National
Romney strong in first debate; LGBT issues not addressed
Obama mentions ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal among accomplishments
LGBT issues were virtually absent in the first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney turned in a strong performance in his first debate with President Obama Wednesday night, winning the contest according to most pundits and observers.
The 90-minute debate was virtually devoid of LGBT issues as the candidates clashed over broader economic issues and health care reform.
The most direct reference to LGBT issues came from Obama when he mentioned “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as part of a list of his accomplishments that he achieved through bipartisan effort.
Obama said he’ll “take ideas from anybody, Democrat or Republican” to advance the middle class and that strategy is how the administration passed small business tax cuts, enacted three trade agreements and “how we repealed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.'”
Lanae Erickson, director of the social policy and politics program for the centrist advocacy group called Third Way, said she was pleased Obama included “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” among his bipartisan initiatives.
“Our country has come a long way when the only time an LGBT issue came up in the first presidential debate was as an example of bipartisanship,” Erickson said. “Obama used repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in a list of things he had done to partner with folks across the aisle — it seems like that would have been unthinkable in 2004, or even 2008.”
Romney made an oblique reference to social issues. He talked about the first line of the Declaration of Independence and protecting “religious tolerance and freedom” in the country, which sometimes has been interpreted as code for support of social conservatives.
But the remark was incidental during the debate as moderator Jim Lehrer — whose performance was immediately savaged by critics — avoided social issues and posed questions on the economy, government programs and tax policy. Questions on LGBT issues weren’t raised — nor anything on other social issues, such as women’s rights or immigration.
Among the major points that came up included Romney saying he’d like to keep certain provisions in financial reform legislation known as Dodd-Frank, such as transparency and leverage limits. Romney also reiterated his pledge to repeal health care reform, but said he supports a policy that keeps insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with pre-exisiting conditions.
Obama and Romney also sparred over tax policy. Obama expressed support for tax cuts for the middle class because “we do best when the middle class is doing well” as he accused Romney of backing a policy that consists of tax cuts for the rich. Romney denied the charge, saying he doesn’t support tax cuts that add to the deficit, prompting Obama to quip, “Well, for 18 months he’s been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he’s saying that his big, bold idea is, ‘Never mind.'”
Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, praised Obama for presenting a starkly different economic plan from Romney’s, saying the president went into more detail than the Republican candidate.
“Mitt Romney came to tonight’s debate prepared to take pot shots at President Obama while dodging questions about the specifics of his vague plans,” Davis said. “In contrast, President Obama addressed the American people directly and laid out a vision for the next four years. Romney’s choices — style over substance, attacks over proposals, platitudes over policies — speak to his character and the type of leader he would be.”
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, said Romney won the debate because he laid out greater detail in his proposals.
“Tonight was a very good night for Mitt Romney, a very bad night for Barack Obama, and a very good night for those Americans hungry for a new president and a new direction,” LaSalvia said. “Gov. Romney offered a clear contrast to the failed policies of the last four years. While Gov. Romney offered a new direction, President Obama couldn’t defend his record and offered little in the way of a vision for the future.
Romney also criticized Obama for taking $716 billion from Medicare to pay for expenses in other programs and pledged to reinstate those funds if elected president. This criticism, which has come before from the Republican side, has been roundly panned as a distortion — notably from former President Clinton during his speech at the Democratic National Convention — because the administration redirected those funds to close the donut hole under Medicare to provide prescription drugs for seniors.
John Aravosis, who’s gay and editor of AMERICAblog, took issue with what Romney had to say about Medicare, accusing the Republican candidate of being less than truthful.
“I didn’t like the fact that Romney seemed to trot out a lot of lies, particularly the claim that the president is ‘cutting’ Medicare when Romney’s VP, Paul Ryan, put the president’s Medicare proposal in his own budget,” Aravosis said. “But I also found it creepy that Romney kept saying his Medicare plan would exempt current seniors. If the plan is so good, then why not let current seniors ‘enjoy’ it too?”
Following the debate, many observers concluded Romney won. Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter admitted to CNN afterward that “Romney absolutely wins the preparation, and he wins the style points” while adding the Republican candidate’s proposed policies aren’t resonating with the American people.
Dan Pinello, who’s gay and a political scientist at the City University of New York, said Romney won the debate, but only by presenting positions that were different from those on which he campaigned previously.
“Romney had the more animated performance in the debate, while Obama was more cautious,” Pinello said. “But Romney appeared to depart from important policy positions he’d taken during the primary campaign, not to mention his departures from Paul Ryan’s budget. So the debate winner was the New Mitt Romney, a person different from the one who had been the Republican nominee prior to Oct. 3. The loser, however, appeared to be the Republican Party’s base.”
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, attributed the perception that Romney came out on top to the lack of social issues in the debate.
“One thing came through loud and clear tonight, and we hope our fellow Republicans take note: In a domestic debate without divisive and distracting social issues, conservative ideas resonate, moderates and independents listen, and the Republican wins,” Cooper said.
But Lehrer bore the brunt of criticism from observers. The candidates often ignored him and kept talking after he informed them their time had expired and was seen as asking questions that were too general.
Aravosis said he’s “not thrilled” LGBT rights didn’t come up in a debate about domestic policy, although he acknowledged there’s an opportunity for them to come up in subsequent debates, adding of the debate, “Was there a moderator? I didn’t notice.”
Davis also said Lehrer’s “poor moderation overshadowed the night” as well as Romney’s behavior, but blamed the Republican candidate for being unfairly harsh in demanding more time to speak.
“Knowing that Romney bullied a gay teen during prep school helps to explain his churlish behavior at tonight’s debate,” Davis said. “Instead of looking presidential, Romney appeared to be nothing more than a belligerent schoolyard bully.”
The next debate will be between the No. 2 candidates on the tickets — Vice President Joseph Biden and Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan — and will take Oct. 11 in Danville, Ky. Following that, two more presidential debates will take place: a town-hall style debate on domestic and foreign policy in Hempstead, N.Y., on Oct. 16 and a foreign policy debate in Boca Raton, Fla., on Oct. 22.
California
Calif. governor signs 6 pro-LGBTQ bills, vetoes 1
Gavin Newsom rejected measure he claimed is legislative overreach
Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed and vetoed a slew of bills into state law. Among them were seven pertaining to California’s LGBTQ community. Newsom signed six while vetoing one. His actions drew applause and scorn from advocacy groups in the state.
The six signed bills:
Assembly Bill 1775 allows transgender veterans, who were banned from service last year by the Trump-Vance administration, to access housing assistance, use California’s discharge upgrade assistance program, and get support for gaining employment.
Assembly Bill 1930 strengthens privacy protections for healthcare patients and providers by creating clear guidelines for California agencies, individuals, and corporations to respond to out-of-state subpoena requests relating to abortion or gender-affirming care. This includes a requirement to contact the California Attorney General at least seven days prior to responding to the subpoena or providing legal documents. This should add additional protection to those residing in California from investigations in states where abortion or gender-affirming care has more restrictions.
Senate Bill 934 targets conversion therapy in California and increases the amount of time a patient has to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit against a provider for attempting to change the patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill takes aim at the widely debunked practice that treats queerness as a mental disorder that could be cured through psychotherapeutic methods. Conversion therapy has been illegal in California since 2012; however, a recent Supreme Court decision threw the ban into question, prompting lawmakers to write this new bill that legally defines it as medical malpractice.
Senate Bill 1023 expands access to PrEP, a medication that protects people from contracting HIV. The bill requires insurers to cover the drug through the medical benefit and the pharmacy benefit pathways, allowing for more providers to give patients PrEP.
Senate Bill 1114 strengthens privacy protections for voluntary self-identification data about sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill limits when California government agencies can share this data and bars it from being disclosed outside of the state government, with few exceptions.
Senate Bill 1328 expands support for LGBTQ students and staff in California colleges. The bill requires any institution of higher education to designate an employee at any campus, satellite campus, branch campus, or outreach center to support the needs of LGBTQ individuals.
Equality California, the largest statewide LGBTQ civil rights group in the country, commended the governor for his support of legislation that protects and supports the queer community amid escalating threats, attacks, and rollbacks from the federal government.
Executive Director Tony Hoang said in a written statement, “California is once again demonstrating that when LGBTQ+ people are targeted, our state will respond with action,” adding, “We are grateful to Gov. Newsom for signing these measures.”
The vetoed bill:
Assembly Bill 2164 would have banned California from extraditing anyone residing in California for providing abortions or gender-affirming care in another state. Newsom vetoed this bill despite agreeing with its principles, claiming in a written statement that “extradition is an exclusively executive function” and that he did not want to limit the “executive authority of an incoming governor.”
This bill was created in response to Louisiana’s attempt to extradite a California physician for allegedly sending abortion pills in the mail to a Louisiana woman. Newsom responded forcefully to the extradition request, publicly denying it and stating, “We will not allow extremist politicians from other states to reach into California and try to punish doctors based on allegations that they provided reproductive health care services.”
In a written statement responding to the veto, Lizzy Hinkley, the legal director of the bill’s lead sponsor, Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, criticized Newsom, stating, “[the] outgoing governor’s principled stance is cold comfort to Californians living and working in the real world post-Dobbs. A high-brow, academic justification for refusing to codify legal protections only reveals an ignorance for the lived reality of patients and providers — and does nothing to help them.”
National
HRC report: LGBTQ students face ‘far greater challenges’ in non-supportive states
Survey finds anti-LGBTQ school harassment, bullying highest in 17 states
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the national LGBTQ advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, has released a report showing LGBTQ public school students are more likely to face bullying, harassment, and “other barriers” in states that have less overall supportive LGBTQ laws and policies.
The report is based on the HRC Foundation’s National Educator Survey of School Climate and Bullying, which was released on Sept. 17.
“The report finds that harassment, bullying, and other barriers to LGBTQ+ inclusion are more prevalent in states with limiting policies, where educators report widespread restrictions on LGBTQ+ resources, visible expressions of support, and assistance for transgender students,” a statement released by HRC says.
“As just one example,” the statement adds, “while 59 percent of educators in states with limiting policies report restrictions on supporting their transgender students, just 6 percent to 8 percent of educators in states with supportive policies report the same, underscoring the impact of these policies on school climate, student well-being, and the stakes of the upcoming midterm elections for LGBTQ+ youth and inclusive classrooms.”
The report says the survey consisted of responses by 826 educators in 42 states who worked as teachers, principals, counselors, administrators, and others who worked in support services. All worked at schools with students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, most being public schools and a smaller number being charter schools, the report says.
It says the survey was conducted between April 15 and May 21, 2026, and included a survey questionnaire with about 55 questions covering a wide range of LGBTQ related school issues.
According to the report, its classification of LGBTQ supportive and non-LGBTQ supportive states is based on a detailed analysis of the LGBTQ related laws and policies of all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories conducted by the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, which describes itself as an “independent, nonprofit thinktank.”
The report includes a chart consisting of 51 boxes representing the 50 states and D.C., with 32 plus D.C. colored as blue and said to have overall LGBTQ supportive policies. The 17 boxes colored in red are said to have overall non-LGBTQ supportive policies and laws, Each of the boxes has the initial of a state or D.C. printed inside it.
In addition to D.C., the chart shows Maryland, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts as among the supportive states. Florida, Texas, West Virginia, and Ohio are among the states shown to be non-LGBTQ supportive.
The HRC statement includes these “key” findings from the survey:
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 59 percent of educators report restrictions on supporting transgender students, compared to just 6-8 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive policies, nearly 50 percent of educators reported restrictions on LGBTQ+ books or resources, compared to just 7 percent of educators in states with supportive policies.
- Roughly 32 percent of educators in states with restrictive policies reported anti-LGBTQ+ harassment was a moderate or serious problem, compared with 11 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 29 percent of educators were very worried about anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, compared to 15 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 36 percent of educators witnessed anti-LGBTQ+ student bullying, compared to 27 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 75 percent of educators reported no restrictions on LGBTQ+-supportive displays, highlighting a substantially more supportive school environment than in states with restrictive policies.
- Educators in states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies also reported significant harassment of students based on appearance (57 percent), race or ethnicity (43 percent), sexual orientation (42 percent), and gender identity or expression (39 percent). (No direct comparison figure from supportive-policy states is provided in the data above.)
“Every young person deserves to feel safe and supportive at school, but this report makes clear that for too many LGBTQ+ students, especially transgender youth, are being failed by policies designed to exclude them,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson in the HRC statement.
“We know that when students feel seen, supported, and affirmed, they are more likely to thrive, but when schools become places of exclusion or hostility, young people pay the price through lower engagement, missed opportunities to learn, and poorer mental and physical health,” Robinson said.
The HRC statement notes that the survey findings come at a time when a growing number of states have passed laws targeting LGBTQ students and the school officials and teachers who support them. It says that for the first time, the survey found that “educators themselves are also experiencing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, highlighting the growing impact of these policies on school staff as well as students.”
The full survey findings and report can be accessed here:
U.S. Supreme Court
Trump asks Supreme Court to allow restrictions on gender-affirming care in prisons
SCOTUS could further restrict rights of trans inmates
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow its policy limiting gender-affirming treatment for federal inmates to take effect while a legal challenge plays out in court.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy, which had become policy nearly a decade ago for inmates who were transitioning.
The Trump administration argues in its application that its policy restricting transgender rights was properly adopted and that the judge overstepped, posing nationwide “security and prison-administrative concerns.”
If allowed, the policy would halt surgeries, hormones and social accommodations such as wigs while allowing mental health therapy to continue as the legality of the policy reversal is litigated.
The government also argues in the application that the Bureau of Prisons had “determined that sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorneys for the inmates said the policy is “a direct threat to the well-being of transgender people in federal custody and an open violation of their fundamental rights,” and said withholding necessary gender-affirming healthcare constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The Blade has covered the ongoing developments surrounding changes to Federal Bureau of Prisons transgender inmate policy that went into effect earlier in Trump’s term. The changes primarily focus on rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates.
Earlier this year, the Blade published a joint letter from multiple senators in response to the rollback of the policy. Multiple senators — including Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii) — sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and Federal Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall III calling for them to reverse the policy change, saying it endangers inmates’ health and safety.
The senators described how the policy shift, along with President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” is forcing policy changes they argued are rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
Federal Bureau of Prisons responded to the Blade’s request for comment in May, declining to reconsider its transgender inmate policy.
The Blade reached out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons once again over the application to the Supreme Court, but did not hear back before publication.
Ryan Murphy’s ‘Monster’ vilifies the lesbian
The right to be an ordinary transgender man
LGBTQ community must vote in big numbers
Victory Fund board investigates former staffers’ allegations against CEO Evan Low
Calif. governor signs 6 pro-LGBTQ bills, vetoes 1
PHOTOS: HRC National Dinner
What’s frightening is also funny in ‘Venus’
I’m 66, he’s 27. Is it love or am I being played?
The LGBTQ real estate map is being redrawn
