Connect with us

National

Adoption anti-discrimination bill gets reboot

Published

on

Jennifer Chrisler (Photo courtesy of familyequality.org)

An adoption anti-discrimination bill previously introduced in the U.S. House is set to get a new start this week when the bill’s sponsor reintroduces it with modified language.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), the sponsor of the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, is planning to reintroduce the bill — which would prohibit discrimination against LGBT people seeking to adopt children — after having introduced it for the first time last year.

Additionally, on March 11, Stark plans to lead a congressional briefing panel on Capitol Hill featuring discussion from experts on LGBT adoption. The dialogue is intended to educate lawmakers on the bill’s importance.

Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, said the reintroduced legislation would be similar in scope to the previously introduced bill, except it would make technical changes and allow for new education opportunities for programs helping children find homes.

“This bill added some language around training and education to help people understand what it is that they can and should do when it comes to looking for potential parents,” she said.

The earlier version of the adoption anti-discrimination bill has 14 co-sponsors. Chrisler said the co-sponsors for the earlier legislation would go to the newer version upon its introduction.

To bar discrimination against LGBT people seeking to adopt, the proposed legislation would restrict federal funds for states that have laws or practices barring LGBT people from taking children into their homes.

Currently, three states bar LGBT people from adopting children. Another seven states don’t permit same-sex couples to jointly adopt. Florida, for example, has a statute in place prohibiting gays from adopting, while Arkansas voters in 2008 approved Act 1, which prevents all co-habitating unmarried couples from adopting children.

The laws in 34 other states are unclear about whether same-sex couples may jointly adopt, sometimes resulting in discrimination.

Chrisler said the legislation is intended to provide an incentive for states so they don’t discriminate and instead “focus on what’s in the best interest of the children, which is really finding the right home for that particular child.”

The legislation, Chrisler said, would help thousands of children in foster care throughout the country find new homes.

“This is fundamentally, at its heart, a child welfare bill that seeks to open up more pools of potential parents to provide a loving, stable home environment to children who need those homes,” she said.

Chrisler said about 500,000 children in the U.S. are in the foster care system, and about 120,000 are legally available for adoption.

Children who never find homes have been found to be at greater risk for various problems as they enter adulthood. Chrisler said in 2007, more than 25,000 youth “aged out” of the foster care system, and these children were at higher risk for poverty, homelessness, incarceration and early parenthood.

“A bill like this helps shine a light on the fact that the more available parents that we have to provide loving, permanent homes for children who need them, the better the outcomes for those kids will be,” Chrisler said.

Chrisler said research from the Williams Institute, a think-tank on sexual orientation at the University of California, Los Angeles, shows that more than 2 million LGBT people throughout the country have considered becoming parents, but are barred from existing state laws from doing so.

“If even a quarter of them became foster or adoptive parents, it would meet the needs of all 500,000 children waiting in the foster care system,” she said.

The Every Child Deserves a Family Act is modeled after the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1994 as amended in 1996, which similarly prohibits states from receiving federal funds if they engage in racial or ethnic discrimination when placing children into homes.

Asked whether she thinks Congress will pass the legislation this year, Chrisler expressed uncertainty but noted that advocates will continue to support its passage.

“I’m optimistic that we can leverage this bill to have really good educational conversations,” she said. “I think as anybody who has watched Congress knows, the process of making a bill into a law is a complicated one, but we are going to put all of our energy and all our resources into trying to do just that.”

Chrisler said Stark is optimistic the bill will have a hearing in the House Ways & Means subcommittee to which it’s been assigned.

She also said advocates are working on getting a Senate companion for the bill introduced, although she declined to disclose which senator she was seeking as a sponsor for the legislation.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced

One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.

NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.

John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.

The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.

Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.

Continue Reading

National

Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information

Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.

 “These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.

It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”

 The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question. 

A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit. 

While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.

 Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.   

“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.

 “Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says. 

Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”

 Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”

Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.

 “As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from  the Washington Blade. 

“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said. 

The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”

It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”

The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society. 

The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections

Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Published

on

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Screen capture: YouTube)

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.

While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”

“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.

The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.

Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.

Continue Reading

Popular