Opinions
Muriel Bowser wants another term
An easier path to re-election than expected?
Muriel Bowser announced last week she wants a second term. If she wins she will be the first mayor elected since 2006 to be elected to a second term.
While everyone knows D.C. is far from perfect, a majority of voters appear to agree Bowser has worked hard to improve the city and is working to uplift the lives of people in all eight Wards. There is a long way to go before we see economic equality in our city. As reported in DCist, income for whites in the District has gone up slightly in 2016 while income for both blacks and Latinos has inched down. The gap remains huge. There are many reasons for this not all fixable by the mayor but Bowser understands the role she can play and has said she continues to be committed to making a positive difference in the lives of the black and Latino residents of the District.
We know education makes a difference and that has been a focus of Bowserās administration. She has built on the work begun by former mayors. She got the chance to move on from the Rhee/Henderson duo of chancellors and chose Antwan Wilson for the job. It seems he is up to it and committed to raising the bar for children in every ward. The other big job she had to fill was that of police chief when Cathy Lanier moved on to head security for the NFL. Her choice of Peter Newsham looks to be a winner for all. He knows the District and its people having served on the MPD since 1989. He is committed to community policing and ensuring his officers are on the street and responsive to the community.
In a pre-election poll in the Washington Post Bowser had a 67 percent approval rating, unusually high for a mayor in any big city in these difficult times. In a head-to-head against two potential opponents she had 50 percent to Vince Grayās 27 percent and Karl Racineās 10 percent. Racine has since said he wonāt run for mayor and rather will run for reelection as attorney general. The city is fortunate as he has done a great job for the people as he builds that office as the first independently elected AG in the District. I hope Gray will soon follow suit announcing he is happy with his role on the Council. Gray was a good mayor and was shafted by the U.S. Attorney. But revenge isnāt a good reason to run and we need to move forward not backwards.
In the Washington Post interview announcing she would run for a second term Bowser said āshe would devote her time and energy to an array of policies that included improving public transit, reducing income inequality and making the city greener and more energy-efficient.ā
Bowser is not what many people expected. She has been quoted saying, āThey always underestimate me ā young, female and black.ā Having known Bowser since her first run for Council I know thatās true. She can be feisty having lost her temper and publicly cursing out a recalcitrant Council member; but she is better known for always coming prepared to community events, meetings and council hearings. She always has the facts and figures to back up what she speaks about.
Bowser is respected around the nation having worked closely with President Obama, other Democratic mayors and she worked hard to elect Hillary Clinton. She has earned respect for D.C. around the world. She is out in the community nearly every day, rarely takes vacations, and when she does travel itās to build connections for the city.
Some have said she doesnāt often start dramatic new initiatives, but things are happening in all eight Wards. She moved forward the new soccer stadium for DC United paid for by the teamās owners and negotiated a new practice center for the Wizards/Mystics in Anacostia. That facility will also include a 4,200-seat arena capable of hosting concerts, community events and home games for the Washington Mystics.
So while things arenāt perfect and there needs to be a renewed focus on economic opportunities for those not benefitting from the current economic boom, it appears Bowser may have a much easier reelection fight than anyone could have predicted.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBT rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.
Opinions
Biden-Harris must ensure access to HIV prevention drugs
A historic opportunity to help end the disease
The Biden-Harris administration has a historic opportunity to help end HIV. New, cutting-edge drugs that prevent HIV are hitting the market, but insurance companies are trying to twist the rules to deny access to these remarkable therapies.
The White House could stop these abuses and put the country on the right course for decades ahead and prevent hundreds of thousands of new HIV transmissions.
Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) drugs represent one of the strongest tools we have to combat HIV. These highly effective therapies can reduce the risk of contracting HIV by up to 99%. So far, the FDA has approved two once-daily PrEP pills, and in 2021 approved the first long-acting version of PrEP. Other groundbreaking PrEP innovations, such as a biannual dosage form, are in active development.
PrEP is a major reason why new HIV infections dropped 12% from 2018 to 2022. Yet there’s still work to do. Currently, just 36% of people who could benefit from PrEP are using it. Racial and ethnic groups face wide disparities in PrEP uptake. For example, Black individuals constitute 39% of new HIV diagnoses but only 14% of PrEP users. Hispanics make up 31 percent of new HIV diagnoses, but only 18 percent of PrEP users.
A new federal directive, if properly enforced, could help close these gaps. In August 2023, a panel of prevention experts issued an updated recommendation to clinicians, recommending PrEP ā including long-acting forms of the drugs ā to people who want to prevent HIV acquisition. Under the Affordable Care Act, most newly issued private health plans must cover without patient cost-sharing to comply with this recommendation beginning this month.
Yet many HIV experts and patient advocates have raised concerns that insurers could misinterpret ā or downright ignore ā the task force’s decision and keep barriers to PrEP in place.
One top concern is that insurance companies could decide to cover only one kind of PrEP, even though the task force’s recommendation isn’t drug-specific ā it applies to all versions. For example, a health plan might refuse to cover long-acting PrEP and force patients to take oral pills instead.
Yet long-acting PrEP is a critical option for many patients, such as those who struggle to adhere to once-daily drug regimens, are unhoused, or have confidentiality concerns. One study found that patients taking long-acting PrEP had a 66% reduction in HIV infections compared to those using oral pills. Another analysis calculated that long-acting PrEP could help avert 87% more HIV cases than oral pills, and could save over $4 billion over the course of a decade.
Another concern relates to insurers’ increasing use of “prior authorization,” a practice in which health plans refuse to cover certain drugs unless doctors obtain prior permission. Insurers could also force patients to try a number of therapeutic alternatives before agreeing to cover the medicine they and their doctors agreed upon ā this is known as “step therapy.” There’s evidence that “prior authorization” policies may disproportionately impact Black and Hispanic individuals, who are already at higher risk of HIV.
Fortunately, these insurer-imposed barriers aren’t inevitable. The Biden-Harris administration, through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), has an opportunity to issue clear, detailed guidance that ensures health plans follow through on the legal requirement to cover PrEP for all eligible patients and at no cost.
CMS’s guidance should clarify that insurance companies are obliged to cover all FDA-approved versions of PrEP, including both daily pills and long-acting injectables. When now Vice President Harris was Sen. Harris, she introduced groundbreaking legislation called the PreP Access and Coverage Act, which would require all insurers to cover all forms of PrEP without cost-sharing and prior authorizations. So we know where she stands on the issue.
A number of states, including New York and California, have already established similar coverage requirements and prohibitions on prior authorization for PrEP.
A similar requirement already exists for contraception. Plans are required “to cover without cost sharing any contraceptive services and FDA-approved, -cleared, or -granted contraceptive products that an individual’s attending provider determined to be medically appropriate.”
CMS just needs to adopt language along these lines for PrEP. Doctors ā not insurance companies ā should decide which drugs best suit patients’ needs.
Thanks to revolutionary research happening every day, people with a reason to be on PrEP have more options available to them than ever before. Yet insurers are intent on restricting access to these innovative therapies. New federal guidance can help combat this and if properly enforced set us on a path toward ending HIV.
CarlĀ SchmidĀ is executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute.
I submitted the column below to the Washington Post as an oped with the above headline, having no real expectations it would be published. They often publish my letters, but never when I criticize them directly. Imagine my surprise when I received an email after five days from Ryan Vogt, in the opinions section of the Post, sharing a version of the oped they had shortened to a 228-word letter, asking if I was OK with that version and saying if I was, they would consider publishing it. I wondered if he did the editing. I gave him an immediate OK to publish it. Then having heard nothing from him for a few days, I contacted him and was told āunfortunately, it is falling out of the mix of letters to be published.ā My comment back to him was āno surprise.ā
Here is the oped as I submitted it to the Post:
When the publisher of The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger, is given space in the Washington Post for his oped, āHow the quiet war against press freedom could come to Americaā on the threat to the free press if Trump is elected, itās time for the free press to speak out. The Washington Post editorial board seems to either be asleep, or willing to let MAGA Republicans win. One would think their slogan āDemocracy dies in darknessā would compel them to speak out.
The Post is the major newspaper for the DMV area, and they have yet to make an editorial endorsement in the presidential race. They didnāt endorse Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.), running against a MAGA Republican for reelection, until three days after early voting began in Virginia. They have yet to endorse any congressional candidates in Virginia when we know there are a host of MAGA Republicans running who have endorsed Donald Trump and his platform.
I understand newspapers report the news, but then reporting, and editorial content, are two different things and should be separate. Now it would be nice if editors suggested to their reporters, like it seemed they did when writing about Biden and appending his age to every mention of him, that when reporting on Trump they would append the facts he is now the oldest man to ever run for president on a major party ticket, is a convicted felon, and been held liable for sexual assault. All verifiable facts.
One has to question what is holding the Post back from issuing a presidential endorsement. Are they actually thinking of endorsing a man who their paper wrote tried to stage a coup on January 6, 2021. A candidate who has said he wants to be a dictator on his first day in office, and use federal agencies to get back at his enemies. If they really care about democracy, and freedom of the press, they should be editorializing for Kamala Harris every day in an effort to defeat Trump and his MAGA cult. They should be endorsing against any candidate who supports Trump, and should have done it before voting began.
Either the editorial board is afraid to speak out, asleep at the switch, or being controlled by the paperās owner, Jeff Bezos, who might have asked them to hold up endorsements. Are they trying to play both sides in this election in an effort to not lose subscribers? Any of those possibilities is scary, and incredibly sad, for what was once a great major newspaper. A paper owned by the courageous Katherine Graham, who was willing to stand up to a president, no matter the cost to her, or her paper.
Does the Postās editorial board lacking diversity have anything to do with holding up endorsements? Why are they seemingly cowering in a corner without any backbone, or willingness to stand up for a free press, and democracy. Is the fear of losing subscribers so paramount the Washington Post continues to publish MAGA Republican opinion columns, and yet wonāt endorse? What principles does their editorial board believe in? What do they think will happen if the writers of Project 2025, Trumpās friends, end up in the White House, and have positions throughout the administration? What do they think, if they are thinking at all, will happen when the federal Department of Education, including its Civil Rights division, is closed? If the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) is closed, and people no longer have insurance when banks go under, do they care? From the editorial boardās lack of action, it would seem they either donāt care, are in favor of those things, or donāt understand the ramification of those possibilities.
The Washington Post, a once respected paper, owned by Katherine Graham who was willing to stand up for democracy, is now just a ghost of what it once was. If Trump wins because they lack the courage to speak out, they could become totally irrelevant. This is not a time for looking the other way, or thinking they have to be fair to all sides, when one side will destroy what they claim to stand for, a strong democracy and a free press. As early voting continues in Virginia, with no endorsements form the Post, and ballots are sent out in D.C. and Maryland, shortly what the Post editorial board does wonāt matter. They will just be another paper, with a big megaphone, they refused to use.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Commentary
Itās time we talk about trauma
Coping with parental rejection a common struggle for LGBTQ community
(Authorās note: The content of this article may be triggering for some readers. If you or someone you know struggles with suicidal ideation, support can be found by calling or texting 988.)
In becoming a barback, I dove headfirst into the underbelly of fast-paced, homoerotic nightlife, which can be as stressful as it is fun but almost always entertaining. For me, though, the best part has been the camaraderie formed with my staff, in particular the other barbacks, all of whom bust ass behind the scenes while sharing laughs and memes along the way. Among this crew Iāve formed solid, healthy friendships, although itās Marsel in particular who sees me in a way most in D.C. never has.
At first, I wasnāt sure if Marsel and I would get along. Heās ripped, tatted, confident, and hot, which is essentially the recipe for intimidating. Then we worked bar shifts together and I finally got to know him. Turns out heās insanely witty, kind if youāre not an asshole, and overall easy to talk to. As it so happens, he and I are quite similar: two gays in our mid-30s working as barbacks who ended up in D.C. after growing up in rural, ruby-red states. Still, one parallel stands out above the rest: we both also have daddy issues.
Thatās rightāitās a clichĆ© and often a punch line of jokes (which can still be funny, by the way), but the reality for many queers is rejection from one or both parents. For some, including Marsel and me, the traits of a toxic parent warps childhood beyond just conservative thinking. Case in point: both of our dads harbored deeply rooted anger and resentment, making their reaction to learning who we are seemingly inevitable.
For Marsel, that pivotal moment came when his parents discovered he had a boyfriend in high school. In addition to filling his mind with fears about being gay, āthey made me switch schools, severely monitored all my communications, what I would wear to school, and who I could hang out with. I spent the remainder of my high school years alone with no friends, isolated in a rural town outside of Nashville.ā
A few years later, Marselās parents kicked him out upon learning he engaged in sexual activity with men. āThey expelled me from the family home and, for many years, treated me as though I no longer existed to them. I spent the better part of a year living in my car and the rest of the time couch-surfing, relying on the kindness of friends.ā
As for me: my dad served dual roles as patriarch and specter of my family. He was abusive physically and verbally, though still I tried maintaining a connection to the guy, likely fueling my attraction to mean guys but thatās another story. Despite my efforts, my father abruptly ended our relationship shortly after I came out. In our last phone call, he couldnāt even say the word gay, choosing instead āthe way you are.ā From there he listed everything he disliked about me, none of which was my homosexuality because these days no one admits so boldly to prejudice. Instead, they gaslight you with every other vulnerability as justification for mistreating you.
Itās been well over a decade since Iāve spoken to or even seen my father, and at this point Iām certain heāll happily march to his grave without seeing me again. Losing a parent is always hard. Losing one because they donāt want to love you anymore, wellāitās a searing pain that rips your heart wide open. I wouldnāt wish it on my worst enemy.
Sadly, stories like these are far from unique among queers, nor are they the sole trauma we experience. From living in shadows and in shame, to schoolyard bullying and alienation, to pressures of religion or toxic masculinity, to a higher likelihood of sexual violence or discrimination in the workplace, we are affronted with so many traumas theyāre nearly a marker for our kind. This also doesnāt include intersectionality with other traumas, such as a growing up in America a woman, a person of color, or poor. Itās no wonder, then, that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a review last year declaring, āLGBTQ people are at higher risk of PTSD compared with their cisgender/heterosexual peers.ā
To most queers, what I just described is neither new nor surprising. In fact, in the face of this collective trauma, queers often come together in the form of fundraisers or Pride events. Yet despite rallying around the common inputs of our trauma, we rarely discuss the outputs. Thatās right ā emotional trauma has outputs, as neuroscience has proven, and when left untreated those outputs emerge as toxic traits in our adult lives.
To illustrate, letās take it back to Marsel. While he hoped to leave his past behind in Tennessee, that wasnāt the case. āFor things I hadnāt fully processed or dealt with, my past trauma would bubble up to the surface in the form of emotional triggers, which would inevitably spark my anger. My anger manifested in various ways, and I would often find reasons to justify my behavior. I was angry about my relationships, angry about my body, angry about my career ā basically, I was angry about everything. And the root of all that anger was the unresolved trauma I hadnāt properly addressed.ā
I couldnāt relate more. I tried to be tough and pretend I didnāt care that my father abandoned me, but the thought still crossed my mind and crushed me every time. Then I took that pain and subconsciously projected my anger everywhere ā onto friends, onto other gays, onto myself, but especially onto my relationships, where Iād swing like a pendulum between states of hyperattachment and hyperdetachment with almost no in-between. Steadily, my unresolved trauma chipped away at my self-worth, and once that goes, self-destruction is inevitable.
Since the path to self-destruction is riddled with more trauma, the downward spiral only gets steeper. āMy most impactful and lasting piece of trauma occurred two days before my 25th birthday,ā Marsel told me. āThe summer of 2013 I had been more than reckless with the frequency of my sexual encounters. I had often done pretty dangerous and wild things in regard to meeting up with guys. Then, on Dec. 10, 2013, I found out I was HIV positive.
āAt the time it was quite Earth-shattering news because I knew no one who was positive and had no idea what this would mean for me. I was pretty hard on myself for being reckless, and it took a bit to pick myself up, but over time I used it to inspire me to live my life fully and authentically.ā
Often it takes Earth-shattering events to serve as a wakeup call for change. When my PTSD transformed into social anxiety, it was easy to suppress at first with sex, drugs, and most often alcohol, which inevitably led to the occasional outburst, or the loss of a friend. Yet still Iād go out, even more anxious Iād run into newly formed enemies, so Iād drink more, at times pre-gaming by myself before pre-gaming with others before eventually stumbling into the bars. Naturally this facilitated more outbursts, cost me more relationships, and once landed me a night in jail. The further I unraveled, the more I numbed it with heavier drinking, darker sex, harder drugs, until finally ā it pains me to write, but for the sake of honesty I must ā I was contemplating, threatening, and attempting suicide.
Sorry to get heavy, but itās important to dissect why and how queers experience emotional hardship. We donāt struggle simply because weāre queer but rather due to the trauma thrust upon us by a world that still fears queers. As a result, normal events ā such as a breakup or losing a job ā can feel insurmountable, like proof that those who rejected us were right all along.
Thankfully, queers can rely on each other for support, right? Sounds nice in theory, but in practice we D.C. gays are pretty fucking mean to each other. Sure, we find our friends, but often our community is itching to judge us at every corner. We throw insults, ostracize those deemed ācrazy,ā and constantly seek validation from people we (Instagram) deem perfect. And no, I am not above this. Iāve been a narcissist. Iāve burned bridges with glee. Looking back, it was my inner turmoil bursting at my seams.
Marsel summarized our behavior well: āEverything is a trauma response. That mean gay you see at the bar ā trauma response. That gym obsessed muscle queen ā trauma response. That career-driven type-A Capitol Hill gay ā trauma response. Most of the time I find when people are treating me a certain way, it has little to do with me and everything to do with their own trauma.ā
So, we find ourselves amid a queer trauma cycle in which hurt queer people hurt more queer people. Sounds bleak, but the good news is we also have the power to change that. And we must, for a recent survey by the Trevor Project found a staggering 41 percent of LGBTQ+ youth aged 13 to 24 considered suicide in the last year alone. Queer trauma isnāt going away, so itās on us to avoid bestowing our trauma to younger queers and instead provide a safe community not only to thrive but to experience inevitable lows as well. That may seem like a tall order, but based on what Iāve learned from Marsel, two measures can move us closer.
First is simple self-reflection, for when trauma goes unnoticed it grows steadily like mold, potentially upending your behavior without you even noticing. āAs I moved through different stages of my life,ā Marsel explained, āI began to see how this unprocessed trauma and anger influenced so many aspects of who I had become. It colored my reactions to conflict, my relationships with others, and even my relationship with myself.ā
The only way to process trauma is to excavate your mind and dissect underlying memories and feelings, which can be accomplished in many ways including journaling, art, or my personal favorite: therapy. While I didnāt start therapy until my 30s, taking that leap became a life-changing, and potentially lifesaving, decision. āThrough therapy,ā added Marsel, āI was able to uncover the reasons why this trauma continued to follow me throughout my life and how it manifested.ā
It all sounds so simple: get therapy, and youāll get better. However, therapy only goes as far as you let it. Progress is never linear and brutal honesty is a must; as a result, not everyone gets there (no judgment though, for Iām not all the way there myself). In fact, my hardest step was admitting I needed therapy at all, for seeing a therapist is often treated like spotting a UFO ā no one wants to admit it out of fear of looking insane. However, often the fear of appearing crazy leads to the most toxic behavior, as Iāve witnessed in D.C. time and time again.
To heal requires dissolving the ego. While tough, itās truly the first and most important step.
As for the second measure: we need to cut each other some slack. No, this doesnāt mean excusing terrible behavior, but it does mean holding the belief that others ā including and especially your queer enemies ā can grow. If not, then tell me: whoās supposed to believe in your growth if you donāt believe in the growth of others? And if your response is you donāt need to grow, you likely have the most growing to do.
Writing off one of us is writing off all of us, and if we keep burning each other at the stake for every flaw, weāll grow weaker as a community. Besides, the rest of the world already does that to us. Why do it to each other as well?
My hope is for more queers to see each other the way Marsel and I do. Not because he and I are perfect ā if anything, weāre far from it. Instead, in between inside jokes, we share our mistakes, our hardships, and the work weāre putting in toward self-love and improvement. That feels rare in a city obsessed with perfection, but thatās also why it feels genuine.
And genuine feels worlds better than perfect ever could.Ā
Jake Stewart is a D.C.-based writer and barback.