National
Former UN ambassador Bill Richardson dies at 75
One-time N.M. governor helped secure Brittney Griner’s release from Russian prison
Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Energy Secretary, congressman and two term New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson died in his sleep at age 75 on Friday at his Cape Cod summer home, a spokesperson for the Richardson Center for Global Engagement said in a statement released Saturday.
Mickey Bergman, vice president of the Richardson Center, said “Gov. Richardson passed away peacefully in his sleep last night. He lived his entire life in the service of others — including both his time in government and his subsequent career helping to free people held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad. There was no person that Gov. Richardson would not speak with if it held the promise of returning a person to freedom. The world has lost a champion for those held unjustly abroad and I have lost a mentor and a dear friend.”
Bergman added: “Right now our focus is on supporting his family, including his wife Barbara of over 50 years, who was with him when he passed. We will share further information as it becomes available.”
A lifelong progressive Democrat, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. had worked almost exclusively in recent years, through the Richardson Center he founded in 2011, to free people who were held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad.
This past month Richardson was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his role in rescuing Americans, most recently Phoenix Mercury player Brittney Griner. Over the last several decades Richardson traveled the world negotiating and securing the release of American prisoners and hostages in Bangladesh, North Korea, Sudan, Colombia and Iraq.
As one of the 351 candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2023, the former ambassador told The Hill that he was honored by the nomination.
Richardson served as a congressman, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and Energy Secretary under President Bill Clinton, and two terms as governor of New Mexico.
New Mexico’s junior U.S. Senator, Ben Ray Luján, issued a statement Saturday after learning of Richardson’s passing:
“Governor Richardson was a close friend who held the same House seat that I was elected to. He knew how to get things done, and he worked closely with my late father in the Legislature.
His passing is incredibly heartbreaking for so many New Mexicans who knew and respected him. He leaves behind a legacy that will never be matched, and one that New Mexicans will always take pride in. My prayers are with Barbara, the Richardson family and all New Mexicans. His memory will always be a blessing.”
Traveling in Florida surveying Hurricane Idalia damage, President Joe Biden released a statement on the death of Richardson:
“Bill Richardson wore many weighty titles in his life — congressman, governor, ambassador, secretary. He seized every chance to serve and met every new challenge with joy, determined to do the most good for his country, his beloved New Mexico, and Americans around the world. Few have served our nation in as many capacities or with as much relentlessness, creativity, and good cheer. He will be deeply missed.
Bill’s legacy will endure in many places — in New Mexico, which Bill served for seven terms as congressman and two as governor; at the Department of Energy, where he helped strengthen America’s nuclear security; and at the United Nations, where he put his considerable negotiating skills to work advocating for American interests and values on the world stage.
But perhaps his most lasting legacy will be the work Bill did to free Americans held in some of the most dangerous places on Earth. American pilots captured by North Korea, American workers held by Saddam Hussein, Red Cross workers imprisoned by Sudanese rebels — these are just some of the dozens of people that Bill helped bring home. He’d meet with anyone, fly anywhere, do whatever it took. The multiple Nobel Peace Prize nominations he received are a testament to his ceaseless pursuit of freedom for Americans. So is the profound gratitude that countless families feel today for the former governor who helped reunite them with their loved ones.
Bill and I crossed paths for the first time decades ago, when he was a staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I served on as senator. Over the years, I saw firsthand his passion for politics, love for America, and unflagging belief that, with respect and good faith, people can come together across any difference, no matter how vast. He was a patriot and true original, and will not be forgotten. Jill and I send our love to his family, including his wife of over 50 years, Barbara, and their daughter Heather.”
Although the ambassador was committed to LGBTQ rights in the U.S. and globally, his early interactions during his 2008 presidential campaign cost him support among LGBTQ voters that election cycle for a series of gaffes made during a campaign forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and Logo TV.
Also appearing on the forum was another candidate, then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) In January 2008, Richardson dropped out of the race which ultimately saw the election of Obama as the 44th president of the U.S.
A non-scientific poll on Logo’s website after the forum had the Illinois senator with the most support at 35 percent, while Richardson garnered the least at 4 percent.
Heath Haussamen, a political journalist based in Las Cruces, N.M., and the editor and publisher of the now defunct political news website NMPolitics.net that covered the state of New Mexico, documented what turned into a fiasco for Richardson.
Richardson was asked about a prior comment he made on the Don Imus show in 2006 — repeating the use of the Spanish word for “faggot” after Imus used it — and he seemed to tentatively satisfy his critics.
“I meant no harm when I said that,” Richardson said. “It was one of those exchanges when I was caught off guard … But I think you should look at my actions, and not words.”
The forum moderator then commented that she had misspoken once on Imus’ show, and said each guest is entitled to one mistake on that show
It got worse, according to Haussmen’s reporting:
But after being forgiven for one mistake, Richardson immediately made more.
He was asked, if the state Legislature passed a bill making gay marriage legal, whether he would sign it. After discussion with Richardson and other candidates about the strong difference between domestic partnerships and gay marriage — one panel member characterized it as the difference between being separate but equal and being truly equal — Richardson said this:
“The New Mexico Legislature, I am pushing it very hard to expand domestic partnerships. It’s the same thing.”
Not only was this mistake No. 2, but it resurrected mistake No. 1 — the Imus comment. Which prompted the next question: Where do you stand on gay marriage?
“In my heart, I am doing what is achievable, and I’m not there yet. New Mexico isn’t there yet, the country isn’t there yet,” he said. “That doesn’t mean I’m closed on this issue. It means I’m doing what is achievable.”
Which prompted the next question, from rock star Melissa Etheridge: “Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?”
“It’s a choice. It’s, it’s …” he said.
Mistake No. 3. The audience was silent.
Not long after that debate forum, he reached out to the then-Advocate Political Editor Kerry Eleveld, requesting an in-person interview to clarify his position, saying that he has long known being gay is biological.
“I misunderstood the question, and I made a mistake in the way I answered it,” he said during that interview.
His campaign also attempted to mitigate the damage with the LGBTQ community issuing a statement that read in part:
“Let me be clear: I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice,” Richardson said in the release. “But I’m not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law. That is what I believe. That is what I have spent my career fighting for. I ask that people look at my record and my actions and they will see I have been a true supporter of the LGBT community.”
The campaign also stressed Richardson’s long support of the LGBTQ community.
The University of California, Santa Barbara,’s “The American Presidency Project” has an archived statement made by Richardson during Pride month released on June 22, 2007, which read:
“I am very pleased to join my friends in the GLBT community and Americans across the country in celebrating Pride month. This month is a deserved commemoration of the contributions of GLBT Americans to the United States and a welcome symbol of how far we have come as a nation.
“We must also acknowledge that we are in the midst of a difficult struggle for basic human rights and we have a long way to go. This month is a worthy symbol of our progress towards full civil rights for every American, but we cannot ignore the challenges we still must conquer before we can truly move forward and create a better society.
“I have been a strong, dedicated, and proud supporter of the GLBT community throughout my time in public service. In Congress, I voted against the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. I continue to believe that it is wrong, shamefully wrong. This policy is not only detrimental to GLBT Americans, it is harmful to the security of every American, as badly-needed military personnel are discharged for no other reason than that they are gay or lesbian.
“As governor of New Mexico, I have led the charge for equality in my state. We expanded anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity. We provided state health insurance for domestic partnerships. And I signed into law the state’s first hate crimes legislation for crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I have fought hard for a Domestic Partner Rights Act in New Mexico and I will not stop fighting until the legislation is passed.
“As president, I will not rest until we have fulfilled America’s most basic promise — that every human being is created equal and that every American is due certain basic, inalienable rights. I know that until the human rights of every American are guaranteed, the rights of all Americans are demeaned.”
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
-
Opinions5 days agoD.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
-
District of Columbia5 days agoKey lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
-
The White House4 days agoTrump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
-
South Carolina4 days agoMan faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
