Connect with us

National

ENDA votes needed from Reid, Baucus, Nelson

Senators, scarred from health care battle, uncommitted on bill

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson supports efforts to ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, but it’s unclear whether he supports broadening such protections to include discrimination based on gender identity. (Photo courtesy of Nelson’s office)

At least three highly influential Democratic senators who became embroiled in the contentious fight over President Obama’s health care reform bill have yet to co-sponsor for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) — each considered battled scarred over the health care fight — have expressed general support for legislation to ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Reid and Baucus voted for an earlier version of ENDA in 1996, when it lost in a close Senate vote, prompting LGBT lobbyists to express optimism over the two senators’ votes should ENDA come before the Senate this year.

Reid and Baucus have not taken a public stand on the gender identity provision in the current version of the bill, which would ban employment discrimination against transgender people.

Reid, who received a perfect rating of 100 from the Human Rights Campaign for the period of 2008-2009, is facing a tough re-election fight, with at least two possible Republican challengers leading in polls by double digits.

Last year, his spokesperson, Jim Manning, said Reid supports ENDA and would take steps to bring it to the Senate floor at the appropriate time.

Reid, Baucus and Nelson are among 16 Senate Democrats who haven’t co-sponsored ENDA and whose support is considered crucial to the bill’s passage.

Although HRC, which is leading the formal lobbying effort for ENDA, believes there are more than 50 senators poised to vote for the measure, the group acknowledges it’s uncertain whether supporters can garner the 60 votes needed to overcome an expected filibuster intended to kill the bill.

“I believe we have 53 or more votes for the bill itself,” said David Stacy, HRC’s deputy legislative director.

Stacy noted that 63 senators voted last year to break a filibuster for a hate crimes bill that included protections for gay and transgender people, enabling the bill to pass. The bill was the first congressionally passed civil rights legislation to protect gay and transgender people.

Stacy said HRC was hopeful, but uncertain whether 60 senators could be lined up to break an ENDA filibuster.

Nelson, like Reid and Baucus, has expressed general support for non-discrimination legislation based on sexual orientation. And he, too, voted for the trans-inclusive hate crimes bill.

Unlike Reid, Baucus and Nelson are not facing a re-election fight this year, another factor that activists hope will encourage them to support ENDA.

Baucus’ Montana colleague, Sen. John Tester (D-Mont.) also has not yet become an ENDA co-sponsor. His office did not respond to calls by press time seeking his position on the bill.

Similar to Baucus, Nelson and Reid, Tester has a mixed record on LGBT rights. He has expressed opposition to gay marriage but has said he opposes a U.S. constitutional amendment to ban it. Tester voted for the hate crimes bill last year.

Meanwhile, Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), another lawmaker not currently co-sponsoring ENDA, is among the Democrats that LGBT activists are hoping will come through with another needed vote on ENDA. Like the other senators, she has expressed general support for LGBT equality but declined to sign on as an ENDA co-sponsor.

“I think she would probably vote for it,” said Hastings Wyman, editor of Southern Political Report, an authoritative newsletter about politics in the South. “She voted for health care and she has another four years before she comes up for re-election.”

The offices of Baucus, Tester, Nelson, and Hagan did not return calls seeking their current positions on ENDA.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup

Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited

Published

on

(Photo by fifg/Bigstock)

More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.

The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.

“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23.  “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”

“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”

The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.

The full advisory can be read here.

Continue Reading

State Department

Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records

April 20 memo outlined anti-transgender rule

Published

on

(Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

Democracy Forward on Tuesday filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records on the State Department’s new bathroom policy.

A memo titled “Updates Regarding Biological Sex and Intimate Spaces, Including Restrooms” that the State Department issued on April 20 notes employees can no longer use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

“The administration affirms that there are two sexes — male and female — and that federal facilities should operate on this objective and longstanding basis to ensure consistency, privacy, and safety in shared spaces,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggot told the Daily Signal, a conservative news website that first reported on the memo. “In line with President Trump’s executive order this provides clear, uniform guidance to the department by grounding policy in biological sex as determined at birth.”

President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. The sweeping directive also ordered federal government agencies to “effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.”

Democracy Forward’s FOIA request that the Washington Blade exclusively obtained on Tuesday is specifically seeking a copy of the memo that details the State Department’s new bathroom policy. Democracy Forward has also requested “all” memo-specific communications between the State Department’s Bureau of Global Public Affairs and the Daily Signal from April 1-21.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill

Measures would restrict federal funding for LGBTQ-affirming schools

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Republicans have been gaining ground in reshaping education policy to be less inclusive toward LGBTQ students at the state level, and now they are turning their focus to Capitol Hill.

Some GOP lawmakers are pushing for a nationwide “Don’t Say Gay” bill, doubling down on their commitment to being the party of “traditional family values” by excluding anyone who does not identify with their sex at birth.

The largest anti-LGBTQ education legislation to reach the House chamber is House Bill 2616 — the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, or the PROTECT Kids Act. The PROTECT Kids Act, proposed by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), and co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Robert Onder (R-Mo.), and Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), would require any public elementary and middle schools that receive federal funding to require parental consent to change a child’s gender expression in school.

The bill, which was discussed during Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing, would specifically require any schools that get federal money from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — which was created to minimize financial discrepancies in education for low-income students — to get parental approval before identifying any child’s gender identity as anything other than what was provided to the school initially. This includes getting approval before allowing children to use their preferred locker room or bathroom.

It reads that any school receiving this funding “shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.”

LGBTQ rights advocates have criticized both national and state efforts to require parental permission to use a child’s preferred gender identity, as it raises issues of at-home safety — especially if the home is not LGBTQ-affirming — and could lead to the outing of transgender or gender-curious students.

A follow-up bill, HB 2617, proposed by Owens, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, prevents the use of federal funding to “advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using the definition from President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14168, making that an enshrined definition in law of sex rather than just by executive order. There is also a bill making its way through the senate with the same text— Senate Bill 2251.

Advocates have also criticized this follow-up legislation, as it would restrict school staff — including teachers and counselors — from acknowledging trans students’ identities or providing any support. They have said that this kind of isolation can worsen mental health outcomes for LGBTQ youth and allows for education to be politicized rather than being based in reality.

David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, called this legislation out for using LGBTQ children as political pawns in an ideology fight — one that could greatly harm the safety of these children if passed.

“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said in a statement. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. H.R. 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’re prepared to fight it.”

This is similar to Florida House Bills 1557 and 1069, referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and “Don’t Say They” bill, respectively, restricting classroom discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity, prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with one’s gender identity, expanding book banning procedures, and censoring health curriculum.

The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 233 bills related to restricting student and educator rights in the U.S.

Continue Reading

Popular