Connect with us

National

HRC affirms 'Don't Ask' repeal for 2010

Published

on

The Human Rights Campaign is affirming its commitment to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year as part of its legislative agenda in Congress.

HRC President Joe Solmonese outlined during a Feb. 27 fundraising dinner speech in Raleigh, N.C., expectations for the passage of pro-LGBT federal legislation in Congress, including the repeal of the 1993 barring open service in the U.S. military.

In a DC Agenda interview following the event, David Smith, HRC’s vice president of programs, elaborated on the remarks that Solmonese gave during the dinner.

Smith restated HRC’s commitment to seeing this year the enactment of domestic partner benefits for federal workers, domestic partner tax relief and the Early Treatment for HIV Act, as well as repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He also cautioned against reading too much into the Solmonese’s remarks and said HRC is working on other tasks beyond what Solmonese mentioned.

DC Agenda: Joe said during the dinner that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be brought to an end this year. What is your plan for making that happen?

David Smith: Well, Chris, we’ve been talking about that for months, and there’s been a lot of public dialogue on a path to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” There are obviously a number of options on the table. Somebody just reminded me you have our campaign, so you are well aware of how we hope to move forward on that. (Editor’s note: See “Questions surround Lieberman’s ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal bill”)

Agenda: But what leads you to believe you can accomplish “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal this year?

Smith: We’ve been saying that for months — that this is year for it to be repealed and we’re mobilizing our campaign to accomplish just that.

Agenda: What has the White House been saying on this issue? Does the White House want repeal this year or does it want to wait until the Pentagon review is finished?

Smith: The White House has publicly said that they’re following this process that was set up with [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates and [Chairman of Joint of Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael] Mullen — and that’s precisely what they’re doing is — following the process that was outlined at the Senate Armed Services Committee however many weeks ago that was now.

Agenda: What will happen if repeal doesn’t happen this year?

Smith: We fully expect repeal to happen this year. That’s what we’re working towards.

Agenda: What about two items Joe mentioned that were in the House version of the health care reform: the domestic partner tax penalty elimination and the Early Treatment for HIV Act? They’re not in the president’s proposed legislation. Do you plan to have those provisions moving forward as part of the health care package?

Smith: As far as I understand, the plan right now is that he put forward some broad outlines in terms of how the Senate bill can reconcile with the House bill. And every particular wasn’t included in those policy proposals, so it is still our hope that DP tax and ETHA will be included in whatever fix is — whatever they come up with to reconcile those two bills.

Agenda: How do you see the process going to move forward with health care reform?

Smith: Well, Chris, every reporter in this city, whether they work for DC Agenda or the New York Times is trying to figure out exactly how the process is going to work. They are still figuring it out, or if not still figuring it out, they’re not being open about how it moves forward.

I’ve read many different things, and they certainly are not talking to a whole bunch of people about it. But one version is the House passes the Senate bill, and the Senate introduces a reconciliation bill that fixes the Senate in accordance to what the House wants. There’s many different ways that this could all shake out. But it is still our hope that DP tax relief and ETHA will be included in whatever final resolution there is.

Agenda: And you’re expecting that to happen this year?

Smith: Yes.

Agenda: What about the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act? What do you see as the path for that legislation now?

Smith: Well, as you well know, it’s been passed out of both committees in both the House and Senate in various committees of jurisdiction. It is probably our most ripest piece of legislation in terms of how many times it has had a hearing and markup, so again it is our ripest piece of legislation and indications are that it will happen this year.

Agenda: And you’re expecting it to happen this year?

Smith: Yes.

Agenda: I know there was an issue with how Sen. Joseph Lieberman wanted the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to provide information it would offset the costs of that legislation within the existing budget. Do you know if that issue has yet been resolved?

Smith: I don’t believe it has, but I still think they are definitely looking for an offset and we have every reason to believe that they’re going to find it.

Agenda: Do you have any expectations for a timeline on when we can see floor votes on this legislation in either the House or the Senate?

Smith: No. I mean, I think the rest of the [congressional] calendar is completely up in the air this year.

Agenda: Joe mentioned four things that were part of the calender this year. Why wasn’t [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] included among these four?

Smith: Joe spoke about ENDA in those remarks. It was one speech in one part of the country. It’s not going to be — one speech is not reflective of what we’re working on.

Clearly, there’s a very good possibility there could be movement on ENDA in the House. As you reported, there are issues with the Senate. We’re all, as a coalition, [we] are continuing to work through those issues. And you come to work every day trying to pass legislation, and ENDA is one of our top priorities. And each and every day we’re fighting for it, and you keep pressing until these things happen.

Agenda: But do you think there is as strong a possibility of passing ENDA as the other four things we just talked about?

Smith: Again, I think there are issues in the Senate, which I think are challenges, and we’re working through those challenges with our colleagues and our coalition.

Agenda: Another thing that wasn’t mentioned in Joe’s speech was the Uniting American Families Act. Do you think attaching as part of comprehensive immigration reform can lead to passage of UAFA this year?

Smith: We continue to press to get UAFA into the process. UAFA is one our priorities, and we continue to work on that as well.

Again, Chris, I want to stress, one speech is not going cover every single issue that we’re working on. You should be aware of that. So one speech does not an entire agenda make.

We’re continuing to work on repealing [the Defense of Marriage Act], UAFA, domestic partner benefits for federal employees. There’s a list of efforts that we’re working towards and each one is in various stages of the process.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic

Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges

Published

on

Lewis F. Powell Jr. Courthouse in Richmond, Va. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Courts/GSA)

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:

4th Circuit rules against legal argument that trans treatment bans do not discriminate against trans people because ‘they apply to everyone.’

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:

The 4th Circuit majority rebuts the state’s proxy discrimination argument.

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.

Continue Reading

National

GLSEN hosts Respect Awards with Billy Porter, Peppermint

Annual event aims to ‘inspire a lot of people to get active’

Published

on

Billy Porter is among guests at Monday’s Respect Awards in New York.

GLSEN will host its annual Respect Awards April 29 in New York, with guests including Miss Peppermint and Billy Porter. 

Respect Awards director Michael Chavez said that the event will be moving. 

“It will inspire a lot of people to get active and take action in their own communities and see how much more work there is to do, especially with all of the harmful things happening,” he said. 

At the event, they will recognize the Student Advocate of the Year, Sophia T. Annually, GLSEN recognizes a student from around the country who is impacting their community. 

“Sophia is doing incredible work advocating for inclusive sex education that is LGBTQ+ affirming, working with Johns Hopkins University to implement curriculum.” Chavez said. 

Chavez calls the students that attend the Respect Awards the “biggest celebrities” of the evening. 

“It is really important for the adults, both the allies and the queer folks, to hear directly from these queer youth about what it’s like to be in school today as a queer person,” he said.

GLSEN is a queer youth advocacy organization that has been working for more than 30 years to protect LGBTQ youth.

“GLSEN is all hands on deck right now, because our kids are under direct attack and have been for years now,” said actor Wilson Cruz.

Cruz is the chair of GLSEN’s National Board, which works to fundraise and strategize for the organization.

“I think we are fundamental to the education of LGBTQ students in school,” he said. “We advocate for more comprehensive support at the local, national, and federal levels so our students are supported.”

Chavez is one of the students that was impacted by this work. He led his school’s GSA organization and worked with GLSEN throughout his youth. 

Cruz said Chavez is doing what he hopes today’s GLSEN students do in the future, which is pay the work forward. 

“There’s nothing more powerful than people who have experienced the work that GLSEN does and then coming back and allowing us to expand on that work with each generation that comes forward,” he said. 

Continue Reading

Florida

Homeless transgender woman murdered in Miami Beach

Andrea Doria Dos Passos attacked while she slept

Published

on

Andrea Dos Passos (Photo courtesy of Equality Florida)

Gregory Fitzgerald Gibert, 53, who was out on probation, is charged with the second-degree murder of 37-year-old Andrea Doria Dos Passos, a transgender Latina woman who was found deceased in front of the Miami Ballet company facility by a security guard this past week.

According to a Miami Beach Police spokesperson the security guard thought Dos Passos was sleeping in the entranceway around 6:45 a.m. on April 23 and when he went to wake her he discovered the blood and her injuries and alerted 911.

She was deceased from massive trauma to her face and head. According to Miami Beach police when video surveillance footage was reviewed, it showed Dos Passos lying down in the entranceway apparently asleep. WFOR reported: In the early morning hours, a man arrived, looked around, and spotted her. Police said the man was dressed in a black shirt, red shorts, and red shoes.

At one point, he walked away, picked up a metal pipe from the ground, and then returned. After looking around, he sat on a bench near Dos Passos. After a while, he got up and repeatedly hit her in the head and face while she was sleeping, according to police.

“The male is then seen standing over her, striking her, and then manipulating her body. The male then walks away and places the pipe inside a nearby trash can (the pipe was found and recovered in the same trash can),” according to the arrest report.

Police noted that in addition to trauma on her face and head, two wooden sticks were lodged in her nostrils and there was a puncture wound in her chest.

Victor Van Gilst, Dos Passos’s stepfather confirmed she was trans and experiencing homelessness. 

“She had no chance to defend herself whatsoever. I don’t know if this was a hate crime since she was transgender or if she had some sort of interaction with this person because he might have been homeless as well. The detective could not say if she was attacked because she was transgender,” said Van Gilst. 

“She has been struggling with mental health issues for a long time, going back to when she was in her early 20s. We did everything we could to help her. My wife is devastated. For her, this is like a nightmare that turned into reality. Andrea moved around a lot and even lived in California for a while. She was sadly homeless. I feel the system let her down. She was a good person,” he added.

Gregory Fitzgerald Gibert booking photo via CBS Miami.

The Miami Police Department arrested Gibert, collected his clothing, noting the red shorts were the same type in the video and had blood on them. Blood was also found on his shoes, according to police. He was taken into custody and charged. 

“The suspect has an extensive criminal record and reportedly was recently released from custody on probation for prior criminal charges. Police apprehended the suspect in the city of Miami and the investigation is currently ongoing. This case is further evidence that individuals need to be held accountable for prior violent crimes for the protection of the public. We offer our sincere condolences to the family and friends of the victim,” Miami Beach Mayor Steve Meiner said in a statement. 

Joe Saunders, senior political director with LGBTQ rights group Equality Florida, told the Miami Herald that “whenever a transgender person is murdered, especially when it is with such brutality, the question should be asked about whether or not this was a hate-motivated crime.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular