the Obergefell decision.

“The language of this bill is for a general definitions section of the Tennessee code, which defines ‘road’ and ‘sheriff,’ among other common terms,” Haslam said. “For at least 150 years, courts including the Tennessee Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court have looked to a word’s natural and ordinary meaning when deciding cases. In reviewing this bill, I do not believe the legislation accomplishes anything that isn’t already relied upon by the courts, even after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision in 2015.”

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. John Stevens (R-Huntingdon) and Rep. Andrew Farmer (R-Sevierville), was passed in the House by a vote of 70-23 and the Senate by a vote of 23-6.

Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, said despite Haslam’s assurance the new law would have a negative impact on LGBT families in Tennessee.

“Gov. Haslam has chosen to put pure politics ahead of Tennessee’s women and LGBTQ people,” Warbelow said. “This draconian measure will open the state up to many expensive legal challenges and divert state resources to defending an unnecessary, unconstitutional measure. The Governor should be ready to answer for the fallout signing this bill will cause.”

It’s not the first time Haslam has signed into law an anti-LGBT measure. Last year, the governor signed Senate Bill 1556, which provides immunity under state law to counselors who object to care based on “sincerely held principles,” including refusal to treat patients based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Zeke Stokes, vice president of programs for GLAAD, said in a statement Haslam opened up the floodgates for discrimination by signing HB 1111 into law.

“By the stroke of a pen, Gov. Haslam has now placed the future of the state’s economy and the well-being of the LGBTQ community in jeopardy,” Stokes said. “HB 1111 has the potential to undermine marriages between LGBTQ couples, nullify a transgender person’s true identity under law, and put LGBTQ families at risk. This sets a dangerous precedent for how the LGBTQ community is treated in Tennessee moving forward.”

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