National
With clock ticking, all eyes on Congress
Inaction on LGBT bills likely to trigger ‘anger in the community’
President Obama joined families on the White House lawn for this week’s Easter egg roll. LGBT rights supporters are calling on him to be more vocal in his support for several key bills still pending in Congress, including repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
Supporters of LGBT rights are turning up the heat on Congress in their efforts to pass several key bills after lawmakers return from recess next week.
Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, alluded to potential political consequences if the bills don’t advance in this Congress.
“I do think that there will be many LGBT Americans frustrated and disappointed if any of these [bills] don’t move,” she said. “Even though we don’t have a pro-LGBT majority in the House and the Senate — this is our highest majority that we have and we need to obviously capitalize on the members that we have in the House and the Senate to pass legislation. So, in short, I do think that there will be anger in the community.”
Herwitt said this anger would likely manifest itself in LGBT voters feeling disconnected from Congress and from the Obama administration.
This disconnect, Herwitt said, could affect political donations or discourage people from getting involved in re-election campaigns as well as “not door knocking, literature dropping, all that kind of stuff.”
Herwitt also urged a stronger voice from the White House in advocating for legislation like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Domestic Partner Benefits & Obligations Act, as well as repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“I do think that it is important that the president and the administration do strongly indicate to the House and the Senate their support and their desire to move on ENDA, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and DPBO,” she said.
Michael Mitchell, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, voiced similar views.
“I think that we’re seeing some — donors are starting to put their money elsewhere or holding off,” he said. “I think that there are rank-and-file folks who are getting frustrated.”
Mitchell said he thinks “we need to remember” that Obama has been in the White House for fewer than 18 months.
“On the other hand, a lot of people have been working on these issues for decades, and people don’t want to wait any longer, and we’ve been laying a lot of groundwork for a very long time and we see this as our window to get this stuff through,” he said.
The November elections are weighing heavily on the minds of LGBT rights advocates. Mitchell said the passage of LGBT bills this Congress is important because of the strong possibility of reduced Democratic majorities.
“The landscape could certainly be more difficult for us, especially if it gets closer in the House,” he said. “I said recently somewhere that [you] only need to look back about 18 months or two years to see how hard it was to pass our agenda when we didn’t have control, and I think it will, again, be like that.”
Key pieces of pro-LGBT legislation in Congress have encountered roadblocks.
Advocates are urging for the inclusion of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as part of the upcoming defense authorization bill, but whether the votes exist in the Senate Armed Services Committee to attach the provision to the legislation remains to be seen.
President Obama hasn’t spoken publicly in favor of repealing the ban since his mention of the issue in his State of the Union address, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in response to a DC Agenda question last month that he doesn’t recommend legislative action this year before the Pentagon working group completes it study of the issue.
For ENDA, a House committee markup of the legislation has been pushed back since late last year and still has yet to be scheduled, although advocates are saying activity could happen in April or May. Multiple sources have told DC Agenda that the Senate lacks the 60 votes needed to overcome any attempted filibuster of ENDA.
Problems also plague legislation that would provide benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees. Supporters of the bill in the Senate have said they won’t move the bill to a floor vote until the U.S. Office of Personnel Management provides information on how it will offset the bill’s costs.
Months have passed since House and Senate committees marked up the bills late last year and sent them to the floors of their respective chambers, but OPM hasn’t yet made the offset information public. The agency didn’t immediately respond to DC Agenda’s request for an update on the situation.
During a panel discussion last week on the U.S. Census, Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, took time from her remarks to urge advocates on Capitol Hill to redouble their efforts.
“The LGBT community is very, very serious about getting all these three things done and it does not yet appear that Congress is serious about it,” she said.
Keisling later clarified for DC Agenda that her comments were “just me saying, ‘Hey pass these things.’ It wasn’t me saying, ‘You guys aren’t passing them.’”
“The clock is running down, but there is still time to do it and we have to demand they do it,” she said. “It gets harder and harder for them the longer they put it off. Health care is out of the way — start getting stuff done.”
The window of opportunity for Congress to act on these bills before lawmakers break to run their re-election campaigns is steadily becoming smaller.
After lawmakers return this month, Herwitt said they’ll work through July before they break again for August recess and then do more work in September and October before leaving to focus on re-election.
Herwitt said she’s heard talk about a lame duck session following the November election, but said she doesn’t “know if that will play itself out or not.”
While concerned about the passage of these bills before the end of the year, advocates are anticipating some activity in the coming weeks when lawmakers return from spring break.
Herwitt said she’s expecting the House Education & Labor Committee to take up ENDA and send it to the floor sometime in April or May.
That timetable would square with remarks Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) made to Karen Ocamb, a lesbian Los Angeles-based journalist, that ENDA would pass committee by the end of April and reach the floor a week or two later.
Herwitt said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass), the House sponsor of ENDA, has said he’s ready to move forward with the legislation and to have a floor vote.
“This is not new — you even wrote a story about it — the Senate is much more of a challenge for us on ENDA, but I think, at least from HRC’s perspective, getting a strong vote in the House will help us push the Senate forward,” Herwitt said.
Regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, advocates are working to include the language as part of the Senate version of the defense authorization bill when the Senate Armed Services Committee takes up the legislation in May.
“Either it’s in the chairman’s mark or we do it as an amendment, and that’s why we’re focusing very strategically in some of our key states that coincide with many of the members that sit on the Armed Services Committee,” she said.
In the House, Herwitt said gay rights supporters are pushing for an amendment on the floor to include “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as part of the defense authorization bill after the Senate committee takes it up.
Herwitt said advocates are looking at a floor vote in the House as opposed to a committee vote because they “are challenged” with the number of conservative Democrats on the panel and the virtually non-existent support from Republicans.
Supporters of repeal, Herwitt said, are “in a very good place to move forward with a vote” in the House. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), the sponsor of the House bill, has said he has the votes to pass repeal on the House floor.
“We are always, I think, in a better, or I should say, a stronger position, when both bodies act on whatever provision it is that we’re trying to move forward,” she said. “So I think that we’re in a stronger place if we have the language repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in the Senate bill and we have a House floor vote.”
National
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Rev. Kipp Nelson of St. Johns’s on the Lake Methodist Church in Miami shared a statement praising the new developments:
“It is a glorious day in the United Methodist Church. As a worldwide denomination, we have now publicly proclaimed the boundless love of God and finally slung open the doors of our church so that all people, no matter their identities or orientations, may pursue the calling of their hearts.
“Truly, all are loved and belong here among us. I am honored to serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church for such a time as this, for our future is bright and filled with hope. Praise be, praise be.”
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
The new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
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:
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:
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.
Blade Summer Kickoff Party returns to Rehoboth
Andy Cohen coming to D.C.
Want to dance for a good cause?
Calendar: May 3-9
Brittney Griner considered suicide in Russian prison
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Pride season has begun
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
