Connect with us

Congress

House Republicans defend book bans in subcommittee hearing

Democratic ranking member raised objections

Published

on

U.S. Reps. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) and Aaron Bean (R-Fla.), ranking member and chair of the U.S. House Committee on Education & the Workforce's Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee (Washington Blade photo by Christopher Kane)

During a hearing of the U.S. House Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee on Thursday, Chair Aaron Bean (R-Fla.) defended book bans that have disproportionately targeted works with LGBTQ characters and content.

The congressman raised objections to the Biden-Harris administration’s appointment last month of openly gay nonprofit leader and former Obama administration official Matt Nosanchuk to review the practice of pulling books from school libraries.

Responding to the remarks from Bean, who said the “book ban czar” would “potentially penalize” local school boards “for simply reviewing books,” a U.S. Department of Education spokesperson said in a statement to the Washington Blade:

ā€œAcross the country, communities are seeing a rise in efforts to ban books ā€“ efforts that are oftenĀ designed to empty libraries and classrooms of literature about LGBTQI+ people, people of color, people of faith, key historical events and more.

“These efforts are a threat to studentā€™s rights andĀ freedoms. To address this issue, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) brought on Deputy AssistantĀ Secretary Matt Nosanchuk, whose portfolio will include serving as the Departmentā€™s coordinatorĀ on responding to book bans, among other topics and responsibilities.

“OCR will continue its workĀ to support the public and school communities in understanding the civil rights impact bookĀ restrictions can have, in violation of federal law, and take enforcement action when necessary.

“InĀ the coming weeks, OCR will hold trainings for schools, libraries, teachers, and other educationĀ stakeholders to help them navigate their duty to provide equal access to education and aĀ supportive learning environment for all. The Department of Education remains firm in itsĀ commitment to ensure all students are protected from all forms of discrimination.ā€

A witness called by the Democratic members of the subcommittee, Jonathan Friedman, director of free expression and education programs at PEN America, said on Thursday that the range of restrictions and bans happening across the country today is “wildly unprecedented.”

“Weā€™ve been doing this work on and off for about 100 years,” he said, and there is now a “movement to encourage people to censor ideas” despite First Amendment jurisprudence on these matters, much of which comes from cases that were decided a half century ago.

U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), the Democratic ranking member of the subcommittee, said that despite her Republican colleagues’ assurances months earlier that they were not interested in addressing book bans, “Now, today, the majority is holding a hearing specifically about what books should or should not be allowed in school libraries.”

“And Iā€™ll note that this is the U.S. Congress, not a school board meeting,” she said.

Republicans have defended book bans by arguing parents must be able to exercise their right to determine which materials their children can access, but Bonamici said “parental rights” is a pretext used by MAGA politicians to enact censorship laws that are coordinated by a “well-funded, vocal minority of parents and conservative organizations pushing their own personal agenda on others.”

“We can all agree that books in school libraries should be age appropriate,” she said, “And we all used to agree that the federal government should not dictate school curricula or what books are in school libraries.” 

The congresswoman’s opening remarks came after Bean addressed some titles, by name, that he found objectionable, including Maia Kobabeā€™s ā€œGender Queer: A Memoirā€ and ā€œLawn Boy,ā€ a semi-autobiographical coming of age novel by Jonathan Evison.

According to the American Library Association, last year these books were respectively the first and seventh most banned and challenged, both for their inclusion of LGBTQ and sexually explicit content. The works, both critically acclaimed, are not intended for readers of all ages.

Objections raised by conservatives to these two books is not out of step with how proponents of book bans tend to focus on materials addressing matters of race, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Bonamici highlighted research by PEN America, which found that “41 percent of banned content focuses on LGBTQI+ themes, protagonists or characters,” while “40 percent focuses on characters of color.”

Meanwhile, “At least seven states have passed draconian laws in the past two years subjecting school librarians to years of imprisonment and fines for providing books deemed to be explicit, obscene, or harmful,” the congresswoman noted.

Book bans are unpopular. A 2022 poll by the ALA found seven in 10 Americans are opposed to the practice. Representatives from the organization, who were in attendance on Thursday, participated in another hearing on Wednesday addressing book bans, which was convened by Interfaith Alliance and included U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).

In a statement to the Washington Blade, ALA President Emily Drabinski responded to the exchanges between lawmakers and witnesses during Thursday’s hearing:

ā€œALA wholeheartedly agrees with todayā€™s witnesses, who when asked by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici whether they believe diverse perspectives and materials are essential to any library, all responded with a resounding yes,” Drabinski said.

ā€œYet censorship persists at record levels. ALAā€™s Office for Intellectual Freedom documented 1,269 demands to censor library books and resources in 2022, and the majority of those books are about or authored by LGBTQ+ people and people of color. Preliminary data suggests that 2023 will be another record-breaking year.

ā€œProviding youth access to a wide variety of reading material in which they can both see themselves and experience the lives of others benefits the individual readers and the community. It will take the whole community to protect the freedom to read. It’s time to come together to end book bans.ā€

On Friday, Drabinski will participate in a plenary session for PFLAG’s biennial National Convention entitled, ā€œLet Freedom Read! Read With Love to Support Inclusive Books and Education.ā€

ā€œAt a time when a small, but vocal pro-censorship faction is irresponsibly using religion as a smokescreen to justify an assault on our constitutional rights, it is imperative that we are reminded that freedom of religion is adjacent to freedom of speech as part of the First Amendment for a reason,ā€ former ALA Executive Director Tracie D. Hall said in panel discussion during Wednesday’s hearing.

ā€œThey are and remain innately connected because an assault on one indisputably compromises the other,” she said.

Characterization of restrictions as ‘book bans’ is disputed

Bean repeatedly raised objections to Democrats’ use of the term “book bans” to describe practices like school boards’ removal of certain books from school libraries, noting that these materials remain widely available at public libraries and through retailers like Amazon.

In his remarks before the subcommittee, U.S. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) held up a Bible as he argued that the most egregious book ban from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963, with a decision banning Bible reading in schools.

On Wednesday, Raskin, an attorney who taught constitutional law for more than 25 years, noted how GOP members of Congress have repeatedly mischaracterized the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the matter for purposes of defending their efforts to ban books based on their personal feelings towards them.

The Supreme Court’s 1963 ruling in Abington School District v. Schempp holds that “no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord’s Prayer be recited in the public schools of a state at the beginning of each school day ā€” even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents.”

The decision came a year after Engel v. Vitale, which found that it was unconstitutional, per the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, for state officials to create and encourage public schools to recite an official prayer.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

Lawmakers champion drug policy reforms at National Cannabis Policy Summit

Congressional leaders pledged their support for decriminalization

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), second from left (Washington Blade photo by Christopher Kane)

Speaking at the 2024 National Cannabis Policy Summit on Wednesday, congressional leaders pledged their support for proposals to remedy the harms of America’s War on Drugs while protecting cannabis users and cannabis businesses that are operating under a fast-evolving patchwork of local, state, and federal laws.

Overwhelmingly, the lawmakers who attended the conference at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library in D.C. or delivered their remarks virtually were optimistic about the chances of passing legislative solutions in the near-term, perhaps even in this Congress.

Participants included U.S. Sens. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), along with U.S. Reps. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who co-chairs the Congressional Cannabis Caucus and was honored at the event with the Supernova Women Cannabis Champion Lifetime Achievement Award. Republicans included an aide for U.S. Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) who was featured in an afternoon panel discussion about the cannabis policy landscape on Capitol Hill.

Each of the members have long championed cannabis-related policy reforms, from Merkleyā€™s SAFER Banking Act that would allow cannabis businesses to access financial services (thereby affording them the critically important protections provided by banks) to Leeā€™s work throughout her career to ameliorate the harms suffered by, particularly, Black and Brown communities that have been disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of marijuana and the consequences of systemic racism in law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

The lawmakers agreed America is now at an inflection point. Democratic and Republican leaders are coming together to support major drug policy reforms around cannabis, they said. And now that 40 states and D.C. have legalized the drug for recreational or medical use, or both, the congress members stressed that the time is now for action at the federal level.

Last summer, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a formal request to re-categorize marijuana as a Schedule III substance under the rules and regulations of the Controlled Substances Act, which kicked off an ongoing review by the Biden-Harris administration. Since the lawā€™s enactment in 1971, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I substance and, therefore, has been subject to the most stringent restrictions on and criminal penalties for its cultivation, possession, sale, and distribution.

Merkley acknowledged that re-scheduling would remedy the Nixon administrationā€™s ā€œbizarreā€ decision to house marijuana under the same scheduling designation as far more harmful and addictive drugs like heroin ā€” and noted that the move would also effectively legalize biomedical research involving cannabis. However, the senator said, while re-scheduling ā€œmay be a step in the right direction, itā€™s not de-schedulingā€ and therefore would not make real inroads toward redressing the harms wrought by decades of criminalization. Ā 

Likewise, as she accepted her award, Lee specified that she and her colleagues are ā€œworking night and day on the legalization, not re-scheduling.ā€ And her comments were echoed by Warren, who proclaimed in a prerecorded video address that ā€œde-scheduling and legalizing cannabis is an issue of justice.ā€

Congressional Republicans have blocked legislation to legalize marijuana, the Massachusetts senator said, ā€œand that is why the scheduling is so important,ā€ as it might constitute a ā€œtool that we can use to get this done without Republican obstruction.ā€

Warren, Merkley, and Schumer were among the 12 Senate Democrats who issued a letter in January to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration requesting transparency into its re-scheduling process while also, more importantly, demanding that the agency fully de-schedule cannabis, which would mean the drug is no longer covered by the Controlled Substances Act.

However, in a possible signal of political headwinds against these efforts, their Republican colleagues led by U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) responded with a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram ā€œhighlighting concerns over HHSā€™s recommendation to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I to Schedule III-controlled substance.ā€ The GOP signatories, all of whom serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also sought to ā€œunderscore the Drug Enforcement Administrationā€™s (DEA) duty under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to ensure compliance with the United Statesā€™ treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.ā€

As Norton noted during her prepared remarks, elected Democrats are not necessarily always on the same page with respect to expanding access to economic opportunity facilitated by cannabis. For instance, though President Joe Biden had promised, during his State of the Union address this year, to direct his ā€œCabinet to review the federal classification of marijuana, and [expunge] thousands of convictions for mere possession,ā€ Norton blamed Biden along with House Republicans for provisions in the federal budget this year that prohibit D.C. from using local tax dollars to legalize cannabis sales.

A non-voting delegate who represents the cityā€™s 690,000 residents in the House, Norton called the presidentā€™s position ā€œdeeply disappointing,ā€ particularly considering his record of supporting ā€œD.C. statehood, which would allow D.C. to enact its own policies without congressional interferenceā€ and grant its residents voting representation in both chambers of Congress. She added that the majority of Washingtonians are Black and Brown while all are held responsible for ā€œthe obligations of citizenship including paying federal taxes.ā€

Norton said the city should also have the power to grant clemency for crimes committed in the District, including cannabis-related crimes ā€” power that, currently, can only be exercised by the president.

Some Republican lawmakers have been at the forefront of efforts to reform harmful cannabis regulations. For instance, a participant in a mid-afternoon panel pointed to the CURE Act, a bill introduced by U.S. Reps. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) that would prohibit the federal government from denying security clearances based on applicantsā€™ past or current use of cannabis.

While securing statehood for D.C. and de-scheduling cannabis via legislation or administrative action are perhaps, at least for now, a heavy lift, Merkley pointed to promising new developments concerning his SAFER Banking Act.

The Oregon senator first introduced the measure, then titled the SAFE Banking Act, in 2019, and he said the legislationā€™s evolution into its current iteration was difficult. ā€œRegulators donā€™t want to be told what to do,ā€ Merkley said, and negotiations with these officials involved ā€œnitty-gritty arguments over every word.ā€

Pushback also came from one of Merkleyā€™s Democratic colleagues. In September, Warnock, who is Georgiaā€™s first Black U.S. senator, voted ā€œnoā€ on the 2023 version of the SAFER Banking Act, writing: ā€œMy fear is that if we pass this legislation, if we greenlight this new industry and the fees and the profits to be made off of it without helping those communitiesā€ most harmed by the War on Drugs ā€œwe will just make the comfortable more comfortable.ā€

Warnockā€™s statement followed his pointed remarks expressing concerns with the legislation during a Senate Banking Committee hearing.

ā€œLet me be very clear,ā€ he said, ā€œI am not opposed to easing or undoing federal restrictions around cannabis. And I would support all of the provisions and reforms in this legislation if paired with broader cannabis reforms that substantively address the issue of restorative justice. This bill does not do that.ā€

At this point, however, the latest version of the SAFER Banking Act has advanced out of committee and earned the support of Senate leaders including Schumer and much of the Republican conference.

ā€œThis is the moment,ā€ he said. ā€œLetā€™s not let this year pass without getting this bill ā€” the safer banking bill ā€” through the House, through the Senate, and on the presidentā€™s desk.ā€

In her remarks, Lee also discussed the importance of business and industry-wide reforms like those in Merkleyā€™s bill.

ā€œWe have to make sure that the cannabis industry is viewed by everyone, especially our federal government, as a legitimate business,ā€ Lee said. ā€œLegitimate, which deserves every single aspect of financial services that any legitimate business deserves and has access to.ā€

Like Warnock, the congresswoman also highlighted how these financial and business considerations intersect with ā€œequity issues,ā€ as ā€œthose who have been most impacted by this horrible War on Drugsā€ must ā€œbecome first in line for the businesses and for the jobs and for the economic opportunity the cannabis industry provides.ā€

Reflecting on her experience introducing the Marijuana Justice Act in 2019, which was Congressā€™s first racial justice cannabis reform bill, Lee remembered how ā€œeveryone was like, ā€˜why are you doing this? Itā€™s politically not cool.ā€™ā€ Her legislation sought to end the federal criminalization of marijuana, expunge the criminal records of those convicted of cannabis-related crimes, and reinvest in communities that have suffered disproportionately from the War on Drugs.

The congresswoman said she explained to colleagues how the bill addressed ā€œmany, many layersā€ of often-intersecting problems linked to federal cannabis policy, telling them: ā€œThis is a criminal justice issue, a racial justice issue, an issue of equity, a medical issue, a veteransā€™ issue, and an issue of economic security.ā€

Two years later, with a 220-204 vote, the House successfully passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, a comprehensive bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and to the Senate by then-U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). The measure included Leeā€™s Marijuana Justice Act.

ā€œThis bill is the product of many, many years of advocacy for federal cannabis reform and equity,ā€ she said in a statement celebrating the billā€™s passage. ā€œMake no mistake: This is a racial justice bill. Itā€™s about the thousands of people of color who sit in jail for marijuana offenses while others profit. Itā€™s about finally repairing the harms of the War on Drugs on communities and families across the country.ā€

ā€œWe’ve come a long way,ā€ she told the audience on Wednesday. ā€œAnd now we have a long way to go.ā€

Continue Reading

Congress

House passes spending bill as Greene threatens to oust Johnson

51 of 52 anti-LGBTQ riders were defeated

Published

on

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) speaks at a press conference on Sept. 20. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. House of Representatives averted a government shutdown on Friday with a vote of 286-134 to pass the $1.2 trillion spending bill, over the objections of hard-right members like U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

The congresswoman subsequently filed a motion to remove House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who is himself an ultraconservative legislator. The move marked the second time in six months that the party has called for a vote to oust their own leader.

ā€œToday I filed a motion to vacate after Speaker Johnson has betrayed our conference and broken our rules,ā€ said Greene, who refused to say whether she would call up the resolution to call for a snap vote, which likely means the matter will be delayed until after the two-week recess.

Greene and Johnson are at odds over the content of the minibus appropriations package, with the congresswoman calling it a “Chuck Schumer, Democrat-controlled bill” that does not contain conservative policy demands on matters like immigration and LGBTQ issues.

The speaker, meanwhile, proclaimed, ā€œHouse Republicans achieved conservative policy wins, rejected extreme Democrat proposals, and imposed substantial cuts while significantly strengthening national defense.ā€

With respect to anti-LGBTQ riders submitted by Republican members, more than 50 were ultimately stripped from the bill, which the Human Rights Campaign celebrated as “a victory,” crediting lawmakers for their “bipartisan, bicameral negotiations.”

Of the 52 anti-LGBTQ riders, only one survived in the $1.2 trillion package passed on Friday: A ban on flying Pride flags at U.S. embassies.

Continue Reading

Congress

Massive defeat for anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ riders in spending bill

Proposal has only one rider that would target community

Published

on

U.S. Capitol
U.S. Capitol (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

On Thursday, Congress unveiled the much-anticipated spending bill to avert a government shutdown. The bill, which includes funding for major government departments such as Health and Human Services and Education, featured fierce negotiations over conservative ā€œpolicy riders.ā€ 

These policy riders included bans on coverage for gender-affirming care, DEI bans, sports bans and more. Despite some indications that Democrats might compromise due to the sheer number of conservative policy riders, it appears those fears did not come to fruition. Democrats held firm in negotiations, and the most impactful anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ riders were nowhere to be found.

One policy rider proposed for the Food and Drug Administration would have defunded any hospital that ā€œdistributes, sells or otherwise uses drugs that disrupt the onset of puberty or sexual development for those under 18,ā€ a measure targeting not only transgender youth but also those experiencing precocious puberty. 

Another rider sought to bar any government funding toward ā€œsurgical procedures or hormone therapy for the purposes of gender-affirming careā€ in the Department of Health and Human Services. This move would have significantly impacted private and subsidized insurance in the Healthcare Marketplace. It also aimed to bar the enforcement of President Joe Bidenā€™s executive order titled ā€œPreventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity,ā€ which broadened anti-discrimination protections for trans individuals.

Additional riders included bans on funding for any organization thatĀ ā€œpromotes transgenderism,ā€Ā Title IX protections for trans youth, bans on legal challenges against states over anti-LGBTQ+ laws, book bans, DEI bans and more.

In total, over 40 riders were proposed and negotiated in the spending bills. None of these were found in the final bill.

Ultimately, the final spending bill released contained only a single anti-LGBTQ rider: A ban on Pride flags being raised or displayed above foreign embassies. The policy, while certainly qualifying as anti-LGBTQ and a regression to Trump-era policies, notably does not bar personal displays of Pride flags by embassy workers.

In the past, some embassies have gotten around such bans by not ā€œflying a flag over the embassyā€ but rather, painting portions of the embassy in rainbow colors or draping flags on the side of buildings.

News of the defeat of the most impactful anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ riders comes after a significant push from Equality Caucus Democrats and the Biden administration against the riders. ā€œAs you negotiate government funding for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24), we write to strongly urge you to reject any attempts to include anti-LGBTQ+ provisions in any final FY24 funding agreement,ā€ said a letter signed by 163 representatives on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus to the Biden administration.

However, Republicans also pushed hard for their inclusion. In a shutdown threat issued Feb. 21 from the House Freedom Caucus, Republicans indicated that bans on gender affirming care and trans participation in sports were necessary to prevent a potential shutdown.

Previously, U.S. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) stated that such bans are the “hill we will die on.” In a report published by Axios, one Republican lawmaker stated, ā€œPeople are predicting a shutdown even if it’s just for a few days.ā€ Others concurred, citing gender affirming care riders as one of the potential reasons for such a shutdown.

Many anti-LGBTQ leaders in the Republican Party reacted negatively to the bill. U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)Ā expressed angerĀ at funding for the New Jersey Garden State Equality in Education Fund, calling it ā€œforce feeding the LGBT agenda in schoolsā€ and stating that it enables ā€œgender mutilation surgeries in minors,ā€ ā€œbiological menā€ in womenā€™s bathrooms and trans participation in sports.

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) decried the lack of a DEI ban. U.S. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) stated that Republicans ā€œsurrenderedā€ to Democrats on hormone therapy. The House Freedom Caucus published a lengthy list of healthcare and equality centers that the budget would fund, urging the GOP to vote ā€œnoā€ and to shut down the government.

In a press release published by House Appropriations Democrats, they stated that the bill rejected over a hundred poison-pill riders, many of which targeted LGBTQ people. For example, the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the bill blocked provisions around gender affirming care, sports bans and nondiscrimination.

See the House Appropriations Democrats statement:

Press release, House Appropriations Democrats on Labor-HHS-Education

The bill must pass by Friday evening to avert a government shutdown, though the impacts of such a shutdown would likely not be felt until Monday. If passed, the bill would keep the government funded through September, at which point all of the riders could resurface during the peak of the 2024 presidential election.

However, for the next several months, LGBTQ riders will not pose a significant threat in a year where trans and queer individuals have faced attacks at historic levels.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular