Connect with us

National

‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill vulnerable to legal challenges on many fronts: experts

First Amendment brought up as possible claim for lawsuit

Published

on

A legal challenge to the "Don't Say Gay" bill may emerge shortly after Gov. Ron DeSantis signs the measure.

With Ron DeSantis expected to sign the “Don’t Say Gay” bill any day now, legal experts are already seeing myriad ways to challenge the measure in court from multiple angles under federal law and the U.S. Constitution — and a lawsuit may emerge shortly after the Florida governor pens his name to the measure.

Legal challenges could emerge given the measure’s impact on LGBTQ students and families as well as LGBTQ teachers under the federal civil rights law on employment and education, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Cases could be made under the U.S. Constitution, experts say, given arguable threats to freedom of speech under the First Amendment as well as the singling out of LGBTQ families under the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Christopher Stoll, senior staff attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said he thinks “it’s almost certain that the bill will be challenged if it becomes law” and in terms of timing, pro-LGBTQ legal groups “are certainly prepared to do that if the bill is signed.”

“I think it raises a number of issues, but the primary ones are Equal Protection and First Amendment,” Stoll said. “This bill singles out LGBTQ families as being so shameful that they need to be excluded from the classroom in a way that other families are not, and that has an obvious discriminatory effect on children, same-sex couples, and other LGBTQ families.”

Other pro-LGBTQ groups that have brought legal challenges to anti-LGBTQ measures in the courts are holding their cards close to their vest on potential lawsuits against the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal didn’t respond to a request to comment.

Key portions of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, titled HB 1557, reveal the potential penalty for the slightest hint of talk about LGBTQ kids and families in schools, therefore the potential for challenging the measure in court as a discriminatory law. The possibilities for legal challenges could be seen as a warning to DeSantis signing the “Don’t Say Gay” bill into law would come at great expense to the state if it were to defend the law in court, not to mention the provision of the bill that allows families to sue if they feel the school their children attends engaged in instruction of LGBTQ issues in contravention of the measure.

Under the legislation, schools for children in kindergarten through grade 3 may not engage in “instruction” about sexual orientation and gender identity, or generally throughout the education system “in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.” Although the legislation allows for internal review and resolution if a parent brings a complaint against the school for violating the measure, the “Don’t Say Gay” bill also empowers a parent of a student who feels the law was violated to “bring an action against a school district” in court to seek damages.

Proponents of the bill downplay it as a parental rights measure aimed at preventing K-3 students from being taught sex education or teachers engaging in critical general theory writ-large in the Florida school system, but the measure contains no limiting principle restricting its impact to those concepts. In fact, Republican lawmakers at an earlier stage in the legislative process rejected an amendment proposed by a Democrat that would redefine the prohibition under the measure to “sexual activity.”

David Flugman, a lawyer at the New York-based Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC whose practice includes LGBTQ rights, said restrictions of the measure on speech in schools make the protections under the First Amendment a possible choice for “a serious challenge” to the “Don’t Say Gay” measure.

“I do think that there are First Amendment grounds to challenge this on from the perspective of teachers,” Flugman said. “The state has a pretty strong interest in what’s taught in schools and what ages. Now, usually that goes through the Department of Education or something like that as opposed to the legislature doing it this way. But the fact that you’re basically barring an entire topic of conversations, that on its face seems like it’s content-based speech regulations, which is usually subject to strict scrutiny under First Amendment law.”

Although the question of standing might be an issue if no action has been brought against a particular teacher, Flugman said he could imaging other entities, including a teacher’s union, to represent teachers on their behalf.

But not all experts agree a First Amendment challenge is the way to go for a lawsuit against the “Don’t Say Gay” measure in court given the expected state role in managing the curriculum and standards of its schools.

Dale Carpenter, a conservative law professor at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, said the language in the bill on “instruction” is guiding curriculum, which is “ordinarily within the authority of the state” and therefore not grounds for a First Amendment challenge.

“It should not be applied to offhand discussion or conversation or acknowledgement of students’ same-sex parents or something like that,” Carpenter said. “So to the extent that is what the bill is doing, there’s not a really good basis for challenging that part of the bill under the First Amendment.”

Carpenter, however, conceded a First Amendment challenge may be possible under the bill’s provision that more generally prohibits schools from engaging in LGBTQ issues in ways that are “not age-appropriate.”

“That part of the bill might be challenged on vagueness grounds under the First Amendment because the fear would be, since nothing is spelled out about this age appropriate or development appropriate language, your expression might be chilled in the classroom, might deter people from even speaking in a way that would be protected,” Carpenter said. “So that’s a possible challenge. I don’t know that it’s very strong, but it’s a possible challenge.”

Carpenter added another possible First Amendment challenge to the bill may be possible if a particular Florida school were to interpret the language to include not just instruction, but offhand conversation. A disciplined teacher, Carpenter said, could bring a lawsuit against the measure on First Amendment grounds because the law would have been “applied in a way that was overly broad.”

Legal experts also point to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2020 in Bostock v. Clayton County, which determined anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, thus illegal under federal civli rights law, as fertile ground to challenge the “Don’t Say Gay” measure.

Flugman said he could “definitely see” a clear-cut case based on Title VII against the “Don’t Say Gay” measure from LGBTQ teachers in Florida who feel the need to keep quiet about their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Title VII is pretty broad in that; it’s not just hiring or firing, but it’s the terms of employment and how someone is treated at work and the benefits and all of that,” Flugman said. “And so, you know, if someone is basically being forced to hide their identity in a school in Florida as a result of this bill, I think that you absolutely could see a claim under Title VII against the school district for that.”

The Biden administration already weighed in on the legality of the bill via the Department of Education by suggesting the “Don’t Say Gay” would contravene Title IX, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex in education, thus could jeopardize the state’s federal funding for its schools.

Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona issued the warning to Florida in a statement after the Florida Legislature gave its final approval to the measure, which he called “hateful” and a distraction from issues such as recovery from the coronavirus pandemic.

“The Department of Education has made clear that all schools receiving federal funding must follow federal civil rights law, including Title IX’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” Cardona said. “We stand with our LGBTQ+ students in Florida and across the country, and urge Florida leaders to make sure all their students are protected and supported.”

Stoll said he has “not spoken with anyone at the government” regarding potential penalties from the Biden administration for Florida under the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, but supports efforts from the standpoint of civil rights laws in the wake of the Bostock ruling.

“I certainly agree that you know, because federal anti-discrimination laws have now been interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect LGBTQ people that any discriminatory measure like this bill certainly is potentially vulnerable to consequences under Title IX or Title VII or other other federal anti-discrimination laws,” Stoll said.

But the wide-ranging possible impact of the law on LGBTQ students, families, and teachers as well as the potential impact on the Florida education system by empowering parents to sue the school their child attends if they feel it violated the “Don’t Say Gay” bill’s provisions make possibilities for legal challenges to the measure virtually endless.

Carpenter, asked by the Blade about the provision in the bill allowing parents to sue in a way that is different from managing other curriculum standards in Florida, envisioned a legal challenge to the “Don’t Say Gay” bill not unlike a challenge to the anti-abortion law Senate Bill 8 in Texas.

“I think once a parent brings some kind of action, and if the school tries to restrict the teacher’s speaking, then the teacher can launch a challenge to the heart of the bill,” Carpenter said. “The concern is these parents are going to bring some kind of action anytime “gay” is mentioned in the classroom, even though it’s not a curriculum matter. That’s the concern, and if school started enforcing it that way, then the defense could be brought to say, ‘Hey, that’s not something that’s within the curricular determinations of the state.'”

Flugman said he could see a lawsuit against the “Don’t Say Gay” measure based on a right to education similar to a case his team litigated in the Sixth Circuit, although he conceded he doesn’t know the case law is developed within the 11th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Florida.

“The case in the Sixth Circuit came up in the context of race discrimination in certain Michigan schools in Detroit,” Flugman said. “But could you make an argument like along those lines? It’s a lot more inchoate. There’s not a firmly established right there, a creative plaintiff could frame the claim there as well and try and get some traction.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Study shows ‘pervasive mistreatment of LGBTQ people by law enforcement’

Findings claim nationwide police misconduct, including in D.C., Va., Md.

Published

on

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

The LGBTQ supportive Williams Institute, an arm of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, released a report last month citing multiple research studies conducted over the past 25 years showing past and “ongoing” mistreatment of LGBTQ people by law enforcement throughout the United States.

“Findings show that LGBTQ communities – particularly LGBTQ people of color, youth, and transgender and gender nonconforming individuals – have faced profiling, entrapment, discrimination, harassment, and violence from law enforcement for decades, and this mistreatment continues to be widespread,” according to a Williams Institute statement.

“Experiences of police mistreatment may discourage LGBTQ people from reporting crimes or engaging with law enforcement,” Joshua Arrayales, the report’s lead author and Williams Institute Law Fellow said in the statement.

“Reporting crimes is essential for accurate crime statistics, property allocation of crime prevention resources, and support services that address the unique needs of LGBTQ survivors,” he said.

The 59-page report cites the findings of two dozen or more studies and surveys of LGBTQ people’s interaction with police and law agencies for the past 25 years through 2024 conducted by various organizations, including the ACLU, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the Williams Institute, and local government agencies.

But the report does not provide a breakdown of where police abuse against LGBTQ people occurred by specific police departments or locations. Instead it provides survey research findings of large groups of LGBTQ people who responded to a survey in different  locations of the U.S.

Among other things, those surveys have found “LGBTQ people are more likely than non-LGBTQ people to report being stopped by police, searched by police, arrested, and falsely accused of an offense,” the Williams Institute statement accompanying the report says. “LGBTQ people also report substantial rates of verbal harassment, physical harassment, sexual harassment, and assault,” it says.

The report itself cites surveys of LGBTQ people’s interactions with police in D.C., Baltimore, and Virginia but does not give specific cases or identify specific police departments or agencies.   

“A 2022 study based on interviews with 19 Black transgender women from Baltimore and Washington, D.C. identified a theme of re-victimization while seeking help from police,” the report says. “One participant noted that male officers asked what she did to cause her own abuse,” according to the report.

“Other participants expressed that when a knowledgeable officer was present, such as an LGBTQ+ liaison, they felt more inclined to reach out for help,” it says. 

The report also states, “A 2024 study based on interviews with 44 transgender people in Virginia documented two instances of transgender women being pulled over for broken tail lights and then being mistreated once officers discovered they were transgender based on their IDs.” The report does not reveal the specific location in Virginia where this took place.

Other locations the report cites data on anti-LGBTQ conduct by police include New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Newark, N.J., and Austin and San Antonio in Texas.

The full report can be accessed at williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

Continue Reading

The White House

SPJ calls for take down of Trump’s ‘media offenders’ website

White House launched online database on Monday

Published

on

The Society for Professional Journalists has called out the White House for creating a website that targets individual journalists and news outlets that publish unfavorable coverage of the Trump-Vance administration.

In a letter to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday, the SPJ — the nation’s most broad-based journalism organization, which works to protect the free practice of journalism with high ethical standards — asked the White House to take down its website singling out journalists for negative coverage of the administration.

“Journalists have a constitutionally protected and societally encouraged duty to hold power to account. They are not political opponents to be tracked, cataloged or punished,” the letter signed by SPJ National President Chris Vaccaro and SPJ Ethics Committee Chair Dan Axelrod.

“By publishing reporters’ names, outlets and specific stories, the White House is naming and shaming members of the press in a highly charged political and social environment. SPJ regards this as a form of online harassment that exposes journalists to potential threats and even violence.”

The website currently lists 23 outlets as “Media Offenders of the Week,” singling out national organizations like CBS News, the Boston Globe, and the Independent. The website says these particular organizations “misrepresents and exaggerates President Trump.”

The letter goes on to explain that there are more civil ways to disagree with published stories without singling out people for doing the only constitutionally protected job in the country.

“There are well-established ways of resolving disagreements over the fairness or accuracy of stories. The White House web page attacking so-called ‘media offenders’ ignores these principles and instead denigrates and attacks reporters.”

It also highlights how Trump often attacks women journalists in particular, noting that two weeks ago he told White House correspondent Catherine Lucey from Bloomberg News to be “quiet piggy” after she asked questions related to Trump’s relationship with sex offender Jeffery Epstein on Air Force One.

“Journalists, particularly women, already face an enormous amount of online harassment, and this can convert into physical violence. As you know, women journalists have also been publicly insulted by the president in recent weeks.”

The letter also explains that attacks like this on the legitimate press can cause tensions between journalists who attempt to hold those in power responsible and the public who consumes the rhetoric.

“This page, which categorizes reporting as ‘lies,’ ‘left-wing lunacy,’ and ‘malpractice,’ has a chilling effect on coverage. It undermines the healthy democratic relationship in which journalists hold power to account.”

The letter also draws a connection to how the Russian authoritarian dictatorship references media it dislikes, saying, “The president’s new ‘media offenders’ list mirrors a 2017 initiative by the Kremlin that labeled independent journalism as ‘fake news.’ The United States should not follow that example.”

“SPJ believes civility must be restored between the media and the Administration. Removing this page would be a vital first step toward lowering the temperature and reinforcing America’s commitment to free expression.”

The SPJ’s code of ethics, widely regarded as the ethical standard for good journalism, has four main pillars: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent. The code was adopted in 1926 from the American Society of Newspaper Editors and has been revised multiple times since then, including in 1984, 1987, 1996, and most recently in 2014.

NLGJA, the The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists is the journalist-led association that works within the news media to advance fair and accurate coverage of LGBTQ+ communities and issues, provided a statement to the Blade on the website and supports the SPJ’s public call for removing the website to restore faith in journalistic freedom in the U.S.

“We stand with SPJ in urging the Trump administration to remove its website targeting so-called “media offenders.” While NLGJA believes that media organizations should be held to the highest standards of accuracy and ethical reporting, this website does nothing to support a healthy press environment,” National Board President Ken Miguel told the Blade via email. “Instead, it undermines public trust in the free press, enables the harassment and targeting of journalists, and hinders their ability to cover the news fairly and accurately. Journalists must be able to do their work without fear of government retaliation.”

The White House has not responded to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on the letter.

Continue Reading

National

Lawmakers warn of HIV crisis as federal support collapses

NMAC hosted Capitol Hill event on Wednesday

Published

on

Speaker emerita Nancy Pelosi and Congresswoman Maxine Waters speaking at the NMAC Hill Champions reception. (Washington Blade Photo by Joe Reberkenny)

NMAC, formerly known as the National Minority AIDS Council, a nonprofit organization that works for health equity and racial justice to end the HIV epidemic, held its 6th annual Hill Champions reception on Wednesday in the Rayburn House Office Building to honor federal legislators who have worked to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in the U.S. and around the world.

Currently there are an estimated 40.8 million people worldwide living with HIV, with about 1.2 million people in the U.S. with the disease. While there is no cure, there are highly effective treatments that can control the virus and allow people to live long, healthy lives called antiretroviral therapy that can reduce the amount of virus in the body to an undetectable level, which also prevents the spread of HIV to others.

This year, NMAC’s reception featured a slew of current policymakers who use their national platforms to push for expanding HIV funding in Congress. This year’s honorees were three congresswomen who are active voices for HIV/AIDS on the House floor: U.S. Reps. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.).

The awards presented to the representatives are named after three congressional icons who have dedicated their lives to ensuring the voices of the most marginalized are heard, seen, and helped.

Crockett received the John Lewis Good Trouble Award, Jacobs received the Barbara Lee Courage in HIV/Advocacy Award, and Ramirez received the Elijah Cummings Award for Minority Health Equity.

NMAC CEO Harold J. Phillips, the former director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy under President Joe Biden, was one of the first to speak at the event. He congratulated the honorees, highlighted work accomplished this past year in the fight against HIV/AIDS, and outlined what lies ahead as the current president continues to slash funding for public health initiatives worldwide.

“Tonight, we gather to celebrate what’s possible when courage meets commitment, when leaders refuse to let politics stand in the way of saving lives, we’re in a critical moment. Political uncertainty threatens the very programs that have transformed HIV into a manageable condition, but a crisis creates an opportunity for collective action,” Phillips said. “For more than 40 years, the HIV movement has thrived because of bipartisan leadership, leaders who understood that public health transcends party lines. Now more than ever, we need advocates on the hill.”

He continued, spotlighting actions taken by the honorees for the HIV movement during a time when some of the highest officials in government refuse to acknowledge it.

“What unites these champions is their understanding that HIV advocacy is not political — it is moral. They show us what it looks like when leaders treat public health as a responsibility, not a bargaining chip.”

Jacobs and Ramirez attended in person, while Crockett, who was unable to be there, sent a video.

In her speech after receiving the Barbara Lee Courage in HIV/Advocacy Award, Jacobs emphasized that the policies and initiatives put forward through the HIV Caucus and public health organizations in the U.S. have global impact — particularly regarding PEPFAR. Jacobs has been a consistent champion for people living with HIV, military service rights, and protecting the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“PEPFAR has saved over 25 million lives, but cuts are already causing catastrophic setbacks,” Rep. Jacobs said, explaining that even with progress made due to PEPFAR funding, places like Malawi reaching the 95-95-95 goal (95 percent of all people with HIV knew their status, 95 percent of those diagnosed were on lifesaving antiretrovirals, and 95 percent of those on medication were unable to transmit HIV) will continue to suffer. “In Malawi, where services for LGBTQ people, sex workers, young women, and other marginalized groups have been eliminated, it’s no longer a question of if transmission rates will rise — but when. We cannot leave communities behind or allow preventable deaths because of political decisions made in Washington.”

From left, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), U.S. Rep. Sarah Jacobs (D-Calif.) and NMAC CEO Harold Jacobs attend the National Minority AIDS Council’s sixth annual Hill Champions Reception. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

“I know that people of color, immigrants and trans people, have all been let down by our mainstream approach to HIV prevention and everything, I see seven barriers they face in accessing health care, the stigma surrounding disease and the lack of awareness from people in power,” the San Diego congresswoman said. “I want to say to those in that community, I will not let you fall through the cracks. I will not let you become another statistic, and I will keep working to make sure your voice is heard and that you can live a full and healthy life.”

Crockett, who addressed the crowd via video, emphasized her award’s namesake, explaining that the “good trouble” she gets into on the House floor and in committees can be deemed too much even by those in her own party, but that she remains committed to making HIV treatment accessible to all, regardless of background.

“To receive an award named after John Lewis is an honor all on its own. It means being bold, speaking up when others are scared to and standing firm when the truth makes people uncomfortable. And y’all know me — I don’t mind stirring a little trouble, especially when I am stirring trouble that is good trouble — but I never do it alone. I do it with the strength of the communities I represent. I do it with the stories of the folks who feel unheard. I do it for the people who depend on someone in those halls of Congress to fight for them. So this award isn’t just mine. It belongs to every advocate pushing for access to health care, every person navigating their own health journey, every organizer who refuses to give up.”

She continued, without directly calling out the White House, making allusions to pushing back against the recent emergence of budget cuts.

“I promise to keep fighting for funding, for research, for resources ,and for every community that needs a champion, because getting into good trouble isn’t just a phrase, it’s a calling, a calling we all share in this room,” Crockett said. “Thank you again for this honor, and thank you for your leadership, your fight and your refusal to back down. Now, let’s keep getting into that good trouble.”

Ramirez, who represents a part of Chicago, was previously in the Illinois House of Representatives, where she co-sponsored legislation to allow minors to access HIV and STI testing, prevention, and treatment without parental consent. She was also a chief co-sponsor in securing $10 million in state funding for this initiative in Illinois, and was the House chief co-sponsor for the “disrupting disparities for LGBTQ+ older adults and older adults living with HIV” initiative.

“I am clear more than ever that a commitment to ending the HIV and AIDS epidemic must continue to be our priority, and we must demonstrate that priority not through words, my friends, but through action — fighting for and protecting our neighbors, living with HIV or AIDS, including our LGBTQI plus neighbors,” Ramirez said. “It means showing up, telling our stories, celebrating each other and fighting side by side for that collective liberation, which only makes me more grateful for the people in this room.”

She also used the platform to criticize how some of Trump-Vance administration’s cuts to healthcare coverage funding were directed at underserved communities within the U.S. — namely undocumented immigrants like her parents.

“I want you to know that as members of Congress, we cannot go through day to day as business as usual, today is the time to demand that our siblings living with HIV and AIDS, no matter their sexual orientation, no matter their gender expression, no matter their zip code, their background or their citizenship status, that they get everything that they deserve, every Damn thing, so that they can live a healthy and thriving life.”

While the event was intended to celebrate the accomplishments of legislators, advocates, and supporters of the fight against HIV/AIDS, the tone of the night was noticeably more charged following the Trump-Vance administration’s refusal to acknowledge World AIDS Day — and the reported directive instructing federal employees not to comment about it on any channels, including social media and traditional media.

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a surprise appearance, celebrating the three legislators while emphasizing the critical importance of supporting HIV/AIDS research now that the White House has refused to acknowledge it.

“It’s really important this year, because this is the first time in a very long time that we have had World AIDS Day when the president of the United States has said, we can’t really talk about it and we certainly should not observe it for two days. On Sunday and Monday in San Francisco, we did exactly that. We talked about it, and we observed it, and here we are talking about it here, because, as Congressman Crockett said, and we all know, we’re here to fight for funding. We’re fighting for research, prevention, and all of that, but we’re also here to fight against discrimination and stigma anybody wants to attach to this, and that starts with you in the White House,” Pelosi said. “We have a fight on our hands, because this isn’t over.. [to] make sure that any discussion of HIV ends up in the dust bin of history, an ancient malady when our children, grandchildren all grow up. ‘What was that?’ It was something that doesn’t exist anymore because of the goodness of others, because of the National Minority AIDS Council.”

Maxine Waters slams Trump

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) also made an appearance and delivered an unfiltered, passionate speech praising NMAC’s efforts and calling out Trump for ending funding for HIV/AIDS worldwide while simultaneously accepting donations to rebuild the White House as he sees fit.

“I want to tell you when they asked, how was I doing when I came in, really, I was thinking about the president of the United States and what’s going on now, it’s so troubling. And I find myself not sleeping as well as I normally sleep. I find myself trying to believe that what I see is happening is absolutely happening,” Waters said. “Many of our people with HIV and AIDS are homeless, and they’re not being taken care of, and they’re going to die with the cuts that are being made. Unfortunately, we just got to say it.”

She continued, calling out Trump’s lack of focus on domestic issues like HIV/AIDS that directly impact American citizens, instead prioritizing issues unrelated to the public’s welfare.

“The fact that the president of the United States is killing people in international waters in Venezuela, not knowing whether or not they’re drug dealers or not, not caring, and I think about two people, two men hanging on the side of the boat who had escaped the bomb that hit, and they said, kill him, and they shot him down and killed it’s hard to live with this. It’s hard to understand how all of this is happening. And so Trump refused to commemorate World AIDS Day, and his State Department instructed employees and grantees to refrain from publicly promoting World AIDS Day through any communication channels, including social media, media engagements, speeches or other public facing messaging let’s just be an honorary Why would he be focused on us celebrating or working with World AIDS Day and helping people to understand that HIV and AIDS is still a big problem in this country, and we have to spend money. We have to do what it takes in order to provide the medicine and the health care that they need. Why would he just be against that? He’s already cutting the funds. But just go even further and say and don’t even promote World AIDS Day. It’s bothersome. Trump halted funds for PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which was created under the leadership of former Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the co-founder of the Congressional HIV AIDS Caucus.”

“There’s a very rich man that paid attention to what was going on with HIV and AIDS, and that was Bill Gates. And I’d like to quote him and what he said. ‘We’re already seeing the tragic impact of reductions in aid, and we know the number of date deaths will continue to rise.’ Here in the United States, where Nancy and I just talked about the creation of Minority AIDS Initiative to address AIDS disparities, and where the initiative has grown from 156 million when we first started in 1999 to more than 400 million per year. Today, Donald Trump is waging an all out war on people living with HIV. Trump’s budget proposal completely eliminated HIV prevention funding at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and he slashed the funds from Ryan White AIDS care and HIV research. We cannot allow, we cannot allow these devastating cuts to be implemented, and so we’re doing everything that we possibly can to fight Donald Trump on all of these issues. I want you to know that this attack on many of our friends who happened to come from other countries is just outrageous, and what he said about Somalia today just cannot be understood or accepted. And so for all of the nice people in the room, get mad, get angry. Do a little cursing. Tell people what you think about it, because if you’re too nice, nobody believes you. You got to kick a little butt. You got to make sure that they understand we’re in this fight and we’re not going to go away. I know he’s the president of the United States, but he shouldn’t be. He’s the president of the United States with a cabinet that knows nothing and cares nothing about anybody. I dare anybody to talk about minorities and want to know whether or not we’re qualified. Hell, they have the most unqualified people that you’ve ever witnessed in your life, anytime, anyplace, anywhere. We want to get rid of all of them dealing with this public policy, doing everything that we can, educating people. Don’t forget, you got to get them to vote.”

She spoke for 17 minutes, touching on many current events but repeatedly returning to the point that the president is supposed to represent the people — not his own interests.

“I came here to talk about AIDS, but I wasn’t going to let you go without talking about some other stuff too. And I’m going to leave you with saying, not only are we concerned and we’re upset about the kind of cuts that are made, whether we’re talking about health care, we’re talking about AIDS in particular, whether we’re talking about Section Eight, whether we’re talking about food stamps, this crazy man is destroying the White House — bulldozes the East Wing. Why would he do that? And why would he spend over $300 million to do that while he’s cutting all of these programs? Well, he’ll say it’s being donated. Well, get it donated to AIDS. You know what I’m saying. Why are you getting it donated? And then, last of all, which pisses me off, you. Definitely, and I just think it’s crazy and outrageous. He wants to take the John F. Kennedy Center and name it after Melania. What the hell?”

In a moment when federal silence grows louder, the advocates in that room offered a counterpoint — a reminder that community, courage, and persistence still drive the fight to end HIV.

Continue Reading

Popular