National
Election results put LGBT advocates back on defense
Baldwin says chances ‘slim’ for ENDA in new Congress
In the wake of the seismic change brought about by Election Day results on Tuesday, supporters of LGBT rights are making new plans to advance their agenda in Congress as many signature bills now seem out of reach.
On Tuesday, the Republicans swept back into power by winning a majority of seats in the U.S. House and by shrinking the Democratic majority in the Senate.
CNN on Wednesday projected the GOP will take control of the U.S. House in the 112th Congress by winning at least 60 seats in the election — far more than the 39 seats the party needed to take control of the chamber.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who was given a score of “0” on the Human Rights Campaign’s most recent congressional scorecard, will likely replace House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in that role when Republicans come into power in the next Congress.
Democrats fared better in the Senate and retained control of the chamber. Many U.S. senators credited with being allies of the LGBT community, such as Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), won re-election in tight races.
Still, Democrats in the Senate are left with a reduced majority and some LGBT allies, such as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), were ousted by voters.
The major wins by the GOP raises serious doubts about moving big ticket pro-LGBT legislation — such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — in the next Congress.
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the only out lesbian in Congress, predicted the shift in control of the House will have a “very significant impact” on advancing pro-LGBT legislation.
“What I hope is that the Republican majority that takes over will not revert to its agenda of the last time they were in the majority, which put us frequently on the defense fighting back anti-gay measures,” she said.
Baldwin said the “chances are very slim” that ENDA or legislation providing partner benefits to federal workers would pass.
“I have seen no great signs that the Republicans who have been re-elected have changed their previous stances, and I certainly don’t feel like the new crop of candidates coming in are champions of gay rights,” she said.
Still, LGBT advocates say they see a path forward for advancing certain rights even with the challenge of Republican control of the House and reduced Democratic majorities in the Senate.
Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president of communications, said the loss of the House will “certainly impede, but not entirely stop” his organization’s pursuit of LGBT rights through legislation.
Among the items that Sainz identified as having a chance for passing are legislation eliminating the tax penalty on employer-provided health benefits to same-sex partners. Sainz also said he sees a way forward for the Domestic Partner Benefits & Obligations Act.
“There could be space to pass something like a domestic partnership taxation bill, or even a [Domestic Partner Benefits & Obligations Act] bill,” Sainz said. “So, in terms of the federal legislative front, I think that that’s probably the best assessment at this point.”
Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs at the Center for American Progress, also said she sees room for the passage of tax equality legislation or a bill to extend partner benefits to federal workers.
“I think if you take a look at some of the issues around equality in benefits, equality in tax treatment — those are issues that I would make investments in and talk about when it comes to Congress,” she said.
Even though Democrats will be in the minority in the House, Sainz said HRC expects lawmakers to introduce major pro-LGBT legislation, such as ENDA and a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Supporters of LGBT rights are also preparing for the possibility of anti-gay measures. Sainz said he expected “targeted attacks” with anti-LGBT bills and amendments in the Republican-controlled House.
“We will work to stop the legislative rollback at every turn,” Sainz said.
Which anti-gay measures might the House pursue? Sainz said he wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
“At the highest of levels, we may very well see another Federal Marriage Amendment,” Sainz said. “At probably the more opportunistic level, we may see things inserted into bills as amendments that may be harder to spot.”
Baldwin said LGBT advocates “need to be vigilant” and prepare for any number of anti-gay initiatives that might emerge from the House. Still, Baldwin said she thinks the passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment in the 112th Congress would be “unlikely.”
“I think that is unlikely simply because we still have the super majority requirements in the U.S. Senate, but it may come up, we will have to see,” she said.
Stachelberg said the Republican pledge to repeal the health care reform law should also be seen as an anti-gay initiative. Among other things, the law prohibits insurance companies from discriminating based on HIV status.
“Our community needs to be as vocal as any in beating back those efforts to repeal the health care bill,” Stachelberg said. “It would be devastating to our community.”
The Republican takeover of Congress has also augmented the sense of urgency around finishing legislative work on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year while Democrats control Congress.
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the results on Election Day “underscore the urgent need” to wrap up efforts on repealing the military’s gay ban. A repeal measure is included as part of major defense budget legislation currently pending before the Senate.
“It would be a huge blow, not only to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal advocates but also to defense contractors and military families, if we don’t get an authorization bill by the end of the year,” Nicholson said.
Nicholson said an “abdication” of the authorization of funds for new defense expenditures and personnel measures would be “unthinkable.”
“This Congress should not want to end its term with that enormous failure on its shoulders,” Nicholson said.
Baldwin also emphasized the importance of the lame duck session in moving forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal — although she characterized the Senate’s chances of passing repeal as only “possible.”
“My hope is that since the lame duck will occur with the hold over incumbents, that they can work their way through a filibuster or avoid a filibuster and resolve to pass legislation that would repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” she said.
Many see passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the lame duck session of Congress before Republicans take control as a challenge. One Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said a lot has to come into alignment for the Senate to pass such legislation.
“The political climate during the lame duck session will be toxic,” the aide said. “Passage of the defense bill will require all the stars aligning. And it will be impossible to pass this bill without the active support and pressure from President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.”
With pro-LGBT initiatives possibly tied up for at least the next two years, many advocates are looking more closely at the Obama administration to make changes.
Stachelberg said the LGBT community needs to consider “a range” of ways to address inequality, including non-congressional action.
“Congress is part of that, for sure, but it would be terribly short-sighted if we didn’t invest in efforts to … build on the success that this administration has begun to develop with respect to the executive branch,” she said.
Among the administrative changes that Stachelberg said could be explored are regulatory changes, data collection, non-discrimination policies and funding streams.
Sainz said HRC would continue to push for non-legislative changes from the Obama administration.
“Where federal policy changes are concerned, we believe that non-legislative policy changes will become our continued avenue for progress at the federal level,” Sainz said. “That’s where we’re going to put an awful lot of resources over the next few years.”
According to an HRC document provided by Sainz, among the policy changes the organization is seeking from the administration is LGBT inclusion in health care reform implementation.
Specifically, HRC wants the Department of Health & Human Services to ensure that:
• health disparity and data collection efforts include sexual orientation and gender identity;
• state health insurance exchanges provide coverage available to same-sex partners and their children;
• and benefits packages that insurance plans offer don’t exclude treatments for gender transition.
Another policy change that HRC is seeking is ensuring that LGBT families are included in federal disaster relief.
According to HRC, LGBT families affected by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 were excluded from government services and subjected to anti-gay harassment in shelter facilities. HRC also asserts same-sex couples had difficulty obtaining housing or relief payments.
Consequently, HRC is urging urged the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to adopt policies barring discrimination against LGBT people and to ensure that their families can receive household aid.
Editor’s note: Tammy Baldwin photo is a Blade file photo by Michael Key
National
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Rev. Kipp Nelson of St. Johns’s on the Lake Methodist Church in Miami shared a statement praising the new developments:
“It is a glorious day in the United Methodist Church. As a worldwide denomination, we have now publicly proclaimed the boundless love of God and finally slung open the doors of our church so that all people, no matter their identities or orientations, may pursue the calling of their hearts.
“Truly, all are loved and belong here among us. I am honored to serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church for such a time as this, for our future is bright and filled with hope. Praise be, praise be.”
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
The new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
BY ERIN REED | The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on trans care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent trans people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit declared that trans exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th Circuit ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, trans state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual U.S. Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting trans people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on trans status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on trans care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end trans care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for trans rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of trans people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying trans people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of trans individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against trans people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for trans youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning trans people. Earlier this month, the 4th Circuit also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects trans student athletes. However, the Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for trans healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful … We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.”
****************************************************************************
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.
Blade Summer Kickoff Party returns to Rehoboth
Andy Cohen coming to D.C.
Want to dance for a good cause?
Calendar: May 3-9
Brittney Griner considered suicide in Russian prison
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Pride season has begun
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
