Opinions
Flood of anti-homosexuality bills in Africa threatens us all
Ugandan lawmakers on Tuesday approved revised Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Castration. Banishment. Execution.
This is the fate that a slew of new bills and their proponents in Africa seek for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people: Not only to criminalize adult same-sex sexual intimacy, but to eradicate sexual and gender diversity–including by executing queer people. 32 countries in Africa already criminalize consensual same-sex conduct. The new wave of laws goes much further, enforcing public silence around LGBTQ people’s existence, enlisting citizens as spies, and making every human rights proponent a potential criminal.
LGBTQ Africans are a fact of life. No law will make them disappear. But by promoting laws that posit queer people’s very existence as a problem to be eliminated, and constructing an unseen enemy that could be hiding around any corner, politicians convince the public to accept shockingly repressive legislation.
The ideology underpinning such laws is nothing short of genocidal. Under international law, genocide is the attempt to destroy a group of people, in whole or in part, including by “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.” The strict legal definition of genocide only applies to “national, ethnical, racial or religious” groups, but no other term as clearly captures the depravity of legislation that seeks to eliminate people because of their sexuality or gender.
Genocidal ideology underlies Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2023, passed by Parliament on March 21. It attracted international condemnation as possibly the worst anti-LGBTQ law anywhere in the world, imposing the death penalty for some forms of consensual same-sex conduct. That bears repeating: 387 members of Parliament in Uganda voted to subject gay people to the firing squad for consensual sex. They voted for the death penalty yet again after President Yoweri Museveni returned the bill to Parliament on April 20, requesting amendments including the removal of the death penalty. The revised bill, passed on May 2, contains only minor changes. Families and landlords will still be forced to turn out queer people living into the streets. Speaking up for the “normalization” of sexual and gender diversity, or funding work that advances human rights or economic inclusion for LGBTQ people, still leads to a 20-year prison sentence. Prison officials and social welfare agents would be tasked with “rehabilitating” people convicted under the bill in a form of state-sponsored “conversion therapy” practices. The law maintains a “duty to report” anyone suspected of homosexuality, calling on everyone in Uganda to support the police state by spying on their neighbors, family members and coworkers.
Uganda is only the tip of the iceberg. Its brand of virulent homophobia appears to be contagious: In Kenya, MP George Peter Kaluma submitted the Family Protection Bill of 2023 to the National Assembly on April 7. The bill was a harsh response to a Supreme Court victory affirming that the National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission had the constitutional right to register and operate as a non-governmental organization. Kenya’s proposed law follows Uganda’s example in providing the death penalty for some consensual same-sex acts, prohibiting organizations from “normalizing” homosexuality, and penalizing landlords who rent living quarters to persons in same-sex relationships. It copies and pastes language from Uganda’s bill that forces citizens to become thought police: If you “suspect” that someone “intends” to commit an act prohibited by the proposed law and do not report them, you can be fined or jailed. It also prohibits “cross-dressing,” an attempt to specifically legislate trans people out of existence.
Ghana’s Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Act of 2021, currently before Parliament, seems to have provoked less global outrage: It prescribes 3-year prison sentences for offenders rather than life imprisonment or the death penalty. Yet some of its provisions are even more draconian. They criminalize the very existence of diverse identities and orientations: a person can be shut behind bars for “holding out” as “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, ally, pansexual and any other diverse sexual or gender identity.” Again, an attempt to legislate queer people out of existence.
Other proposed anti-homosexuality legislation looms in Francophone countries that were spared the British colonial heritage of criminializing so-called unnatural offenses. In Mali, Justice Minister and Keeper of the Seals Mahamadou Kassogue described homosexuality as “an unnatural relationship,” stating that it would soon be banned and that the Malian “justice does not accept this practice of homosexuality.” In Niger, President Mohamed Bazoum made remarks on the intention to introduce a new Penal Code that would criminalize homosexuality.
The tabling of legislation has been accompanied by a barrage of comments from politicians calling for atrocities to be perpetrated against LGBTQ people. On March 21 during Uganda’s Parliamentary Caucus on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, MP Sarah Opendi made statements to the effect that life imprisonment upon conviction for homosexuality is inadequate, adding that the most appropriate sentence would be castration. In Tanzania, a senior ruling party member Mary Chatanda also called for castration of people in same-sex relationships in March. Like Uganda, Tanzania already has a life sentence on the books for “unnatural offenses” and while no new law is pending, Chatanda’s comments were followed by a spike in anti-LGBTQ violence and raised fears that new laws might be tabled. Still within the same month, Burundi President Evariste Ndayishimiye urged citizens to “curse those who indulge in homosexuality, because God cannot bear it.” He added that “they must be banished, treated as pariahs in our country.” Queer people are already denied other fundamental rights in Burundi, where the law lists homosexuality as a basis of expelling students from secondary schools, thus interfering with the right to access education.
From the death penalty to elimination of safe access to housing, health care and education to calls for castration, banishment and mandatory “conversion therapy” practices, these laws and statements share one characteristic: They seek to destroy LGBTQ lives and livelihoods. Outright has documented how even before such bills are passed, they contribute to increased violence by members of the public as well as by law enforcement officials. These bills are deadly, and while legislating the elimination of queer people from public existence may not legally constitute genocide, it is genocidal thinking. Politicians who call for the execution, castration or banishment of queer people should also be aware that they are advocating crimes against humanity. The implementation of such laws could be tantamount to gender persecution — persecution on the basis of gender as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population — which is prohibited under the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court.
Meanwhile, not only queer people but also the general public in countries passing such bills will see their rights eviscerated through provisions that regulate what opinions they can express, what human rights causes they can support and to whom they can provide goods and services. Internet users, medical providers, artists, well-wishers, allies and creatives will find themselves in conflict with these laws.
Human rights are universal, inherent, inalienable and indivisible. Outright not only recommends that these bills are not affected into law, but also urges all civil society to condemn such moves to curb the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the name of eliminating LGBTQ existence.
Letter-to-the-Editor
D.C. electoral bumper car season is in full swing
More than a dozen candidates running for incumbent Eleanor Holmes Norton’s seat
The District of Columbia has entered into a challenging time not seen since Dr. Martin Luther King was murdered, the city burned and rioted and risked home rule being taken away. While statehood has twice passed the U.S. House of Representatives, the dream of being the 51st star on the American flag stagnates, to say the least.
Currently according to Politics 1.com, there are already 14 Democrats including two sitting members of the City Council (At-Large Robert White and Ward 2’s Brooke Pinto) and one Republican who have declared their candidacy to become the new voice in Congress. Unfortunately Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has refused to either announce her intentions to run for re-election again or gracefully acknowledge her time is over and she is ready to hand over the reins to continue the battles inflicted upon our home city. Congressional representation by press releases has simply got to stop as soon as possible!
Rank choice voting is going to be implemented in this 2026 cycle despite efforts to overturn or delay its implementation. Regardless of your thoughts on the new system, this will be one very interesting contest year to say the least. Rank choice … ready or not … here it comes!
Needless to say, the race for the Congressional seat is not the only major contest. Let us not forget the other positions up for election: the mayor, the attorney general, the chairman of the City Council, several ward and at-large races for the council. Add all these up and you will be looking at more moves on the political chess board than seen in the first Harry Potter film with the same results too. (As an aside, while the District of Columbia has no elected senators, it should be pointed out that any elected House member AND the District mayor have Senate floor privileges when in session.)
Before the June primary, it would be wise to make sure your voting registration is still current at the D.C. Board of Elections. Also, please urge friends not registered to do so as soon as possible. May we have the strength and will power to take back our city and stand up to those who want to destroy it.
Opinions
Zach Wahls stood up for us, now let’s stand with him
Young Iowa Democrat running for U.S. Senate
It was 15 years ago, on Jan. 30, 2011, that a college student, Zach Wahls, bravely stood in front of the Iowa Legislature, and spoke out, defending the marriage rights of his two moms. On Jan. 28 we will celebrate the 15th anniversary of that speech. That was the first time I, and millions of others, heard of Zach Wahls. I know Zach had no idea that speech would propel him to national prominence. It went viral, and Zach was invited to appear on the Ellen DeGeneres show, among other appearances.
At the time, he was an engineering student at the University of Iowa. As he has said, when he prepared his notes over the weekend for his Monday speech to the legislature, he had no idea where this would lead him. Today, so many of us, not just his moms, have the chance to repay him for what he did that day, when he defended all our rights in Iowa. In the past 15 years, Zach has never stopped standing up for the rights of his moms, and for all of us in the LGBTQ community.
I first met Zach at an event in Washington, D.C., when he was leading the fight to allow gay men to be leaders in the Boy Scouts of America. Having been a Boy Scout myself, and an Explorer adviser, and having promoted scouting for the handicapped (the term we used back in those days) this was an important fight for me. I was both honored to meet Zach, and have the chance to join him in that fight. Since then, I have followed his career. First as he went to Princeton for his graduate degree, and then back to Iowa, he is a sixth generation Iowan, to run for, and win, a seat in the Iowa State Senate. He was then elected to the post of minority leader. Today, Zach is running to become the United States Senator from Iowa. Zach is a member of the younger generation so many of us want to see serving in Congress.
As soon as I heard Zach was running, I endorsed him. Many of you may have read my endorsement column in the Blade. He was recently in Washington, D.C. for a fundraiser held at the Women’s National Democratic Club, where I had the pleasure of meeting his wife, and his absolutely adorable son. I kidded him he should never go campaigning without them. Now, it’s important to remember, he is running in Iowa. Not an easy race to win. He has a primary to win, which I firmly believe he will, and then his likely opponent is the ultra MAGA Republican Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa). A poll done just before Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said she would not run again, had Zach leading her. That may have been part of the reason she dropped out. If you followed Zach’s career in Iowa, you understand why Iowans would vote for him. If you haven’t, take a look at his website, to get an idea of where Zach stands on the issues, and the things he has been doing to fight for all Iowans. His proposed federal legislation, Keep the Promise Act, would strengthen Social Security. Zach understands we need to defeat the fascists working with the felon in the White House, before they totally destroy our country. He understands we need to fight for affordable healthcare for all, for his constituents in rural Iowa, who are getting hit the hardest by the felon’s policies. Iowa farmers are losing their farms because of the felon’s policies. While continuing to fight for the LGBTQ community, Zach has always understood, we are part of the broader community he is now fighting for.
I hope those of you who read this column, will join with me, support Zach, and be part of the Zoom call on Wednesday, Jan. 28, to celebrate the 15th anniversary of Zach’s speech to the Iowa Legislature. To join, click on this link, and sign up. I also ask you to share this link with everyone you know. Our community owes something to Zach, but everyone will benefit, if Zach Wahls ends up in the United States Senate. He will make us all proud.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Opinions
Rollback of health IT standards will harm LGBTQ patients
Trump proposal would remove most data fields in medical records
For most Americans, the ability to change healthcare providers and easily have their health records transfer feels like a given. But it was not until the 21st century Cures Act was signed in 2020 that regulations on health technology mandated that electronic health records had to be able to collect, receive, and transfer specific data fields in a uniform way (known as the U.S. Core Data for Interoperability). Before that, if your new doctor and your prior doctor subscribed to different electronic health records systems, there was a very good chance that the data fields didn’t match up and some patient information would literally be lost in translation.
Through the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, created through executive order by President George W. Bush, the Biden administration advanced health IT policy specifically to ensure that LGBTQI+ patients records would transfer to new providers with unique information that patients need their providers to have access to. This includes data fields for chosen names, pronouns, and sex parameters for clinical usage – or in other words, what sex should be listed for lab work, regardless of the patient’s gender identity. There were also fields added for sexual orientation and gender identity. To be clear, the requirement was for the electronic health record systems to be able to collect, transfer, and receive these data points. There was never a requirement for providers to ask all these questions or for patients to be required to answer them. But if the IT systems aren’t mandated to have these fields in a uniform way, the impact of a provider asking the questions is limited only to the care that the specific provider offers to the patient. The Trump administration has proposed removing 34 of the 60 required data fields in electronic health records, including the fields for chosen names, pronouns, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex parameters for clinical usage.
There has been widespread support for these regulations on health IT companies. Having a lowest common denominator for health IT systems is good for patients and for healthcare providers. It also isn’t particularly controversial. Not surprisingly, the only folks cheering on deregulation are those ideologically opposed to any government regulations, and the specific companies who are subject to these health IT regulations.
The deregulators in the Trump administration would have us believe the myth that these regulations somehow hinder innovation and make it harder for tech startups to enter the health IT field. They gaslight us by calling this clear disservice to patients “prosperity.” But imagine what it would be like to go back to a time before these critical health IT regulations. When the new doctor you see doesn’t have very much if any information about the patient and the transfer of patient records was manual and cumbersome, often requiring someone to pay for their records to be printed, mailed, and then scanned into a different electronic health record system. This won’t lead to innovation, but it will lead to harm for the patient-provider relationship, and worsened health outcomes for the American people.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been deliberate and unrelenting in his rollbacks of health equity measures for LGBTQI+ Americans. He has proposed rules that would ban hospitals from receiving federal funds if they offer gender affirming care for youth; he has gutted the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS; he has rolled back civil rights protections in health care for LGBTQI+ Americans; and he has eliminated most federal health agency data collection of sexual orientation and gender identity. And this is just a small slice of his crusade at HHS to erase LGBTQI+ people.
There are currently many proposed rules and administrative changes that would harm access to equitable, high quality healthcare for LGBTQI+ people. So it makes sense that LGBTQI+ Americans may not be aware of such a wonky area of policy as federal health IT regulations. But we want to stress that deregulating health IT, with a specific goal of removing the minimum requirements for electronic health record systems to collect, transfer, and receive basic data fields of importance to LGBTQI+ people’s clinical care, will worsen both access to as well as quality of even basic healthcare for LGBTQI+ Americans. And for healthcare providers it is uniquely scary. They rely on the data in patient’s electronic records. And they need the IT systems they use to be able to talk to each other. Deregulating health IT is akin to trying to charge an iPhone with an Android charger, but as if your life depended on it.
There is an opportunity for public comment until Feb. 27, and anyone can make a comment. As a person who receives healthcare and/or a person who provides healthcare, speaking up is imperative. These health IT regulations are described by some as “woke” but really it’s very simple: when you go to the doctor, any doctor, you want them to have some basic information about who you are. Without that information, a healthcare provider could easily make an assumption about the patient that is inaccurate and that leads the provider to make different recommendations than what the patient needs.
This is not radical, this is the very premise of healthcare delivery. And LGBTQI+ patients stand to be left behind, deliberately and systematically, if these deregulations of health IT are put into effect. Without accurate, timely data, providers are unable to live up to the promise of precision medicine and will fail to ensure everyone receives the care that matches their unique needs.
Adrian Shanker is senior fellow at Lehigh University College of Health. He served as deputy assistant secretary for health policy and senior adviser on LGBTQI+ health equity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Biden-Harris administration. Dr. Carl G. Streed, Jr. is Associate Professor of Medicine at Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine and Research Director at the GenderCare Center at Boston Medical Center.
Layoffs and confusion at Pride Center of Maryland after federal grants cut, reinstated
Comings & Goings
D.C.’s annual MLK Peace Walk and Parade set for Jan. 19
Love board games and looking for love?
Calendar: January 16-22
Ford’s ‘First Look’ festival showcases three new productions
Mid-Atlantic Leather kicks off this week
PHOTOS: ‘ICE Out For Good’ Sunday protests
Mark Levine running in ‘firehouse’ Democratic primary to succeed Adam Ebbin
