News
Meet the 8 House Dems who don’t co-sponsor ENDA
Advocates push to find 218 votes for bill

Clockwise from top left, Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.), Rep. Pete Gallego (D-Texas), Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) (Photos public domain)
Amid the push to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, much has been said about the daunting task of advancing the bill against Republican opposition — including from U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) himself — in the GOP-controlled chamber of Congress.
But the Democratic caucus isn’t unanimous in its sponsorship of the legislation despite a push from the White House and Democratic leaders to advance ENDA. A total of eight Democrats have so far declined to co-sponsor the bill, although at least two said they would vote for it and one has said he’s inclined to vote for it if it comes to the House floor.
The eight Democrats who don’t co-sponsor ENDA are Reps. Dan Lipinksi (Ill.), Jim Costa (Calif.), John Barrow (Ga.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Pete Gallego (Texas), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Gene Green (Texas) and Nick Rahall (W.Va.).
Of these eight Democrats, most are from Texas, the largest state without any laws providing non-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Chuck Smith, executive director of Equality Texas, said the three Texans who don’t co-sponsor ENDA — Gallego, Cuellar and Green — likely have “a misplaced fear” about opposition to non-discrimination in their districts.
“When Texans go to work each day, they want to be judged on their professionalism, their experience, their performance, and their ability to get the job done,” Smith said. “With hard work, fulfilling their responsibilities, and playing by the rules, they are striving for a fair chance at achieving a piece of the American Dream. And in Texas, fully three-fourths of voters support prohibiting employment discrimination.”
But two of these lawmakers, Gallego and Green, have signaled they would support ENDA if it comes up for a vote on the House floor, even though they have yet to co-sponsor the legislation.
Jose Borjon, a Gallego spokesperson, said his boss “from the beginning” has said “he will vote for ENDA” on the House floor.
“Congressman Gallego’s family has a long history of protecting civil rights and opposing discrimination,” Borjon said. “Like his parents before him, Congressman Gallego is also opposed to any form of discrimination, including discrimination against individuals based on race, color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, religion, age, disability or personal beliefs.”
Borjon didn’t respond to a follow-up email asking why Gallego won’t co-sponsor ENDA if the lawmaker would vote for the bill.
Green’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment. But according to Hair Balls, a Houston-based political blog, he’ll vote for the legislation if it comes to the House floor.
“I am opposed to discrimination in the workplace, whether based on gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation, and will vote in support of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act when it comes to the House floor for a vote,” Green is quoted as saying.
Cuellar has made no such commitment to voting for ENDA. His office didn’t respond to the Blade’s request seeking comment on the bill.
According to LoneStar Q’s John Wright, Dallas activist Jeff Strater expressed disappointment about a meeting during a Capitol Hill lobby day when he and others sought to discuss ENDA with Cuellar staff and a proposed letter seeking an executive order barring LGBT workplace discrimination.
“We had an appointment with Henry Cuellar’s office last Thursday in D.C. to talk about the letter, ENDA and other LGBT legislation,” Strater was quoted as saying. “They refused to meet with us in the office for our appointment (unlike other members of Congress) and we met in a busy hallway. The meeting was also with a legislative fellow and not a legislative aide. This was worse than our meeting with Ted Cruz’s staff. The sad part is that in our small group we had people with long ties to Cuellar’s congressional district and Laredo.”
Another Democrat in another state has also signaled he’ll likely support ENDA, even though he hasn’t yet signed on a co-sponsor to the bill.
Jessica Kahanek, a Costa spokesperson, said the lawmaker is still reviewing the legislation, but is “inclined” to vote for the bill should it come to the House floor.
“Rep. Costa is still reviewing the bill and its implications for small business owners before he makes a final decision on co-sponsoring,” Kahanek said. “He is inclined to support ENDA should there be a vote held on the bill.”
Costa supports marriage equality and co-sponsors the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar schools from allowing discrimination or harassment of LGBT students.
One notable House Democrat who doesn’t co-sponsor ENDA is Lipinski, who withholds support for ENDA even though he voted for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and LGBT-inclusive hate crimes legislation. However, Lipinski opposes same-sex marriage.
Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois, called on Lipinski to support ENDA as he touted his organization’s work in “building stronger and stronger support” for the legislation among his state’s delegation to Congress.
“Congressman Lipinski represents a district where many employers, community leaders, and clergy members are very vocal about their support for ENDA; and LGBT workplace protections have been the law in Illinois for almost a decade,” Cherkasov said. “In a state with broad bipartisan support for ENDA, we hope that Congressman Lipinski will carry those values to Washington and sponsor ENDA.”
Not helping in the case of Lipinski — as well as Costa and Cuellar — is the fact that they’re Catholic and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has come out in opposition to ENDA when it came up for a vote in the Senate, saying it threatens religious liberty, would enable legalization of same-sex marriage and rejects the biological basis of gender.
Other House Democrats who don’t co-sponsor ENDA have a history of assuming anti-LGBT positions as members of Congress. Most notable among them are Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) and retiring Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), the only Democrats who currently co-sponsor a U.S. constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in the country. Their offices didn’t respond to a request for comment on their position on ENDA.
Another longtime House Democrat who doesn’t co-sponsor ENDA and who was a one-time supporter of a Federal Marriage Amendment is Barrow. Despite voting “yes” on this amendment, Barrow has taken pro-LGBT positions, such as voting in favor of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. His office didn’t respond to a request for comment on ENDA.
Jeff Graham, executive director of Georgia Equality, said Barrow has assumed more anti-LGBT positions after redistricting, when Barrow’s district was drawn to become more conservative.
“The politics behind this, not that it excuses it, but for the last several times that he has run for office, he has been redistricted into a district that is majority Republican,” Graham said. “And so, he actually has a voting record on LGBT issues, as well as a lot of other issues that are important to many of us, where he did not support them or voted against them. His lack of sponsorship of ENDA is not actually a surprise; it’s a disappointment, but it is not a surprise.”
Graham said getting Barrow to support ENDA would require “an immense grassroots” effort among his constituents, but his organization is prepared to support the Human Rights Campaign in planned field operations to encourage him to back the bill.
Other groups behind ENDA have launched initiatives at the national level aimed at building support for the legislation as the push to pass it continues. The Senate last year passed ENDA on bipartisan vote of 64-32, so House passage is the only remaining step necessary for approval before it would go to President Obama’s desk.
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said boosting the number of ENDA co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle is important “to clearly demonstrate” majority support exists for LGBT workplace protections in the House.
“We think that if a House vote were held today, ENDA would pass with more than 218 votes, but winning over the next batch of co-sponsors would help us prove that definitively to House leadership,” Almeida said. “Reaching 218 supporters would increase pressure on those who have been blocking an up-or-down vote.”
Almeida drew a distinction between co-sponsoring ENDA and merely articulating support, saying pledging a “yes” vote without co-sponsoring the bill is the “second-best option” for lawmakers.
A House Democratic leadership aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the only way to push these lawmakers to support ENDA is for constituents within their districts to ask their members to get behind the bill. The aide said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) personally whipped members to support ENDA, which is why all but eight Democratic members co-sponsor the bill this Congress.
The White House has continually called for passage of ENDA. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment on whether it has reached out to these eight House Democrats to encourage them to support the legislation.
At a time when DNC is raising money on behalf of Democrats in the 2014 election, the DNC didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment on whether House Democrats who don’t co-sponsor ENDA are out of line with principles of the Democratic Party, even though the 2012 Democratic Party platform endorses the bill on the basis that “people should not be fired based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Although eight House Democrats aren’t co-sponsors of ENDA, a sea of Republicans continue to withhold support of the bill in a chamber of Congress where their party holds the majority. Of the 233 Republicans in the U.S. House, only six co-sponsor ENDA: Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), Charles Dent (R-Pa.), Jon Runyan (R-N.J.), Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) and Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.).
Americans for Workplace Opportunity, a coalition of groups seeking to pass ENDA, have launched a $2 million push aimed at passing ENDA in the House. Much of the money is coming from Republican superdonors Paul Singer and Seth Klarman, who each donated $375,000. Nonetheless, not a single Republican co-sponsor has signed on to ENDA since the start of the campaign last month.
Jeff Cook-McCormac, senior adviser to the pro-LGBT American Unity Fund, nonetheless predicted more Republican co-sponsors of ENDA in the coming days.
“In an authentically bipartisan way, we remain laser-focused on getting to the critical number of 218, demonstrating majority support in the chamber,” Cook-McCormac said. “This much-needed engagement, member-by-member, in thoughtful and respectful conversations about the need for ENDA is what will enable support for the bill to grow, as we’ve seen it is a critical element of every successful effort that has advanced freedom for LGBT Americans in our country. I expect you will see other Republicans indicate their support for ENDA in the weeks and months to come.”
Baltimore
Charles Bowers, former owner of Baltimore gay bar the Hippo, dies
Prominent activist died at his Mount Vernon home
By WESLEY CASE | Charles “Chuck” Bowers, former owner of the storied Baltimore gay club the Hippo and a prominent advocate for Maryland’s LGBTQ community, died Tuesday. He was 81.
Bowers turned the Mount Vernon club — located at the corner of North Charles and West Eager streets — into a judgment-free refuge for queer and straight locals looking to find and express their authentic selves on a packed dance floor.
“He truly tried to make the Hippo a place for everybody — a safe space,” said an emotional Rik Newton-Treadway, who befriended his “mentor” Bowers at the club in 1979.
Bowers, of Mount Vernon, died Tuesday evening in Baltimore of natural causes, said his niece, Cathy Bowers.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
District of Columbia
Being a female firefighter comes with unique risks, and rewards
Well-fitting gear can be a safety issue
Firefighters are known for running into danger to save lives, but they may face another danger after the fire is out. Studies on firefighter health point to rising concerns about cancer risk, mental health struggles, and exposure to toxic “forever chemicals” found in firefighting foam and protective gear.
Nearly 40 percent of firefighters report “clinically significant levels” of anxiety or depression and 10 percent report this level of posttraumatic stress disorder, according to a national survey of public safety workers published last year in the journal Psychological Services. Lawmakers from several states are also pushing for stronger federal protections and compensation for firefighters exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job.
Female firefighters can also face a higher risk of injury, heat-related illness, and even greater carcinogen exposure due to ill-fitting equipment that wasn’t designed for their bodies. Their risk of psychological and workplace stress is higher, as well, due in part to the isolation of being in a slim minority in fire departments across the country. Only 5 to 9 percent of firefighters are women.
To understand the risks and rewards of being a female firefighter, Youthcast Media Group interviewed Connie Reid, a firefighter with the DC Fire and EMS Department. Meredith McQuerry, an associate professor of textile science at Florida State University who studies how to improve firefighting gear and other personal protective equipment to better protect women in the fire service, also responded to student questions via email. Reid’s and McQuerry’s responses have been edited for clarity and length.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN YOUR CAREER, AND WHAT DREW YOU TO IT?
REID: I’ve been a firefighter for seven years. I wasn’t sure if I wanted to be a firefighter or police officer, but I do have uncles that were firefighters, so I leaned towards the firefighter side. So I’m happy I made that decision.
McQUEERY: During my PhD, a colleague and I realized we never saw any female firefighters come through our research center. We began looking in the literature and found very few studies focused on PPE for women in the fire service.
DOES FIREFIGHTING GEAR ACTUALLY FIT WOMEN, AND DOES IT MATTER?
REID: In D.C., if you have an issue, you just send an email, and we have people who will properly size us. I don’t think any female that I know has complained about gear not fitting.
McQUERRY: Wearing protective clothing designed for the opposite sex can lead to restricted mobility, greater opportunity for thermal and particulate exposure, and a lack of functionality that can mean life or death, such as accessing a tool in a pocket that is completely closed off due to anthropometric differences.
There is a culture in the fire service, and especially for women in a male-dominated field, that suppresses the likelihood of advocating for better-fitting gear. While not within our area of expertise, we have done our best to raise awareness for the need for properly fitting gear for women in the fire service and to champion their self-advocacy.
Female firefighters report the inability to throw a ladder, step onto the truck, or cinch their pants down adequately due to ill-fitting protective clothing and equipment. One example is the interference between the helmet and the self-contained breathing apparatus which prevents many female firefighters from looking upward to throw a ladder without first twisting their neck sideways to avoid the lid of the helmet knocking into the respirator bottle. This type of modification can lead to acute and long term injury.
ARE THESE PROBLEMS MOSTLY ABOUT COMFORT? WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF SAFETY RISKS OR DANGERS THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN GEAR DOES NOT FIT PROPERLY?
McQUERRY: All firefighters need properly fitting PPE as the primary threats center around carcinogen exposure, musculoskeletal injuries, and heat-related illnesses. For example, you have to work harder to do the same task in ill-fitting, mobility restrictive gear, which leads to faster metabolic heat production and build-up in the suit, quickening the onset of fatigue and other HRI.
Our previous work led us to hypothesize that oversized gear for women allowed for more particulate ingress in the interface areas including the collar/hood, sleeve/glove, boot/pant, and coat/pant areas. A recently funded study is allowing us to quantify this by correlating the gear fit of women’s structural turnout gear with their cancer biomarkers collected via urinalysis pre- and post-live fire burns.
HOW DO FIREFIGHTERS TRAIN TO STAY SAFE DURING DANGEROUS SITUATIONS?
REID: So we have trainings all the time. Safety is the number one priority of the job. They make sure they let us know all the time. We have annual trainings. We have quarterly trainings. We have online training if you need refreshers.
We are both on a medical side and a fire side so as a D.C. firefighter, you come in, and they teach you. You bring a positive attitude and just determination, because some people really don’t understand it’s not just physical, it’s mental. You have to be mentally prepared.
WERE THERE ANY FINDINGS IN YOUR RESEARCH THAT SURPRISED YOU?
McQUEERY: Yes, we were surprised to find in our nationwide survey [of 2,000 people] a few years ago that 15 percent of U.S. structural and 21 percent of wildland female firefighters sometimes or always leave off an essential item of their PPE due to limited mobility. Specifically, the turnout coat and pants or wildland shirt and pants were the most noted for being intentionally not worn, which is very surprising and concerning.
HAVE FIRE DEPARTMENTS OR EQUIPMENT COMPANIES STARTED MAKING IMPROVEMENTS SINCE YOUR STUDY, AND IF SO, WHY DO YOU THINK FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT HAS TAKEN SO LONG TO ADAPT TO WOMEN FIREFIGHTERS?
McQUEERY: It wasn’t until the post-Me Too movement that our research in this area was able to gain traction and support. It is a decades (or centuries) old problem of there not being enough “market share” for the 5-11 percent of the fire service. However, we have seen tremendous growth and innovation in this area since we began our funded research in 2019. Now, nearly every single structural firefighting manufacturer offers women’s protective clothing.
When we began this research, only two manufacturers offered women’s turnout gear. Now, to our knowledge, all but one [seven out of eight] does, which is a significant advancement across the industry. There is still much work to do in fine tuning these designs to fit the specific anthropometrics of female firefighters.
DO YOU WORRY ABOUT THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF BEING A FIREFIGHTER?
REID: Do I worry? I wouldn’t say worry. I’m more mindful of it, because the material of today is different from years ago. It burns faster, and then there’s more chemically made things than like natural resources. So I’m aware of that. They also have training teaching us about things like that. And there’s smoke exposures, there’s a health risk like sleep deprivation or sleep disruption.
WHAT KIND OF EDUCATION OR TRAINING DO YOU NEED TO BECOME A FIREFIGHTER?
REID: So there’s a few routes to get onto the job. The cadet route would be … you have to be 18 to 21 years old, you have to be a D.C. resident, have a high school diploma from a D.C. school (public or private), or have a GED, and you have to have at least a learner’s permit at the time that you are applying for the job. To be a recruit, you have to be at least 18 years old, have a full driver’s license, (not just a permit), and you also have to have a high school diploma or GED. The third way [is as] a paramedic, and you have to come on the job with your paramedic license.
WHAT’S YOUR ADVICE FOR YOUNG WOMEN CONSIDERING THIS PATH?
REID: I would say, welcome. Come on the job. We need females. I always think it’s awesome when we get young ladies that are interested in the fire side. A lot of females just only want to do EMS. There’s nothing against EMS, but the fire side is pretty cool, too. Don’t sell yourself short, just try to do both of them. It’s a very rewarding job. You have to also mentally prepare yourself and physically prepare yourself. But I think the job is a great experience. I wish I would have started younger myself.
Mariyah Matthews is in the class of 2027 at Bard High School Early College DC, one of Youthcast Media Group’s journalism class partners. Sarah Gandluri is a YMG intern who is studying political science and global studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
White House
Trump-appointed judge restores White House TV pool access
Judge called in to question president’s justification of the ban
A federal judge ordered the White House to restore West Wing press credentials to three news organizations after President Donald Trump attempted to bar their access for unfavorable reporting.
Early Thursday morning, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a temporary restraining order brought by POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW as part of a joint lawsuit. The lawsuit cites the imperative role of a “free press” and ordered the 78 journalists’ credentials returned to the three outlets for at least the next two weeks as litigation plays out.
In the eight-page ruling, the judge goes over a slew of laws that Trump may have violated in banning the three media groups — from stepping on their First Amendment rights to a free press to the Fifth Amendment right to due process.
The judge also questioned Trump’s justification for removing the outlets, originally saying it was a matter of national security.
“The court is skeptical — at least on this record — that defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes,” Kelly wrote in an 8-page ruling issued just before 1 a.m. ET.
“Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ plaintiffs from the White House — instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs’ reporting,” the judge added.
The Washington Blade reached out to the White House press office asking if the administration would file an appeal to keep the journalists out of the West Wing but did not hear back before publication time.
