National
HHS moves again to enable anti-LGBT discrimination in health care
Proposal would allow denial of services based on religious objections

On the heels of creating a new conscience division at the Department of Health & Human Services, the Trump administration has proposed a new religious exemption that critics say would allow widespread discrimination against women seeking abortions and against LGBT people.
Camilla Taylor, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, told the Washington Blade the proposal is “a travesty, outrageous” in terms of its potential to allow denial of medical services for LGBT people.
“It undoubtedly will result in increased denials of service to LGBT people,” Taylor said. “It’s intended to facilitate federally funded health care providers denying service not just to LGBT people, but to women and other vulnerable groups.”
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said in a conference call with reporters the proposal ignores federal laws against discrimination in health care.
“The Department of Health & Human Services … proposed a regulation that goes well beyond existing laws to create sweeping, dangerous exemptions that would encourage health care providers to pick and choose which patients they will and won’t treat,” Keisling said.
The language of the 216-page proposal is geared more toward allowing medical providers to deny abortion-related services on the basis of religious objections, but it contains broad language allowing for exemptions for any reason as well as code words critics say are intended to deny LGBT people medical services.
A provision allowing for exemptions on “sterilization” procedures, for example, is seen as a slur meant to include gender reassignment surgery for transgender people. Other provisions condoning religious counseling are construed as allowing federal payments for widely discredited “ex-gay” conversion therapy.
Taylor said the although rule is specific to abortion, much of the broader language in the proposal would impact access to health care for LGBT people.
“It allows federally funded accredited health care providers to deny services on religious or moral beliefs, whatever the hell that means,” Taylor said.
The proposed rule comes one day after the creation of the Conscience & Religious Freedom Division with the HHS Office for Civil Rights, which has been panned as a tool for enabling the kind of denial of services enabled in the religious freedom rule.
“It’s weaponizing the Office of Civil Rights within HHS to target people for denial of health care at taxpayer expense,” Taylor said.
On the same day as the proposed rule was published, HHS announced a similar reversal of Obama-era policy to allow states to limit access to Medicaid to health institutions, including Planned Parenthood, that provide services to which the states object.
In contrast to the Trump administration, the Obama administration issued a rule interpreting the provision barring sex discrimination under the Affordable Care Act to ban medical providers from discriminating against transgender patients or women who have had abortions. After a legal challenge, however, HHS was enjoined from enforcing that rule as a result of a court order issued by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas.
Even with the Trump administration’s proposed rule, the provision of Obamacare barring sex discrimination, Section 1557, remains in effect. Individuals who feel they faced anti-LGBT discrimination in the health care system still have a private right to sue in federal court under that underlying statute.
Taylor, however, said many courts have put these lawsuits on hold in anticipation of new regulations coming from the Trump administration.
“It’s unclear what remedy people will have in court,” Taylor said. “We would argue that those courts should take action, should remedy the discrimination.”
The proposed rule isn’t yet in effect. The proposal allows for a comment period of 60 days, which will proceed the finalization of the rule at a later time.
As such, many LGBT legal groups said at this time they’re unable to sue the federal government over the rule and will wait until the rule is made final.
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said no litigation against the proposal is planned at this time.
“There is nothing in the proposed rule that specifically targets LGBT people, though some of the broad proposed definitions would open the door to potential discrimination against LGBT people and others,” Minter said. “We are still analyzing the potential ramifications. Especially since the rule is not yet final, we are not planning litigation at this time.”
Taylor said a Lambda Legal lawsuit against the new rule is “very likely,” but the timing isn’t yet clear as the comment period process unfolds.
“We are already asking people to call us if they’ve been denied health care, and the creation of this new HHS unit, I think, is an invitation to health care providers to start denying treatment to people now in anticipation that the administration is going to assist them,” Taylor said. “So there may be specific lawsuits that come up prior to the ruling going into effect that concern the administration’s efforts to provide exemptions to non-discrimination requirements.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
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.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”
-
U.S. Supreme Court1 day ago
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
-
Out & About1 day ago
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
-
Maryland4 days ago
Silver Spring holds annual Pride In The Plaza
-
Opinions4 days ago
Supreme Court decision on opt outs for LGBTQ books in classrooms will likely accelerate censorship