Connect with us

Local

Va. candidate calls conversion therapy ban, trans student policies ‘overreach’

Republican Bob Frizzelle is running against Del. Karrie Delaney

Published

on

Bob Frizzelle (Screen capture via YouTube)

The Republican who is seeking to unseat Virginia state Del. Karrie Delaney (D-Fairfax County), challenged her on social media for supporting a law that bans so-called conversion therapy for minors and efforts to protect transgender students from bullying and harassment.

Bob Frizzelle tweeted on Sept. 28 a video stating Virginia’s “new progressive laws” limit parents’ right to know if their child “changes their gender in school” or their right to take their child to “gender counseling.”

On Instagram and Facebook, Frizzelle criticized what he later told the Washington Blade was “overreach” by the state, and called out Delaney for supporting legislation that he felt stood between parents and their duty to ensure their children’s wellbeing.

“You have a minor child under the care and guidance of their parents until they reach 18 and the state steps in and decides what is allowed and not allowed in terms of gender counseling,” Frizzelle said.

“It seems conversion therapy is an exercise in cruelty and torture, and I’m not advocating that either, I wouldn’t want that,” he said. “But this is about counseling and parents being the main authority over what is best for their child instead of the state.”

The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and a host of therapeutic professional organizations oppose the use conversion therapy, stating it is ineffective, harmful and not evidence-based.

Currently, 20 states and numerous localities, including D.C., ban the use of this discredited practice.

Delaney voted for House Bill 386, sponsored by state Del. Patrick Hope (D-Arlington County), and helped make Virginia the first Southern state to ban conversion therapy for minors.

“For the record, I’m proud to have taken that vote,” Delaney told the Blade. “It’s a debunked, unethical practice that is proven to harm children.”

“In my view, it’s akin to fraud,” added Sasha Buchert, senior attorney for Lambda Legal’s D.C. office. “They’re attempting to implement a practice that has been shown not to provide effective treatment and is grounded not in science and medicine but in ideology.”

But, contrary to Frizzelle’s claim, parents can still take their children to LGBTQ counseling.

Both Delaney and Buchert emphasized the conversion therapy ban does not prevent parents from taking their children to a licensed therapist if they are struggling with understanding their gender identity or sexual orientation. They agreed that therapy must be evidence-based and proven, not abusive, or according to Buchert, “torture.”

According to a lawsuit filed in New Jersey in 2015 in which victims successfully shut down a religious organization practicing conversion therapy despite the state’s ban, “therapy” sessions involved “humiliating” acts, including reliving past abuse and enduring homophobic slurs as part of “talk therapy.”

“Remember, we’re talking about children,” Delaney said. “Hearing from some of those survivors, it’s pretty horrific.”

Last year, Delaney was one of four Democrats who killed House Bill 966, sponsored by state Del. Wendell Walker (R-Lynchburg), that would have allowed conversion therapy for minors if counseling involved “nothing more than ‘talk therapy.’”

“Anyone with any experience in this field knows it doesn’t have to be a physical type of therapy to do harm,” Delaney said. “‘Talk’ is a powerful tool. We license professions if there is harm that can be done. That applies to therapists in Virginia.”

Frizzelle also challenged Delaney’s support for the Virginia Department of Education model policies for protecting trans students from bullying and harassment in school. 

He said the policies enable schools to change a student’s information in their records, such as their pronouns, without notifying parents.

“I haven’t read the trans statute,” Frizzelle admitted candidly. “But I think the school may tell the parents only if it wants to. The school then gets to decide to tell parents, if it wants to, if there is a significant event regarding their child. Should the school have this discretion?”

However, nothing in the governing statute passed last year prevents parents from receiving information about their child, according to Delaney, who was one of the House bill’s numerous sponsors.

“This bill does not take away any parental rights,” Delaney said. “Parents are not barred from having access to information about their students. There’s nothing in this law that says parents cannot be informed about their student.”

Delaney pointed out the purpose of the statute is to direct the state Department of Education and local school boards to develop policies that, according to its text, “address common issues regarding transgender students in accordance with evidence-based best practices.”

The text also states school policies are to protect trans students in “compliance with applicable nondiscrimination laws.”

“The purpose of these policies is to maintain a safe and supportive learning environment that is free from harassment so these kids can learn,” Delaney said.

Buchert added that LGBTQ youth reported “in study after study” high rates of harassment, bullying and discrimination from other students, teachers and administrators, particularly if they also were students of color.

“It leads you to missing school, it makes you not want to come to your gym class, it makes you fearful and leaves you pushed out into the school-to-prison pipeline,” she said.

Buchert also looked at the student privacy aspect of the law as necessary to protect LGBTQ students until they are ready to come out to their friends and family.

She said part of protecting students is giving them a safe space to learn more about themselves and who they are in the world, instead of forcing them out of the closet before they are ready.

“Your family may not be prepared or well-suited to help you navigate those unique struggles,” Buchert said, pointing out that while some parents are understanding and supportive, others might push the child out of the home to fend for themselves.

“And that’s why the LGBTQ youth homeless rate is so high,” Buchert said. “Forcibly outing them before they or their families are ready can be extremely harmful. The things Frizzelle is supporting would cause serious harm to LGBTQ youth and their families.”

Both Virginia’s conversion therapy ban and trans student protections passed with bipartisan support, and Delaney said they were examples of legislators doing their job to protect vulnerable children in the commonwealth.

But Frizzelle was still uncomfortable with how he perceived rights were balanced in these bills.

“I think this is such a thorny issue because you want to treat everyone with respect,” Frizzelle told the Blade. “And the reason I made the video and I have the objection is I’m uncomfortable with parents being separated from their children’s care by the state like this. I think that is not the proper function of the state.”

Delaney pointed it this in fact is the proper role of the state: To protect children whom studies have shown to be vulnerable targets of harassment, discrimination and abuse.

“What we’re trying to do as a legislature is protect these children,” Delaney said. “And Frizzelle is dividing parents over a problem that is manufactured and not based in fact, and that is very sad.”

Equality Virginia Executive Director Vee Lamneck agreed that the government has the authority and the duty to protect vulnerable people from harm. They also stated the government has the additional responsibility of ensuring everyone can benefit equally from public goods, such as receiving an education free from harassment.

“The government has the authority—and is supposed to use it—to protect vulnerable people from harm,” Lamneck said. “Laws that ensure transgender students can benefit from public education, and that LGBTQ young people are not subjected to practices that are known to cause lasting psychological damage, fall squarely within that authority and obligation.”

“No one, including parents, should be permitted to endanger the health and wellbeing of children in the ways prohibited by those laws,” added Lamneck.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

D.C. Council gives first approval to amended PrEP insurance bill

Removes weakening language after concerns raised by AIDS group

Published

on

‘This is a win in the fight against HIV/AIDS,’ said Council member Zachary Parker. (File photo courtesy of Earline Budd)

The D.C. Council voted unanimously on Feb. 3 to approve a bill on its first of two required votes that requires health insurance companies to cover the costs of HIV prevention or PrEP drugs for D.C. residents at risk for HIV infection.

 The vote to approve the PrEP D.C. Amendment Act came immediately after the 13-member Council voted unanimously again to approve an amendment that removed language in the bill added last month by the Council’s Committee on Health that would require insurers to fully cover only one PrEP drug.

The amendment, introduced jointly by Council members Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), who first introduced the bill in February 2025, and Christina Henderson (I-At-Large), who serves as chair of the Health Committee, requires insurers to cover all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved PrEP drugs.  

Under its rules, the D.C. Council must vote twice to approve all legislation, which must be signed by the D.C. mayor and undergo a 30-day review by Congress before it takes effect as a D.C. law.

Given its unanimous “first reading” vote of approval on Feb. 3, Parker told the Washington Blade he was certain the Council would approve the bill on its second and final vote expected in about two weeks.

Among those who raised concerns about the earlier version of the bill was Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, who sent messages to all 13 Council members urging them to remove the language added by the Committee on Health requiring insurers to cover just one PrEP drug.

The change made by the committee, Schmid told Council members, “would actually reduce PrEP options for D.C. residents that are required by current federal law, limit patient choice, and place D.C. behind states that have enacted HIV prevention policies designed to remain in effect regardless of any federal changes.”

Schmid told the Washington Blade that although coverage requirements for insurers are currently provided through coverage standards recommended in the U.S. Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, AIDS advocacy organizations have called on D.C. and states to pass their own legislation requiring insurance coverage of PrEP in the event that the federal policies are weakened or removed by the Trump administration, which has already reduced or ended federal funding for HIV/AIDS-related programs.

“The sticking point was the language in the markup that insurers only had to cover one regimen of PrEP,” Parker told the Blade in a phone interview the night before the Council vote. “And advocates thought that moved the needle back in terms of coverage access, and I agree with them,” he said.

In anticipation that the Council would vote to approve the amendment and the underlying bill, Parker, the Council’s only gay member, added, “I think this is a win for our community. And this is a win in the fight against HIV/AIDS.”

During the Feb. 3 Council session, Henderson called on her fellow Council members to approve both the amendment she and Parker had introduced and the bill itself. But she did not say why her committee approved the changes that advocates say weakened the bill and that her and Parker’s amendment would undo. Schmid speculated that pressure from insurance companies may have played a role in the committee change requiring coverage of only one PrEP drug. 

“My goal for advancing the ‘PrEP DC Amendment Act’ is to ensure that the District is building on the progress made in reducing new HIV infections every year,” Henderson said in a statement released after the Council vote. “On Friday, my office received concerns from advocates and community leaders about language regarding PrEP coverage,” she said.

“My team and I worked with Council member Parker, community leaders, including the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute and Whitman-Walker, and the Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking, to craft a solution that clarifies our intent and provides greater access to these life-saving drugs for District residents by reducing consumer costs for any PrEP drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” her statement concludes.

In his own statement following the Council vote, Schmid thanked Henderson and Parker for initiating the amendment to improve the bill. “This will provide PrEP users with the opportunity to choose the best drug that meets their needs,” he said. “We look forward to the bill’s final reading and implementation.”

Continue Reading

Maryland

4th Circuit dismisses lawsuit against Montgomery County schools’ pronoun policy

Substitute teacher Kimberly Polk challenged regulation in 2024

Published

on

(Photo by Sergei Gnatuk via Bigstock)

A federal appeals court has ruled Montgomery County Public Schools did not violate a substitute teacher’s constitutional rights when it required her to use students’ preferred pronouns in the classroom.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision it released on Jan. 28 ruled against Kimberly Polk.

The policy states that “all students have the right to be referred to by their identified name and/or pronoun.”

“School staff members should address students by the name and pronoun corresponding to the gender identity that is consistently asserted at school,” it reads. “Students are not required to change their permanent student records as described in the next section (e.g., obtain a court-ordered name and/or new birth certificate) as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their identified name. To the extent possible, and consistent with these guidelines, school personnel will make efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the student’s transgender status.”

The Washington Post reported Polk, who became a substitute teacher in Montgomery County in 2021, in November 2022 requested a “religious accommodation, claiming that the policy went against her ‘sincerely held religious beliefs,’ which are ‘based on her understanding of her Christian religion and the Holy Bible.’”

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in January 2025 dismissed Polk’s lawsuit that she filed in federal court in Beltsville. Polk appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Norton hailed as champion of LGBTQ rights

D.C. congressional delegate to retire after 36 years in U.S. House

Published

on

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton announced she will not seek re-election; her term ends January 2027. (Washington Blade file photo by Drew Brown)

LGBTQ rights advocates reflected on D.C. Congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton’s longstanding advocacy and support for LGBTQ rights in Congress following her decision last month not to run for re-election this year. 

Upon completing her current term in office in January 2027, Norton, a Democrat, will have served 18 two-year terms and 36 years in her role as the city’s non-voting delegate to the U.S. House.

LGBTQ advocates have joined city officials and community leaders in describing Norton as a highly effective advocate for D.C. under the city’s limited representation in Congress where she could not vote on the House floor but stood out in her work on House committees and moving, powerful speeches on the House floor.

 “During her more than three decades in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton has been a champion for the District of Columbia and the LGBTQ+ community,” said David Stacy, vice president of government affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, the D.C.-based national LGBTQ advocacy organization.

“When Congress blocked implementation of D.C.’s domestic partnership registry, Norton led the fight to allow it to go into effect,” Stacey said. “When President Bush tried to ban marriage equality in every state and the District, Norton again stood up in opposition. And when Congress blocked HIV prevention efforts, Norton worked to end that interference in local control,” he said.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) (Washington Blade photo by Jeff Surprenant)

In reflecting the sentiment of many local and national LGBTQ advocates familiar with Norton’s work, Stacy added, “We have been lucky to have such an incredible champion. As her time in Congress comes to an end, we honor her extraordinary impact in the nation’s capital and beyond by standing together in pride and gratitude.”

Norton has been among the lead co-sponsors and outspoken supporters of LGBTQ rights legislation introduced in Congress since first taking office, including the currently pending Equality Act, which would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Activists familiar with Norton’s work also point out that she has played a lead role in opposing and helping to defeat anti-LGBTQ legislation. In 2018, Norton helped lead an effort to defeat a bill called the First Amendment Defense Act introduced by U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), which Norton said included language that could “gut” D.C.’s Human Rights Act’s provisions banning LGBTQ discrimination.

Norton pointed to a provision in the bill not immediately noticed by LGBTQ rights organizations that would define D.C.’s local government as a federal government entity and allow potential discrimination against LGBTQ people based on a “sincerely held religious belief.”

“This bill is the latest outrageous Republican attack on the District, focusing particularly on our LGBT community and the District’s right to self-government,” Norton said shortly after the bill was introduced. “We will not allow Republicans to discriminate against the LGBT community under the guise of religious liberty,” she said. Records show supporters have not secured the votes to pass it in several congressional sessions.

In 2011, Norton was credited with lining up sufficient opposition to plans by some Republican lawmakers to attempt to overturn D.C.’s same-sex marriage law, that the Council passed and the mayor signed in 2010.   

In 2015, Norton also played a lead role opposing attempts by GOP members of  Congress to overturn another D.C. law protecting LGBTQ students at religious schools, including the city’s Catholic University, from discrimination such as the denial of providing meeting space for an LGBTQ organization.

More recently, in 2024 Norton again led efforts to defeat an attempt by Republican House members to amend the D.C. budget bill that Congress must pass to eliminate funding for the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs and to prohibit the city from using its funds to enforce the D.C. Human Rights Act in cases of discrimination against transgender people.

“The Republican amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to enforce anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination regulations and the amendment to defund the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs are disgraceful attempts, in themselves, to discriminate against D.C.’s LGBTQ+ community while denying D.C. residents the limited governance over their local affairs to which they are entitled,” Norton told the Washington Blade.

In addition to pushing for LGBTQ supportive laws and opposing anti-LGBTQ measures Norton has spoken out against anti-LGBTQ hate crimes and called on the office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. in 2020 to more aggressively prosecute anti-LGBTQ hate crimes.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton marches in the 1995 AIDS Walk. (Washington Blade archive photo by Clint Steib)

“There is so much to be thankful for Eleanor Holmes Norton’s many years of service to all the citizens and residents of the District of Columbia,” said John Klenert, a member of the board of the LGBTQ Victory Fund. “Whether it was supporting its LGBTQ+ people for equal rights, HIV health issues, home rule protection, statehood for all 700,000 people, we could depend on her,” he said.

Ryan Bos, executive director of Capital Pride Alliance, the group that organizes D.C.’s annual LGBTQ Pride events, called Norton a “staunch” LGBTQ community ally and champion for LGBTQ supportive legislation in Congress.

“For decades, Congresswoman Norton has marched in the annual Capital Pride Parade, showing her pride and using her platform to bring voice and visibility in our fight to advance civil rights, end discrimination, and affirm the dignity of all LGBTQ+ people” Bos said. “We will be forever grateful for her ongoing advocacy and contributions to the LGBTQ+ movement.”

Howard Garrett, president of D.C.’s Capital Stonewall Democrats, called Norton a “consistent and principled advocate” for equality throughout her career. “She supported LGBTQ rights long before it was politically popular, advancing nondiscrimination protections and equal protection under the law,” he said.

“Eleanor was smart, tough, and did not suffer fools gladly,” said Rick Rosendall, former president of the D.C. Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance. “But unlike many Democratic politicians a few decades ago who were not reliable on LGBTQ issues, she was always right there with us,” he said. “We didn’t have to explain our cause to her.”

Longtime D.C. gay Democratic activist Peter Rosenstein said he first met Norton when she served as chair of the New York City Human Rights Commission. “She got her start in the civil rights movement and has always been a brilliant advocate for equality,” Rosenstein said.

“She fought for women and for the LGBTQ community,” he said. “She always stood strong with us in all the battles the LGBTQ community had to fight in Congress. I have been honored to know her, thank her for her lifetime of service, and wish her only the best in a hard-earned retirement.”

Continue Reading

Popular