National
Lieberman confident about 60 votes for ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
Conn. senator says he’s received assurances from Collins, Lugar


Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) is optimistic about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal in lame duck. (Blade photo by Michael Key).
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) on Thursday expressed confidence about having the necessary 60 votes to move forward with legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal — provided certain conditions are met with the amendment process on the Senate floor.
“I am confident that we have more than 60 votes prepared to take up the defense authorization bill with the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ if only there will be a guarantee of a fair and open amendment process,” Lieberman said during a news conference. “In other words, whether we’ll take enough time to do it.”
Lieberman makes the remarks after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Wednesday he’s committed to bringing to the floor in the lame duck session the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill, which contains language that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The legislation would likely come up after Dec. 1, when a Pentagon working group is due to deliver a report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on implementing repeal.
Lieberman said he’s received assurances from GOP senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) as well as “others privately” that they would be open to moving forward with defense legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal provided there’s an “open amendment process” in bringing the bill to the floor.
A previous attempt in September at bringing the defense authorization bill to the floor failed when a united GOP caucus — led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — successfully filibustered the motion to proceed.
Many senators, including Collins and Lugar, who supported a repeal amendment in committee, said they were voting “no” because of limited amendments that senators would be allowed to submit for the legislation.
In September, Reid said he was permitting three amendments to the defense authorization bill: one to strip the bill of its repeal provision, one to address the “secret holds” that senators can place on presidential nominations and another to amend the defense legislation with the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill.
Asked during the conference what he perceived as more open amendment process the next time around, Lieberman the exact terms are up for negotiation.
“It’s hard to put a number on it now,” Lieberman said. “That’s what I hope is going to be negotiated. Of course, we’ll do our best to encourage Sen. Reid to reach out to allow and somewhat larger number.”
Lieberman said the two items that are up for negotiation are the number of amendments to be allowed and the time for debate on those amendments.
Reid has since said the DREAM Act would come to the Senate floor during lame duck as a standalone piece of legislation.
Following the news conference, Lieberman said the removal of the DREAM Act as an amendment to the defense authorization bill would “practically speaking” help with building support for moving forward with the military budget legislation.
But Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who present at the conference, said opposition to the defense authorization bill and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is actually for reasons other than “how many amendments are we going to do, or long we’re going to debate.”
“This is about those who oppose this policy wanting to kill it and taking every opportunity they can and using the Senate rules to try and do that,” Shaheen said. “That’s exactly what’s going on here.”
Lieberman also maintained the Senate would have enough time to tackle “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as it addresses other priorities, such as a nuclear arms reduction treaty and the extension of tax cuts.
“We’re just before Thanksgiving,” Lieberman said. “We’ve been told early on that we’d be here at least three weeks. That’s a lot of time into December, so we’ll be here at least until the week before Christmas. It’s just a question of how hard we’re prepared to work to get these things done. They’re all important.”
Lieberman said President Obama “has been active” on this issue and has been in communication with Reid as well as Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) on moving forward with the defense authorization bill with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“I think he’ll, in my opinion, do everything he can to see that we get this done by the end of this year,” Lieberman said.
The news conference on Thursday was a hot spot for senators who advocate for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Among the 13 lawmakers who made an appearance were Sens. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) who recently took his seat after winning election in November.
Udall said Congress needs to take action to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year because further delay could it “could be years” for repeal to happen.
“We’ve reached an unprecedented level of gridlock here in the Senate when legislation that funds our troops provides for our national security and makes sure that we lead the world in the 21st century is blocked from even coming to the floor for debate,” Udall said. “We ought to welcome the debate — we have an idea of how that debate will turn out — but we’re going to have that opportunity to have this vote on the floor if we have courage and are steadfast.”
The senators joked among themselves that they would work through Christmas Eve — or for Lieberman, who’s Jewish, the eighth day of Hanukkah — to finish the effort in repealing”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Sen. Roland Burris, known as a strong voice for repeal during his tenure in the Senate, said he thinks ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be an important victory, but noted the vote in the Senate “may come too late” for show his support.
Because he was appointed to his position in the Senate in 2009, Burris is required by Illinois state law to give up his seat to Republican Senator-elect Mark Kirk during the lame duck session of Congress and may even leave the U.S. Senate this week.
“As a black American, I know what it means to go through discrimination and unfairness, and there’s no way in the world we can have a strong military and deny those persons who are gay and lesbian … an opportunity to serve their country,” Burris said. “I support that wholeheartedly and am just sorry that I may not be here to cast the vote.”
It remains to be seen how Kirk would vote on the legislation in Burris’ stead. As a U.S. House member, Kirk voted against a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal amendment in May that came to the House floor.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) went a step further than other senators at the news conference when she said she believes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unconstitutional. Some repeal advocates have been asking for President Obama to declare the law unconstitutional so he could discontinue enforcement of the law.
“I’m not a lawyer, but I believe in my heart of hearts that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is unconstitutional,” Feinstein said. “As a matter of fact, a federal district court has found that that, in fact, is the case, and it’s simple because it treats the same case of people differently.”
Still, not every member of the U.S. Senate is on board with repeal. Asked during the news conference whether he had spoken to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about getting him to support an end to the law, Lieberman said he has had such conversations, but he has had “no success” in converting the Arizona senator.
Among those present at the news conference were advocates working for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” including Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs for the Center for American Progress, and Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a gay Air Force pilot who’s served in the military for 19 years, was also present at the conference and told his story about how he’s now facing potential discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“Right now, my ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is somewhere in the Pentagon, and I am fighting back in federal court with SLDN and my legal team to stay in the Air Force,” he said.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court upholds ACA rule that makes PrEP, other preventative care free
Liberal justices joined three conservatives in majority opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a portion of the Affordable Care Act requiring private health insurers to cover the cost of preventative care including PrEP, which significantly reduces the risk of transmitting HIV.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion in the case, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management. He was joined by two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, along with the three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson.
The court’s decision rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s reliance on the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force to “unilaterally” determine which types of care and services must be covered by payors without cost-sharing.
An independent all-volunteer panel of nationally recognized experts in prevention and primary care, the 16 task force members are selected by the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to serve four-year terms.
They are responsible for evaluating the efficacy of counseling, screenings for diseases like cancer and diabetes, and preventative medicines — like Truvada for PrEP, drugs to reduce heart disease and strokes, and eye ointment for newborns to prevent infections.
Parties bringing the challenge objected especially to the mandatory coverage of PrEP, with some arguing the drugs would “encourage and facilitate homosexual behavior” against their religious beliefs.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rules parents must have option to opt children out of LGBTQ-specific lessons
Mahmoud v. Taylor case comes from Montgomery County, Md.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled that public schools must give advance notice to parents and allow them the opportunity to opt their children out of lessons or classroom instruction on matters of gender and sexuality that conflict with their religious beliefs.
Mahmoud v. Taylor was decided 6-3 along party lines, with conservative Justice Samuel Alito authoring the majority opinion and liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson in dissent.
Parents from diverse religious backgrounds sued to challenge the policy in Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools when storybooks featuring LGBTQ characters were added to the elementary school English curriculum in 2022.
The school board argued in the brief submitted to the Supreme Court that “the storybooks themselves do not instruct about gender or sexuality. They are not textbooks. They merely introduce students to characters who are LGBTQ or have LGBTQfamily members, and those characters’ experiences and points of view.”
Advocacy groups dedicated to advancing free speech and expression filed amicus briefs in support of the district.
PEN America argued the case should be viewed in the context of broader efforts to censor and restrict what is available and allowable in public schools, for instance by passing book bans and “Don’t Say Gay” laws.
The ACLU said the policy of not allowing opt-outs is religion-neutral, writing that the Supreme Court should apply rational basis review, which requires only that the school district show that its conduct was “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest.
LGBTQ groups also objected to the challenge against the district’s policy, with many submitting amici briefs including: the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLAD Law, Family Equality, COLAGE, Lambda Legal, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, PFLAG., and the National Women’s Law Center.
The Human Rights Campaign did not submit a brief but did issue a statement by the group’s President Kelley Robinson: “LGBTQ+ stories matter. They matter so students can see themselves and their families in the books they read–so they can know they’re not alone.”
“And they matter for all students who need to learn about the world around them and understand that while we may all be different, we all deserve to be valued and loved,” she said. “All students lose when we limit what they can learn, what they can read, and what their teachers can say. The Supreme Court should reject this attempt to silence our educators and ban our stories.”
Federal Government
White House finds Calif. violated Title IX by allowing trans athletes in school sports
Education Department threatens ‘imminent enforcement action’

The Trump-Vance administration announced on Wednesday that California’s Interscholastic Federation and Department of Education violated federal Title IX rules for allowing transgender girls to compete in school sports.
In a press release, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights threatened “imminent enforcement action” including “referral to the U.S. Department of Justice” and the withholding of federal education funding for the state if the parties do not “agree to change these unlawful practices within 10 days.”
The agency specified that to come into compliance; California must enforce a ban excluding transgender student athletes and reclaim any titles, records, and awards they had won.
Federal investigations of the California Interscholastic Federation and the state’s Department of Education were begun in February and April, respectively. The Justice Department sued Maine in April for allowing trans athletes to compete and refusing a similar proposal to certify compliance within 10 days.
Broadly, the Trump-Vance administration’s position is that girls who are made to compete against trans opponents or alongside trans teammates are unfairly disadvantaged, robbed of opportunities like athletics scholarships, and faced with increased risk of injury — constituting actionable claims of unlawful sex discrimination under Title IX.
This marks a major departure from how the previous administration enforced the law. For example, the Department of Education issued new Title IX guidelines in April 2024 that instructed schools and educational institutions covered by the statute to not enforce categorical bans against trans athletes, instead allowing for limited restrictions on eligibility if necessary to ensure fairness or safety at the high school or college level.
Sports aside, under former President Joe Biden the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
A number of high profile Democrats, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, have recently questioned or challenged the party’s position on transgender athletes, as noted in a statement by Education Secretary Linda McMahon included in Wednesday’s announcement.
“Although Gov. Gavin Newsom admitted months ago it was ‘deeply unfair’ to allow men to compete in women’s sports, both the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation continued as recently as a few weeks ago to allow men to steal female athletes’ well-deserved accolades and to subject them to the indignity of unfair and unsafe competitions.”
-
U.S. Supreme Court3 days ago
Supreme Court upholds ACA rule that makes PrEP, other preventative care free
-
U.S. Supreme Court3 days ago
Supreme Court rules parents must have option to opt children out of LGBTQ-specific lessons
-
India5 days ago
Indian court rules a transgender woman is a woman
-
National4 days ago
Evan Wolfson on the 10-year legacy of marriage equality