National
GOP senators push back on ‘Don’t Ask’ report
McCain criticizes questions, response rate of survey
Sens. John McCain and Jim Inhofe were critical of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” report during the hearing (Blade photo by Michael Key).
Republican senators during a hearing on Thursday attempted to undermine a recently released Pentagon report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal by questioning the study’s conclusions and methodology.
The GOP senators raised their concerns and criticism during a hearing that marked the first day of two days of scheduled testimony on the Pentagon working group’s report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which was made public earlier this week by the Defense Department.
Pentagon leaders — as well as LGBT advocates — in turn rebuked or attempted to alleviate these concerns from Republican senators.
Testimony came from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen as well as both co-chairs of the Pentagon working group report: Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe.
The witnesses endorsed the Pentagon report and its findings pave a way for the Defense Department to institute a end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if Congress repeals the statute. The defense officials urged senators to take action to repeal the law.
In his opening statement, Mullen said the Pentagon report backs his earlier testimony from February in which he said he personally believes gays should serve openly in the U.S. military.
“I am convinced that repeal of the law governing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is the right thing to do,” Mullen said. “Back in February, when I testified to this sentiment, I also said that I believed the men and women of the armed forces could accomodate such a change. But I did not know it for a fact. Now, I do.”
But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the Senate, attempted to poke holes in the report during the hearing.
One of the Arizona senator’s main concerns was that the surveys sent out to 400,000 service members as part of the report — which were returned by about 115,000 respondents — didn’t ask troops whether they favored a change in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and instead focused on an implementation of repeal.
“What I want to know and what it is that Congress is going to be determining is not can our armed forces implement a repeal of this law, but whether the law should be repealed,” McCain said. “Unfortunately, that key issue was not the focus of the study.”
McCain also argued that the limited number of troops who responded to the survey — around 28 percent — brings the results into question.
“That’s almost six percent of the force at large,” McCain said. “I find it hard to view that that is a fully representative sample set.”
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) also expressed concerns about the return rate on the surveys and recalled troops’ reaction in May when Congress had taken the initial steps to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the questionnaire was distributed.
“Halfway through the process when we took certain actions, they felt it was a done deal and as a result they didn’t participate in the survey,” Brown said. “Twenty-eight percent does not seem like a high number of participation.”
But Ham said the 28 percent response rate is well within the norm for previous surveys for military personnel.
“I’m comfortable that the response rate overall is within norms and probably more importantly, senator, that each category that can be analyzed has a statistically significant number of responses,” Ham said.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, later rebuked the McCain’s point that service members should be polled on whether they want to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“That would be a dangerous precedent to set irrespective of how you feel about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” Sarvis said. “That has never been done on any major personnel policy initiative that the military has undertaken. Never.”
Sarvis also pushed back on claims that 28 percent response rate on the survey was insufficient as he maintained the number represented “an extraordinary response rate.”
“As a matter of fact, I think … most pollsters would gratified by such a response,” Sarvis said.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said during her questioning that although the direct question isn’t directly asked, the survey does have information on whether troops would support a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“Given the extensive feedback that the authors of the report and the task force did and that they received from tens of thousands of service members in the forms of survey responses, e-mails, and town hall meetings, the report, in fact, does convey a sense of what service members think about repeal of the law, even if a direct question was not included in the survey,” Collins said.
The Maine senator voted for a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal amendment when it before the committee in May, but angered many LGBT advocates in September when she voted with the Republican caucus to prevent “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation from coming to the Senate floor over what she said was a lack of a fair amendment process.
While attacking the methodology of the report, McCain also used information in the study in his effort to derail legislative efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The Arizona senator noted the survey accompanying the report found that between 40 to 60 percent of service members serving in the Marine Corps as well as combat arms specialties predicted a negative impact of repeal.
“I remain concerned as I have in the past — and is demonstrated in this study — that the closer we get to service members in combat, the more we encounter concerns about whether ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ should be repealed and what impact that would have on the ability of these units to perform their mission,” McCain said.
During the hearing, Gates predicted this opposition could be overcome. The defense secretary said with “proper time for preparation, for training” concerns among these groups would be mitigated.
For the example of Marines in combat arms specialties, Gates noted that many of these service members are under 25 years old.
“Most of them have never served with women either, and so they’ve had a very focused, very limited experience in the military … but I think that with time and adequate preparation, we can mitigate their concerns,” Gates said.
McCain also noted that 12.6 percent of survey responders — which he said translates into 264,600 service members — said they’d leave the U.S. military sooner than they had planned if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) also expressed concerns about the effect of lifting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on what he said is historic levels of retention in the U.S. military as he said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
“Right now, we have probably the best retention and recruitment percentages, over 100 percent, in everywhere except, I think, just the Army guard, and there’s other reasons for that,” Inhofe said. “There is some concern to me about how this would affect that.”
Gates said the experience of foreign militaries who have lifted their gay ban has been that number of people who actually quite the force was “far smaller” than those who threatened to leave.
“As far as the force as a whole, I don’t think any of us expect that the numbers would be anything like what the survey suggests,” Gates said.
Gates also noted the service members couldn’t immediately leave the armed services because they’re contractually obligated to continue to duration of their service.
At the start of the hearing, when Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said each committee member would have five minutes for questioning, McCain objected and said if only that time was allowed, another hearing would be necessary.
Gates said he could extend the time he could testify before the committee for another half-hour, and Levin extended the questioning time for senator to six minutes each.
Notably, after complaining that five minutes wasn’t enough time to question Gates, McCain used some of his time to question Pentagon leaders about the impact of the leaked information regarding U.S. foreign policy on Wikileaks.
Some of the strongest support for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during the hearing came from conservative Democrats who are known for often riling their party’s base, including Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).
“To me, the issue seems to be not whether to allow gays to serve in the military, but whether to allow them to serve openly,” Nelson said. “Permitting them to serve, but not openly, undermines the basic values of the military: honesty, integrity and trust. When that’s undermined anywhere, it’s undermined everywhere.”
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who has heretofore opposed repeal efforts, praised the report and disputed assertations from Republicans that the study and survey wasn’t useful as a guide to repeal.
“It’s a 345-page report, 115,000 respondents, and, most importantly, this was done without politicizing men and women in uniform, which is vitally important in our society,” Webb said. “I would like to say that this report is probably the most crucial piece of information that we have in terms of really, objectively moving forward in order to address the law.”
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.”
National
Glisten’s 30th annual Day of Silence to take place April 10
Campaign began as student-led protests against anti-LGBTQ bullying, discrimination
Glisten’s 30th annual Day of Silence will take place on April 10.
The annual Day of Silence began as a student-led protest in response to bullying and discrimination that LGBTQ students face. It is now a national campaign for the LGBTQ community and their allies to come together for LGBTQ youth.
It takes place annually and has multiple ways for supporters to get involved in the movement.
Glisten, originally GLSEN, champions LGBTQ issues in schools, grades K-12. Glisten’s mission is to create more inclusive and accepting environments for LGBTQ students through curriculum, supportive measures, education campaigns, and engagement, such as the Day of Silence.
There are three main ways for the community to get involved in the Day of Silence.
Glisten has a Day of Silence frame, a series of pictures used as profile photos across social media that feature individuals holding signs. The signs allow for personalization, by providing a space to put the individual’s name, followed by filling in the prompt “ … and I am ENDING the silence by…”
Participants are encouraged to post the photo on social media and use it as a profile picture. The templates can be found on Google Drive through this link.
Using #DayOfSilence and #NSCS, as well as tagging Glisten’s official Page @glistencommunity, is another way to participate in the Day of Silence.
Glisten also encourages participants to tag creators, friends, family and use a call to action in their caption, to call attention to the facts and stories behind the Day of Silence.
“Today’s administration in the U.S. wants us to stay silent, submit to their biased and hurtful conformity, and stop fighting for our right to be authentically ourselves,” said Glisten CEO Melanie Willingham-Jaggers. “We urge supporters to use their social platforms and check in with local chapters to be boots on the ground to help LGBTQ+ students feel seen, heard, supported, and less alone. By participating in the ‘Day of Silence,’ you are showing solidarity with young people as they navigate identity, safety, and belonging. Our voices matter.”
South Carolina
Man faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
Timothy Truett allegedly shot at gay club in Myrtle Beach on April 1
A South Carolina man remains in custody on a more than $300,000 bond after he allegedly opened fire at a Myrtle Beach nightclub on April 1, according to WMBF.
Reports say 37-year-old Timothy James Truett Jr., of Clover, S.C., was detained by the Myrtle Beach Police Department after the April 1 incident outside Pulse Ultra Club. He was later arrested and charged with possession of a weapon during a violent crime, discharging a firearm into a dwelling, discharging a firearm within city limits, malicious injury to real property valued over $5,000, and assault or intimidation due to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
At 10:57 a.m. on April 1, officers responded to a call about a possible shooting at Pulse Ultra Club, located in the 2700 block of South Kings Highway.
In an affidavit released later, the club’s owner, Ken Phillips, said he was doing paperwork that morning when he heard “five or six” gunshots. He went outside and found a window and the windshield of his SUV shattered by bullets. An SUV with blue plastic covering one window was left at the scene.
Police later reviewed footage that showed a silver vehicle stopping in the middle of the road. The video appeared to capture muzzle flashes coming from the passenger-side window.
According to the affidavit, an officer later pulled over a vehicle driven by Truett and found spent shell casings in the back seat, along with a gun.
Documents do not detail why Truett was ultimately charged under the state law covering assault or intimidation tied to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
As of April 1, records show Truett is being held in Horry County on a combined bond of more than $312,000.
WMBF spoke with Phillips after the incident and asked whether there was any prior conflict that might have led to the shooting.
“I don’t know if it’s personal, I don’t know if it’s related to being gay, I don’t know if it’s related to the bar issues,” Phillips told WMBF. “Anybody with a mindset of pulling out a weapon in broad daylight is not right.”
“My primary concern has and always will be the safety of my community and my customers,” he added. “It’s given me great concern … as to how far people will go.”
WMBF also spoke with Adam Hayes, vice chair of Myrtle Beach’s Human Rights Coalition, who was involved in pushing for the ordinance. He said that while the incident itself is troubling, it shows the policy is being put to use.
The ordinance is intended to deter “crimes that are motivated by bias or hate towards any person or persons, in whole or in part, because of the actual or perceived” identity, in the absence of a statewide hate crime law.
“It’s nice to see that something we put into policy is not just a piece of paper, that it’s actually being used,” said Hayes.
He said the shooting underscores the need for a statewide hate crime law in South Carolina and added that the incident has left the local LGBTQ community shaken.
South Carolina and Wyoming are the only two states in the U.S. without a comprehensive statewide hate crime law.
Truett remains in jail as of publication.
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
A Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
