Connect with us

Politics

2024 already outpacing 2023 in anti-LGBTQ legislation

Number and scope of bills set to break records

Published

on

(Photo by Landon Richie)

On Wednesday, the Missouri General Assembly was slated to discuss eight anti-trans bills, from regulations barring “discrimination” against health providers who refuse to perform gender affirming care to an exclusionary “bathroom bill.”

Legislative researcher Erin Reed told the Washington Blade on Tuesday that she expects these items will leave no room for other business: “This happened last year on a number of occasions” with hearings that began at 9 a.m. and stretched past midnight.

Missouri “had one day last year where they heard several sports bans and several health care bans and then several drag bans in the same day,” she said. “The idea, I think, is to truly wear people down.”

The Show-Me State’s legislative calendar this week is almost rote: 17 days into the new year, lawmakers in Congress and in statehouses across the country are considering more than 275 anti-trans bills according to the Trans Legislative Tracker and ACLU.

With 150+ pieces of legislation that were carried over from last year and some 100+ new bills, 2024 could break records that have been set for each of the past three consecutive years. “Our count right now is 230 have been introduced this year,” Reed said, referring to new bills. “The number has been going up really quickly.”

“Across the country, state and local politicians have declared war on freedoms, including the freedom to get necessary medical care, a good education, and to simply exist without fear of violence or state-sanctioned discrimination,” Human Rights Campaign National Press Secretary Brandon Wolf told the Washington Blade.

“The result has been a crisis for millions of LGBTQ+ people, many of whom have been forced to flee their states to access basic civil liberties,” he said, adding, “The 2024 attacks on freedom are already accelerating. MAGA politicians are already doubling down on the agenda to strip transgender people of lifesaving care, ban more books, censor more curriculum, and wield state statutes as a weapon against people’s freedom to exist as their authentic selves.”

Anti-trans legislation can be difficult to categorize. Bills restricting trans young people’s ability to play on sports teams that align with their gender identity, for example, often including sweeping binary and exclusionary definitions of gender and sex.

Bans and restrictions on healthcare remain popular. Measures targeting access to medically necessary healthcare interventions that are supported by every mainstream scientific and medical organization with relevant clinical expertise have surged, totaling 179 bills in 2023 and 68 so far in 2024, according to the Trans Legislative Tracker.

Overall, compared to last year, Reed said, “the frequency of the bills is higher right now. And there are still state legislatures that are not fully in session.”

And looking ahead, the pace is unlikely to taper off as Republican presidential candidates including the party’s frontrunner, former President Donald Trump, have made anti-trans policy proposals and rhetoric cornerstones of their campaigns, Reed noted.

For instance, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis will participate in a meeting Wednesday in South Carolina focused on “trans people in sports — and so, we’re gonna see more of these bills proposed and the heat and the pressure has ratcheted up this year,” she said.

“There’s already a lot of lack of understanding of transgender people in the United States and Republicans have taken advantage of that,” Reed said. “That lack of understanding is, I think, magnified whenever it comes to sports and whenever it comes to the expectations people have of trans people and our bodies and what we look like and who we are.”

Not only is anti-trans legislative activity outpacing that which was seen last year, but Reed said the scope of bills targeting the LGBTQ community has broadened relative to 2023.

“Some of the states might have passed a sports ban but didn’t pass a drag ban. Some of the states that passed a drag ban might not have passed a sports ban. And so now we’re seeing all of those states kind of say, ‘OK, let’s do that too.'”

At the same time, Reed said, states have expanded anti-LGBTQ laws that were passed in recent years. For example, Florida was the first to pass “don’t say gay” legislation, which prohibited classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity through the fifth grade. It took effect in 2022. After other states followed its lead, last year Florida moved to enforce the law in all grade levels.

This year, Reed noted, Florida proposed a measure “that would essentially make all trans people and all people in the state of Florida sign biological sex affidavits whenever they update their driver’s licenses.”

If passed, the law would “basically end all legal recognition for trans people in the state. It takes every single place in the state law where trans people have any sort of legal recognition of their gender identity and erases it,” she said.

Reason for optimism

Toward the tail end of Missouri’s legislative sessions last year, when the general assembly was debating drag bans, the LGBTQ community and allies continued to show up, Reed said — many dressed in drag, even “at the end of the night, like one in the morning.”

She highlighted the results of the 2022 and 2023 midterm elections, where “These attacks did not work” and “most people that ran on anti-trans campaigns lost their elections — and I can name dozens of examples of this.”

Reed said she could not name a single candidate who, “running specifically on this issue as their main talking point at the end of the election” won their race.

Likewise, Wolf said, attacks against LGBTQ people are accelerating, “But the truth is: LGBTQ+ people have been here before, with fewer allies and fewer resources. We won then and we will win again now.”

He urged folks to “Show up to hearings, call and email lawmakers, organize our communities, and send a clear message: the war on freedom and equality will not win. Resistance is in our DNA. And the time for it is now.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Politics

Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028 

Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet

Published

on

Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaking at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.

“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”

“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.

Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.

In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.

In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.

In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.

Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.

Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.

He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.

This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.

In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.

The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.

The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication. 

Continue Reading

Congress

House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law

Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments

Published

on

The Pentagon (Photo by icholakov/Bigstock)

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.

The bipartisan vote was 212-217.

The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.

Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”

“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.

Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.

“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.

According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).

The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.

The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.

The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203. 

Continue Reading

Congress

Lindsey Graham has passed away. Do LGBTQ people have a right to celebrate his death?

SC senator opposed marriage equality, despite speculation over sexual orientation

Published

on

The late-U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in 2022. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Uncloseted Media published this article on July 16.

By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | On Sunday, the office of Lindsey Graham reported that the Republican senator and Trump ally from South Carolina died “from a brief and sudden illness.” The office said that the preliminary cause of death was a rupture of his aorta due to a hardening of his arteries.

Since then, many folks in the LGBTQ community, including a large number of Uncloseted followers, have — for better or worse — celebrated the senator’s death. When we posted the news on our Instagram page on Sunday, our followers commented:

  • “Maybe he rest in hell”—this one got 194 likes.
  • “She made sure to wait until Pride was over.”
  • “And just like that the world is a better place.”

These responses are fueled by allegations that the senator lived as a closeted gay man while supporting policies that would roll back LGBTQ rights. In 2006, he voted in support of a constitutional amendment that would have restricted marriage to only being between one man and one woman. After gay marriage became legal across the U.S. in 2015, he said “I am a proud defender of traditional marriage.” And in 2022, he told CNN he would oppose the Respect for Marriage Act and later reiterated that states should decide the issue of marriage.

Outside the Washington rumor mill, there wasn’t much evidence that Graham could be gay until 2020, when adult video performer Sean Harding wrote on Twitter that “There is a homophobic republican senator who is no better than Trump who keeps passing legislation that is damaging to the lgbt and minority communities. Every sex worker I know has been hired by this man. Wondering if enough of us spoke out if that could get him out of office?”

Harding followed up with another post, writing “If you’d be willing to stand with me against LG please let me know,” and, “So far I have two individuals who would be willing to go public and support my claims. Anyone else?”

A few days later, another anonymous sex worker came forward and made similar allegations.

But after that, there was silence, with some believing these sex workers were slapped with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). And while at least one lawyer took to Twitter saying that he’d “be more than happy to read the NDAs and look for loopholes. For free!” nobody else came forward.

That is until earlier this week, when author Jesse James Rose posted to her Instagram that Graham had paid her for sex work prior to her gender transition. Rose wrote that “Most of you know him as the homophobic senator from South Carolina but to me he will always be the man who paid a twinky pre-transition college student a fat stack of cash to do unspeakable things to him in a hotel room while he wore red lingerie.”

This dynamic has created a complicated question for LGBTQ people: Is it appropriate to posthumously celebrate the death of a man who railed against our community and used his position of power to make our lives less equitable and less safe? Is it even more fair to criticize him if he was living a secret queer life?

Or should we go high and give his track record on LGBTQ issues a positive spin now that he’s no longer with us?

In a time where social media feels like a breeding ground for angertainment, I’ll admit that the immediacy of the response to his death at first felt intense.

At the same time, I knew I didn’t want to send thoughts or prayers to a man who tried to rip my rights away.

If the alleged NDAs that Graham handed his sex workers were legitimate, they likely evaporated after his death. So now really may be the first time people can speak their truth and offer an accurate window into the absurd hypocrisy between Graham’s public and private life.

For that, I think it’s fair game to speak candidly about the story he may have worked hard to muzzle while he was here.

Continue Reading

Popular