Opinions
The LGBTQ+ community, telehealth, and rural broadband access
Congress must act to preserve lifeline of remote healthcare

The LGBTQ+ community has come to rely more and more on remote general and specialized healthcare as the pandemic continues to limit access to in-person services. This lifeline is in danger of going away unless Congress acts, delivering a serious blow to the diverse community of people who struggle to access care in-person in their communities.
Telehealth allows doctors and other providers to provide care without an in-person visit. More specifically, telehealth refers to the health care services accessible through telecommunications services, including via audio and video (either real time or asynchronous). These services are best delivered via high-speed broadband services. Medical care appointments, consultations, prescriptions, follow-up visits, and more can be done safely and virtually.
Telehealth is a modern necessity made even more relevant due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and demand for these resources is growing. The LGBTQ+ community in particular is experiencing a significant need for improved telehealth provisions and access. Recent relaxations of telehealth regulations have expanded the reach of telehealth and positively impacted marginalized communities including the LGBTQ+ community, especially in rural and remote areas. Effective and reliable broadband access is instrumental for telehealth services and as telehealth expands, advancements to universal broadband access will be critical to reach these communities.
Telehealth and the LGBTQ+ community
More than 18 million Americans identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, or intersex (LGBTQ+), and more younger Americans than ever before are identifying as LGBTQ+. The health concerns of these individuals deserve utmost respect and care, demonstrable through high-quality health care both in person and online. Telehealth plays an important role in connecting the LGBTQ+ community with competent and affirming health care providers and services. The LGBTQ+ community has always been more heavily reliant on internet connectivity, and healthcare is no different, with 81% of LGBTQ+ youth reportedly using the internet to search for health information.
LGBTQ+ communities face many of the same healthcare concerts as non-LGBTQ+ communities, though there are differences in rates of some chronic conditions including cancer, diabetes, obesity, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and tobacco-related health conditions. LGBTQ+ individuals have higher rates of mental and physical disability, and the impact of loneliness on health quality is experienced at higher rates by LGBTQ+ individuals in both urban and rural settings. Routine healthcare for these conditions improves quality of life, but LGBTQ+ individuals often report high cost as a deterrent from going to the doctor. Telehealth provides an affordable avenue to routine health care.
Many individuals in the LGBTQ+ community report a history of medical trauma as a barrier to receiving healthcare. Gender-affirming health care is one major motivator for telehealth access in the LGBTQ+ community. Nearly one-fifth of transgender individuals have been refused healthcare due to their gender identity. Online servers such as Folx Health, Plume, and QueerDoc provide gender-affirming care including hormone therapy, mental health, and documents for gender marker change. Telehealth allows users to bypass the barrier of proximity to medical care and to access providers who are informed on medical concerns and considerations that uniquely impact the LGBTQ+ community.
Regulations that previously restricted the delivery of telehealth have been eased since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, rules previously limited telehealth to rural areas received in a clinical setting. The new rules allow urban and suburban patients to access telehealth from their home or other convenient setting. This makes sense as many urban areas lack convenient access to physicians and other providers. Individuals across America have benefitted from the ability to access basic health services at home, but those whose care has been most significantly enhanced are poor, elderly, members of marginalized communities such as the LGBTQ+ community, and/or those who live in remote areas of the country. For example, the total number of telehealth visits in Medicare increased from less than 1 million to more than 50 million during COVID.
There are currently hundreds of proposals pending before state and federal legislatures that address extending or expanding telehealth beyond the pandemic’s public health emergency. Current changes to telehealth regulations include loosened restrictions around telephone-based check-ins and the allowance for telehealth visits between providers and persons across state borders. Before the pandemic, patients filled a prescription after first meeting with a doctor in-person, but telehealth expansion has eliminated the required in-person appointment. Telehealth treatment for addiction is also on the rise, with addiction-specific treatments available online. General mental health resources are also increasingly accessible virtually and by phone. Now that these practices are commonplace, regulators are looking to pass legislation that will maintain this ease of service.
The expansion of telehealth has proven especially effective for the LGBTQ+ community. Easing accessibility of telehealth and prescriptions reduces the cost of care for routine medicines and check-ups for conditions that disproportionately affect the LGBTQ+ community, such as HIV. Increased availability of telehealth mental resources is critical for all youth, but especially for those in the marginalized LGBTQ+ community. Through online resources, transgender adults can safely and reliably access gender-affirming healthcare including hormone replacement therapy and counseling with specialized professionals. Additionally, telehealth access can reduce or eliminate the stigma and discrimination that LGBTQ+ individuals face daily when selecting providers, especially in remote or rural areas where there may be few providers to choose from and even fewer knowledgeable about and sympathetic to the special health care needs of LGBTQ+ individuals. Making permanent the COVID-19 exemptions currently in place that regulate telehealth services will have far-reaching, positive impacts for the LGBTQ+ community.
Rural need for telehealth
An estimated 2.9 to 3.8 million Americans living in rural and remote parts of the country identify as LGBTQ+ and deserve high-quality and informed healthcare. Accessing a healthcare provider is, in general, more challenging in rural areas. Consider, for example, costs associated with distance. To add insult to injury, where providers are available in rural communities, the potential for discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals and misdiagnosis of medical conditions is prevalent. Lack of access to sympathetic providers or specialized providers makes telehealth a crucial tool for the rural LGBTQ+ community.
Given the need for broadband access to ensure quality telehealth services (to access video consultations, for example), the quality of an individual’s access to broadband services will directly affect their health care experience. Rural Americans are routinely left behind in broadband deployment, contributing to the digital divide, or the gap in use of online resources. Improvements to broadband access is key for expanding the reach of telehealth services across the country, especially in rural America. The recently enacted infrastructure law includes $65 billion in new broadband funding. It must be rolled out quickly to ensure marginalized communities in rural areas gain from improvements to broadband access and the telehealth resources that come along with it.
Telehealth has become a critical tool to expand access for all patients, but especially the LGBTQ+ community. Marginalized individuals benefit the most from increased telehealth access and those living in rural areas may be the most significantly impacted. Telehealth offers a number of benefits including facilitating community health and social wellness, the delivery of gender-affirming medical care, accessible mental health care, and ease of prescription access.
Recently relaxed regulations around telehealth delivery have increased the reach of these services and provided healthcare to individuals who may have gone without care. Rural and remote marginalized communities, such as the LGBTQ+ community, will experience an especially positive impact from telehealth, and increasing rural broadband access is critical to expanding high-quality, informed healthcare to LGBTQ+ individuals across America. Crucially, Congress can permanently expand telehealth services and capitalize on the recent infrastructure law to roll out high-speed broadband that facilitates telehealth in areas with limited internet access. Without congressional action, many of the benefits marginalized communities have experienced from telehealth services will expire thereby reducing or eliminating supportive and specialized care options for these communities.
For more information visit www.LGBTQ+tech.org/telehealth.
Carlos Gutierrez is deputy director and general counsel for the LGBT Technology Partnership & Institute, which works to improve access, increase inclusion, ensure safety and empower entrepreneurship for LGBTQ+ communities around technology.
Opinions
Pride must be inclusive, intentionally intersectional
Organizers of local UK Pride led anti-Israel, pro-Houthi slogans

There are a lot of conversations in the LGBTI community about Prides becoming “too commercial,” but what about grassroots, leftist radical Prides? Well, the idea of community-organized, grassroots Prides is amazing, but unfortunately, it is very human to make mistakes.
While big LGBTI Prides that are organized with help from businesses are trying to be inclusive, grassroots Prides have sometimes gone too far in their attempts to create an “edgy,” rebellious atmosphere. Some slogans that have been used at “independent” Prides create more problems than they solve, making these events non inclusive and unacceptable for a large part of the LGBTI community.
I believe in intersectionality. I was one of the very few activists in Russia who began writing and speaking about the need for intersectional approaches in the LGBTI community — speaking up for neurodivergent, disabled, non-white, Muslim, and Jewish LGBTI people. In the U.K., I’m part of various groups supporting LGBTI refugees.
And this is why I see that some modern attempts by Western LGBTI activists to be mindful of different forms of oppression have actually excluded people from Pride and divided the LGBTI community. I’ve seen these tendencies across Europe, the U.S., and the U.K.
Personally, I’ve never felt less included at a Pride than I did last weekend at a local U.K. Pride, where the crowd was forced to yell: “Death to the IDF (Israel Defense Forces),” “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and “Yemen, Yemen made us proud, turn another ship around.”
The last slogan, about Yemen, didn’t even catch on with the crowd — probably because most people at the Pride had no idea why they should be proud of Yemen. And the truth is, they shouldn’t. The slogan refers to Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, who have hijacked and fired missiles at dozens of commercial and military ships in the Red Sea, supposedly to “protect” Palestinian rights.
Let me make it clear: I have no problem with the “protecting Palestinian people” part of the story. I believe that there are many war criminals in the current Israeli administration, and the bombing of Gaza refugee camps is unacceptable, no matter what.
But at the same time, I couldn’t understand why we were being asked to support attacks on commercial ships or show solidarity with the Houthi rebels, who, according to Amnesty International, are not only responsible for the deaths of dozens of LGBTI people, but are also extremely authoritarian and prone to sectarian violence.
If we’re speaking from an intersectional perspective, I know how triggering those slogans must have been for many Sunni Muslims (and yes, most Muslims from Gaza are Sunni), as well as for LGBTI refugees from Yemen and Iran who may have lost loved ones to the Houthis or the Iranian regime that support them. And I am sure there were likely some queer Iranians at that Pride.
The chanting about the Israel Defence Forces was also extremely disturbing — not only because there were likely Jewish queers at the Pride, some of whose relatives may even oppose Israeli actions in Gaza and support a two-state solution, but who served in the Israeli army due to conscription laws. But the problem is, I’ve never heard people at a Pride chant in support of Ukrainian people, or Chechens, or Uyghurs, or Yazidis — despite the fact that all of them have survived genocide. I’ve never heard queer people at Pride yelling “death to Russian occupiers,” even when Russian missiles destroyed Ukrainian schools and shelters in Mariupol, bombed Aleppo, persecuted Crimean Tatars, or wiped out entire Chechen villages.
China built concentration camps for Uyghurs, but no one is promoting the death of the Chinese government. Moreover, China, Russia, and Assad’s Syria are more homophobic than Israel. So, what is the reason for yelling “Death to the IDF” but not, for example, calling for the Russian government’s collapse or the end of the Chinese Communist Party? There are only two logical explanations:
• It is either antisemitism or ignorance about other wars except for the one that is going on in Gaza. Both reasons are quite bad.
• It is not intersectionality. It is anti-intersectionality, because it erases every other war survivor who isn’t Palestinian from LGBTI community. It also alienated LGBTI Jewish people because only Jewish State had a “special” hatred for war crimes that atheists and Christian don’t have.
It’s also an attempt to turn the LGBTI movement into an ideological club instead of a group fighting for the rights of a specific marginalized community.
Another triggering thing I saw at this Pride was the glorification of socialism. But not all LGBTI people are socialists, and not all countries that called themselves “socialist” have been LGBTI-friendly.
I couldn’t even imagine what a queer person from North Korea, or a gay man who was imprisoned in the Soviet Union for being gay must have felt when hearing calls for a socialist revolution at Pride. It must have been devastating. Pride should feel like a free, anti-authoritarian space.
Pride also needs to focus on the real problems LGBTI people face. In the U.K., the Supreme Court ruled that only cis women can be considered real women. Thousands of trans kids have lost access to hormone therapy. LGBTI books are being censored in libraries. The government is cutting benefits for disabled people: LGBTI disabled people will be among the first to be harmed, because they face double stigma and more challenges finding employment, even when they are able to work.
But none of this was the main point at Pride. For some reason, we were asked to repeat pro-Palestinian slogans more often than slogans defending trans people or LGBTI people with disabilities.
The organisers were so obsessed with Palestine and socialism that, if I weren’t already involved in LGBTI activism, I might have assumed the LGBTI community has no real problems left — and that now we just campaign about unrelated political issues.
But that would be a false impression.
LGBTI people are under attack in countries around the world — from U.S. to Russia to the U.K. Moreover, far-right ideologies are rising across the West. Yes, it’s important to understand the international context, but now, more than ever, it is equally important to unite against the global rise of fascism and not divide the movement based on economic ideology or international political views.
Opinions
What if doctors could deny you insulin for being gay?
The Supreme Court just made that legal for trans kids

Imagine walking into a pharmacy, prescription in hand, and being told, “Sorry, we don’t give that to people like you.” Now imagine the government says that’s perfectly fine—as long as it’s wrapped in words like “concern” or “safety.”
That’s not a dystopian movie plot. That’s United States v. Skrmetti.
On June 18, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s SB1, a state law that bans gender-affirming care for minors. Puberty blockers. Hormone therapy. All of it. Not because the treatments are dangerous (they’re not), or untested (they’re not), but because the kids receiving them are transgender.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t regulation. It’s targeted denial. And it just got the Supreme Court’s stamp of approval.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said SB1 doesn’t discriminate. He argued the law merely regulates treatment based on “age and purpose.” That’s a little like banning seatbelts—but only for gay people—and claiming it’s about “safety.” Here’s the truth: SB1 bans hormone therapy only when it’s used for gender transition. Those same drugs are still allowed for other conditions. That’s not neutral. That’s surgical discrimination, written into law.
Even Tennessee’s legal team admitted it: the law “only affects those who seek to transition.” That’s not an accidental loophole. That’s the entire point.
Even worse, the Court ducked the bigger question: Do transgender Americans qualify as a “suspect class” under the Constitution—meaning they deserve stronger protections against discrimination?
Historically, groups with a long track record of discrimination, limited political power, and immutable traits (like race or religion) have gotten this status. Trans people check every box. Yet the Court said nothing.
That silence wasn’t a technicality. It was a political decision. A willful refusal to say: “You matter. You count. You’re protected here.”
Let’s drop the pretense. This isn’t about medicine or morality. Gender-affirming care is backed by every major U.S. medical association—from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the AMA. It’s safe. It’s effective. And it saves lives.
But these laws don’t ban puberty blockers across the board. They just ban them for trans kids.
That’s not policy—it’s punishment.
We wouldn’t tolerate a law that banned mammograms for women, or insulin for diabetics, only if they’re queer. But that’s exactly what this is: identity-based medical apartheid.
Supporters claim it’s about protecting children. But you don’t protect kids by denying them care recommended by doctors and supported by science. You do that to control who they’re allowed to become.
Here’s the part that should make us all pause: Most Americans don’t agree with this decision. A recent Pew poll found that 64% of Americans support protections for transgender people. Nearly 60% support access to gender-affirming care. Among young adults, those numbers are even higher.
This isn’t a red state vs. blue state issue. It’s a basic civil rights question in the 21st century. The people are not divided. But our institutions—the courts, the legislatures—are lagging behind. Or worse, being weaponized.
This ruling leaves trans youth legally exposed and politically abandoned. But that doesn’t mean we’re powerless.
Here’s what must happen now:
· State legislatures must pass ironclad non-discrimination laws that protect transgender youth where federal protections now fall short.
· Congress must pass the Equality Act—in full—and enshrine civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans nationwide.
· The media must stop framing this as just another “culture war.” This isn’t about ideology. It’s about constitutional rights—access to care, bodily autonomy, and equal protection under the law.
· And we the people must act. Vote. Call your lawmakers. Tell your stories. Make it clear that civil rights don’t depend on your zip code, political party, or gender identity.
This moment is more than a court ruling. It’s a moral test for a country that claims to believe in liberty and justice for all.
You don’t have to be trans to be alarmed. If the state can deny medical care to one group based on identity, what’s to stop them from doing it to you? Your kid? Your neighbor?
History will remember where we stood. Let it remember this: we stood with trans kids and their parents. Loudly. Unapologetically. And without retreat.
James Bridgeforth, Ph.D., is a national columnist on the intersection of politics, morality, and civil rights. His work regularly appears in The Chicago Defender and The Black Wall Street Times.

The felon in the White House, who has lied his way to victory, has now signed his ‘big disgusting bill’ into law. He has managed to get members of Congress to agree to screw their own constituents, and vote for this abomination of a bill.
Republican members of Congress who have said it will be a disaster in their states. Who have said it will force the closure of rural hospitals, and throw seniors out of nursing homes, in their states, because they will lose their Medicaid. Who have said they oppose the bill because it will add $3.3 trillion to the deficit, which young people will suffer for in years to come. They have said they oppose it because it pretends to help those earning tips and overtime, but close reading of the fine print shows it does practically nothing for them. But because their lips are firmly attached to Trump’s ass, they voted for it anyway. It is the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the country’s history. Now if that doesn’t give decent people the incentive they need to fight, to take back their country, nothing will. And when I say fight, I mean with their votes.
To win, Democrats need to stop the self-immolation. Democrats are doing fine across the nation. Winning many special elections for state legislatures and the judiciary. Even when they don’t win, the margins in solid Republican districts are way down. Democrats will win governorships in New Jersey and Virginia this year. So instead of Democrats constantly talking about how bad the polls are for the party, and trashing each other, they need to focus on what it will take to win back Congress in 2026. The best way to start is to trash Republicans. I am concerned about groups like David Hogg’s PAC, and figures like Sen. Bernie Sanders, supporting candidates against sitting Democrats. Spending money and time on primaries against sitting democrats, even old ones, may not be the way to go this cycle. We need one focus — taking back Congress in 2026. That means laser like focus on which seats are winnable; open seats, and Republican seats, in both the House and Senate. Doing this is the only way we can stop the felon in the White House, and his MAGA sycophants in Congress, from doing more damage in his final two years as president. Time to face reality, that is really all that can be done for now.
If Democrats take back the House, they can stop the budget machinations Trump is trying to get done. If Democrats take the Senate, they can stop the felon from getting any more MAGA judges, or disgusting unqualified executive branch nominees, confirmed. Again, that has to be the singular focus for 2026 for anyone serious about stopping Trump. I, too, want younger members of Congress. I would urge older Democrats, those in safe districts, to voluntarily step aside. But spending millions to primary them, when in most cases history shows they will win anyway, seems counterproductive at this time. Choose the best candidates in primaries for open and Republican seats — those with the best chance of winning in the general election. I have given my support at this time to Zach Wahls, running to unseat Sen. Joni Ernst in Iowa.
Democrats must remember that most of the voters in the nation are moderate and concerned with kitchen table issues. So, while there are districts far left candidates can win, like Mamdani who just won the mayoral primary in New York City, we have seen such candidates lose in most of the country. There are takeaways from Mamdani’s win in New York for every candidate, other than everyone likes things for free. I recommend candidates look at the brilliant way he used social media. That is something Democrats around the country need to learn. People, especially young people, get their news that way these days. Then Democrats must accept the midterm elections are really local elections. They will be about what the local Democratic candidate campaigns on, and the contrast to what the Republican Party is doing for, or in most cases to, the voters in that particular district.
If Democrats do anything nationally it should be to flood the airwaves with the negatives of Trump’s bill. If done right Democrats will win. Then stop trashing Democrats who don’t agree with you on every issue. Again, stop listening to the likes of Bernie Sanders, who tells people if they don’t like everything about a Democrat, they can vote for an independent. History tells us that only helps Republicans.
Understand the most important vote any legislator makes is their first one. It determines who will control the legislature. Who will be Speaker of the House, and Majority Leader in the Senate, and most state legislatures. If the vote is for the Democratic leadership, then Democrats control the agenda, and committees. That is how to make a real difference.
Stop listening to those who claim the Democratic Party is not clear on what it stands for. The Democratic platform has been clear for years. Democrats support equality, unions, working people, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They support the right of women to control their bodies; support equality for the LGBTQ community. Democrats are for a fair immigration policy; doing everything possible to fight climate change, and protect the environment; bringing down prices for groceries, gas, and rent. If Democrats take back control of committees, in both state legislatures, and Congress, they can once again begin to move forward on all those issues.
So, stop the self-immolation, and attack Republicans. They are the enemy of the people, not a Democrat who you may not agree with on every issue. Try to move forward as a united Democratic Party. If everyone understands and does that, Democrats will win in 2025 and 2026, and will stop the felon in the White House before he totally destroys our country.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
-
Opinions4 days ago
What if doctors could deny you insulin for being gay?
-
National4 days ago
Trump administration sues California over trans student-athletes
-
Real Estate3 days ago
Big changes ahead: D.C. housing policy is finally shifting
-
Television3 days ago
How this Texas drag king reclaimed their identity