National
Great expectations as Congress returns from recess
As lawmakers hash out the 2010 legislative schedule for Congress, LGBT rights supporters are anticipating a House markup for the long-sought Employment Non-Discrimination Act within the next month.
Sources familiar with Capitol Hill said the House Education & Labor Committee will take up ENDA, which would bar job bias against LGBT people in the public and private workforce, shortly after lawmakers return from holiday break.
Last year, House and Senate committees held hearings on legislation that would provide workplace protections for LGBT people. The next step in both committees — the Education & Labor Committee in the House and the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee in the Senate — is reporting out the legislation so floor votes can take place.
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a gay lawmaker who serves on the House Education & Labor Committee, said he’s expecting a markup of the legislation either this month or in February and a floor vote soon after.
“Once it’s been marked up in committee, it’s simply a matter of scheduling it for the floor, and that of course depends on what else is coming to the floor, whether it’s health care or what[ever] it is, but it shouldn’t take very long,” he said.
Also expecting an ENDA markup in the House shortly is Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign.
“We’re hopeful that it will be either January or February and we’re pushing for that,” she said.
Still, it’s unclear exactly when the House committee will take up the legislation. Aaron Albright, spokesperson for the House & Education Labor Committee, said, “nothing has been scheduled yet.”
Meanwhile, in the Senate, Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who sponsors ENDA in that chamber, has said the HELP Committee will take up ENDA in the spring, but Herwitt said the timing in the Senate “is a little less clear.”
“I think that we’re going to talk to [Chair Tom] Harkin’s staff people, committee staff and try to figure all of that out, what’s the timeframe that they’re looking at, how will we envision the bill moving forward in the Senate,” she said. “I mean, obviously, the Senate provides us more challenges in moving legislation, especially when it is freestanding.”
Advocates are committed to passing a version of ENDA that provides protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The inclusion of transgender people in ENDA has been a sensitive issue. In 2007, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) came under fire for pushing a version of ENDA that provided protections only on the basis of sexual orientation, saying at the time that Congress lacked the votes to pass an inclusive bill.
This year, the situation is different. Polis said lawmakers expect to pass “an inclusive ENDA that includes protections based on gender identity.”
Herwitt expressed similar optimism that the House would be able to pass ENDA with protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
“I think that we’re in a really strong place in the House,” she said. “I think that, again, when we look at our vote count for final passage, it looks good for a fully inclusive bill.”
Still, Herwitt said conversations are more nascent on the Senate side regarding ENDA and the inclusion of gender identity provisions.
“We have education that we need to do and have conversations,” she said. “I know that Sen. Merkley and his staff have been really on top of this, and having those conversations staff-to-staff — and the senator is having colleague-to-colleague conversations. And we just need to continue some of that process and then see where we are with the vote count.”
Asked whether the gender identity provisions could be a sticking point in the Senate, Herwitt replied, “I think what I’m saying is we’re still in the process of figuring all of that out. The conversations are still happening, the education process is still ongoing and obviously we want to make sure that the bill moves forward when it can move forward as a fully inclusive bill.”
Activists want DADT repeal in budget request
The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the 1993 law that prohibits openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, is also a primary focus for LGBT rights supporters on the Hill.
Advocates are urging President Obama to include language that would overturn the law as part of his defense budget request to Congress for the next fiscal year. The request is expected to be made public early this year.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network on Tuesday published a full-page ad in Roll Call newspaper calling on Obama to include repeal in his budget request. Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, writes in the letter that Obama should include repeal in his budget request to stay true to the promise he made to end the ban last year during a speech at an HRC dinner.
“There is no good reason why this White House would pass up this opportunity,” Sarvis said. “It is the logical place to get rid of the discriminatory ban. We urge the president to make good on his words on the campaign trail as well as those said last October when he emphatically declared, ‘I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”
Herwitt said HRC also wants Obama to include repeal of the ban on open service as part of his defense budget request.
“We have been working to make that a reality,” she said. “We are hopeful and it has been part of our plan. We think that having the White House put the policy recommendations through [the] DOD [budget request] forward is important and key.”
Whether the budget request will, in fact, include language that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” remains to be seen. Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, wouldn’t confirm whether administration officials would include such language in the budget request.
“As we are in the midst of the policy process for the FY 2011 Budget, it would be premature to comment on its contents,” he said.
Another bill pending in Congress is the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act. The legislation — approved late last year by both House and Senate committees — would allow the same-sex partners of LGBT federal workers to receive the same benefits as the spouses of straight workers, including health and pension benefits.
But the timing for a floor vote is not yet clear. Herwitt said she doesn’t know when floor votes would take place and said HRC is “working with our allies in the House and the Senate to try and figure out what is the schedule, what are they looking at.”
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of the bill in that chamber, said last month a floor vote wouldn’t take place until lawmakers receive cost offset information from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for implementing the measure within the agency’s existing budget.
Leslie Phillips, spokesperson for the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over the legislation, said Tuesday that lawmakers have “not yet received the offset information from OPM.” The agency didn’t respond to DC Agenda’s request for comment.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
