ReportWire

Tag: LGBTQ rights

  • Supreme Court takes aim at gay marriage ruling. Good | Opinion

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    Getty Images file photo

    You might have missed the news blip this week that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to its 2015 gay marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision of an overwhelmingly conservative court next year could very well be one of the year’s biggest stories, dividing Americans like nothing since the Trump court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    I’ve been a backer of gay marriage since the 1990s, when Andrew Sullivan made the case that marriage would push gay life more into the traditionalist mold of heterosexual life shaped by the responsibilities of the modern marriage covenant. The committed love of an older lesbian colleague and a gay teacher had something to do with my thinking, as well.

    The best thing about Obergefell is that in the decade since it legalized gay marriage in all 50 states, all the religious right’s scary arguments about the moral and social breakdown married gays would unleash upon society have been shown to be bunk. The worst thing I’ve seen is that the LGBTQ community is just as bad at marriage as the rest of us. I’m no paragon. Just ask my wives.

    But even then, I am all for the Supreme Court overturning the decision that was Anthony Kennedy’s last big foray into philosophizing. His ruling, joined by the court’s liberals, is farrago of falsehoods and flapdoodle with a complete disregard for the Constitution, which much to the annoyance of the left simply doesn’t have anything to say about the debate at hand other than to require that we resolve things as a democratic republic should — by voting.

    One way you can tell whether your spouse in a marital argument or your swing-vote Supreme Court justice has gone off the rails is when they start using words like “all” and “always.” Kennedy takes all the way to the second sentence of the decision to get sideways with reality: “The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life.”

    “Always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons,” huh? Guess he’s never heard of marriages that can be undone with a brief incantation and the wife cast aside. Guess he’s never heard of the places where wife beating and marital rape were standard. That’s a lot of nobility, right there.

    The next paragraph gets even better. “Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. This wisdom …”

    Confucius had a lot of wisdom about how marriage should be conducted. Wife chattel? Check. Wife can’t own property? Check. Wife to obey husband in all things? Check. Corporal punishment for bad wives? Check.

    That’s some wisdom from Confucius about the “dignity” of wives. Let me go out on a limb to say if your opinion on gay marriage starts off by citing Confucian wisdom, you might be a little confused about history.

    Scalia: Let public debate continue

    Kennedy is no less confused about his job interpreting the Constitution. He opines that his “method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.”

    But the thing about Constitution is that the whole point is for the past to rule the present, unless legislators take up the arduous task of amending it. The First Amendment from the distant past gives us the right to free speech. The past absolutely rules that you cannot throw irritating columnists in jail for what they write, no matter how much you want to, without changing the Constitution.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, who knew what his job was, had it exactly right when he wrote in dissent, “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision — such as ‘due process of law’ or ‘equal protection of the laws’ — it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice. … Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.”

    In short, the men who reshaped our country’s Constitution in the wake of the Civil War did not accidentally legalize gay marriage, no matter how much Justice Kennedy might twist logic and history to make it seem so.

    I want gay marriage to be legal. I will vote 100 times to make it so if that is what it takes. But just because I like the outcome of a Supreme Court case does not make it good law. The Supreme Court should strike this monstrosity down, and Congress should go about making it law the right way.

    David Mastio is a national columnist for McClatchy and The Kansas City Star.

    Related Stories from Raleigh News & Observer

    David Mastio, a former deputy editorial page editor for the liberal USA TODAY and the conservative Washington Times, has worked in opinion journalism as a commentary editor, editorial writer and columnist for 30 years. He was also a speechwriter for the George W. Bush administration.
    Support my work with a digital subscription

    David Mastio

    Source link

  • Supreme Court takes aim at gay marriage ruling. Good | Opinion

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    Getty Images file photo

    You might have missed the news blip this week that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to its 2015 gay marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision of an overwhelmingly conservative court next year could very well be one of the year’s biggest stories, dividing Americans like nothing since the Trump court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    I’ve been a backer of gay marriage since the 1990s, when Andrew Sullivan made the case that marriage would push gay life more into the traditionalist mold of heterosexual life shaped by the responsibilities of the modern marriage covenant. The committed love of an older lesbian colleague and a gay teacher had something to do with my thinking, as well.

    The best thing about Obergefell is that in the decade since it legalized gay marriage in all 50 states, all the religious right’s scary arguments about the moral and social breakdown married gays would unleash upon society have been shown to be bunk. The worst thing I’ve seen is that the LGBTQ community is just as bad at marriage as the rest of us. I’m no paragon. Just ask my wives.

    But even then, I am all for the Supreme Court overturning the decision that was Anthony Kennedy’s last big foray into philosophizing. His ruling, joined by the court’s liberals, is farrago of falsehoods and flapdoodle with a complete disregard for the Constitution, which much to the annoyance of the left simply doesn’t have anything to say about the debate at hand other than to require that we resolve things as a democratic republic should — by voting.

    One way you can tell whether your spouse in a marital argument or your swing-vote Supreme Court justice has gone off the rails is when they start using words like “all” and “always.” Kennedy takes all the way to the second sentence of the decision to get sideways with reality: “The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life.”

    “Always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons,” huh? Guess he’s never heard of marriages that can be undone with a brief incantation and the wife cast aside. Guess he’s never heard of the places where wife beating and marital rape were standard. That’s a lot of nobility, right there.

    The next paragraph gets even better. “Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. This wisdom …”

    Confucius had a lot of wisdom about how marriage should be conducted. Wife chattel? Check. Wife can’t own property? Check. Wife to obey husband in all things? Check. Corporal punishment for bad wives? Check.

    That’s some wisdom from Confucius about the “dignity” of wives. Let me go out on a limb to say if your opinion on gay marriage starts off by citing Confucian wisdom, you might be a little confused about history.

    Scalia: Let public debate continue

    Kennedy is no less confused about his job interpreting the Constitution. He opines that his “method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.”

    But the thing about Constitution is that the whole point is for the past to rule the present, unless legislators take up the arduous task of amending it. The First Amendment from the distant past gives us the right to free speech. The past absolutely rules that you cannot throw irritating columnists in jail for what they write, no matter how much you want to, without changing the Constitution.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, who knew what his job was, had it exactly right when he wrote in dissent, “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision — such as ‘due process of law’ or ‘equal protection of the laws’ — it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice. … Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.”

    In short, the men who reshaped our country’s Constitution in the wake of the Civil War did not accidentally legalize gay marriage, no matter how much Justice Kennedy might twist logic and history to make it seem so.

    I want gay marriage to be legal. I will vote 100 times to make it so if that is what it takes. But just because I like the outcome of a Supreme Court case does not make it good law. The Supreme Court should strike this monstrosity down, and Congress should go about making it law the right way.

    David Mastio is a national columnist for McClatchy and The Kansas City Star.

    Related Stories from Fort Worth Star-Telegram

    David Mastio, a former deputy editorial page editor for the liberal USA TODAY and the conservative Washington Times, has worked in opinion journalism as a commentary editor, editorial writer and columnist for 30 years. He was also a speechwriter for the George W. Bush administration.
    Support my work with a digital subscription

    David Mastio

    Source link

  • Senate to take up book ban restrictions

    BOSTON — The state Senate is poised to approve a plan to restrict efforts to ban books from public libraries and schools in response to a rise in challenges from parents and conservative groups.

    The “free expression” legislation, which cleared the Senate Ways and Means Committee on Thursday with bipartisan support, would make Massachusetts one of a handful of states to effectively outlaw book bans because of “personal, political or doctrinal” views by setting new restrictions on receiving state funding.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm&?56C E96 AC@A@D2=[ D49@@= 5:DEC:4ED[ 492CE6C D49@@=D 2?5 =@42= 65F42E:@? 286?4:6D H@F=5 36 C6BF:C65 E@ 25@AE 2?5 AF3=:D9 2 HC:EE6? D49@@= =:3C2CJ A@=:4J E92E 8@G6C?D E96 D6=64E:@? 2?5 FD6 @7 =:3C2CJ >2E6C:2=D 2?5 @FE=:?6D AC@465FC6D 7@C C6DA@?5:?8 E@ 3@@< 492==6?86D]k^Am

    kAm{:3C2C:6D H@F=5 36 C6BF:C65 E@ 25@AE E96 p>6C:42? {:3C2CJ pDD@4:2E:@?’D {:3C2CJ q:== @7 #:89ED[ H9:49 564=2C6D E92E “>2E6C:2=D D9@F=5 ?@E 36 6I4=F565 3642FD6 @7 E96 @C:8:?[ 324<8C@F?5[ @C G:6HD @7 E9@D6 4@?EC:3FE:?8 E@ E96:C 4C62E:@?” @C 2 D:>:=2C A@=:4J]k^Am

    kAm%96 >62DFC6[ D=2E65 7@C 2 G@E6 }@G] `b 😕 E96 7F== $6?2E6[ H@F=5 DE:== ?665 E@ 36 2AAC@G65 3J E96 DE2E6 w@FD6 @7 #6AC6D6?E2E:G6D 2?5 DFCG:G6 v@G] |2FC2 w62=6J’D G6E@ A6? E@ 364@>6 =2H]k^Am

    kAmq24<6CD @7 E96 AC@A@D2=[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 |2DD249FD6EED $49@@= {:3C2CJ pDD@4:2E:@? 2?5 E96 |2DD249FD6EED {:3C2CJ pDD@4:2E:@?[ D2J E96 492?86D 2C6 2:>65 2E AFD9:?8 324< 2E 677@CED 3J A2C6?ED 2?5 4@?D6CG2E:G6 8C@FAD E@ C6>@G6 46CE2:? E:E=6D 7C@> D49@@=D 2?5 AF3=:4 =:3C2C:6D]k^Am

    kAm%9@D6 8C@FAD 92G6 4:E65 2? FAE:4< 😕 “3@@< 492==6?86D” 3J A2C6?E 8C@FAD[ 4@?D6CG2E:G6 @C82?:K2E:@?D 2?5 =2H>2<6CD H9@ H2?E E@ C6>@G6 46CE2:? 3@@ D49@@=D 2?5 =:3C2C:6D[ 6DA64:2==J E9@D6 562=:?8 H:E9 {vq%” 2?5 C24:2= E96>6D]k^Am

    kAm!t} p>6C:42[ 2 ?@?AC@7:E @C82?:K2E:@? 565:42E65 E@ 7C665@> @7 6IAC6DD:@?[ D2:5 >@C6 E92? `_[___ 3@@ a_ab E@ a_ac] p D:K23=6 49F?< @7 E96 3@@< 32?D E@@< A=246 😕 u=@C:52 2?5 x@H2 2D 3@E9 DE2E6D 6?7@C465 DH66A:?8 =2HD E2C86E:?8 4=2DDC@@> >2E6C:2=[ !t} D2:5]k^Am

    kAm“$E2E6 =68:D=2E:@? H2D 2=D@ A2CE:4F=2C=J 4C:E:42= 😕 2446=6C2E:?8 3@@< 32?D[ >2<:?8 :E 62D:6C E@ C6>@G6 3@@ D49@@=D H:E9@FE 5F6 AC@46DD[ @C 😕 D@>6 42D6D[ H:E9@FE 2?J 7@C>2= AC@46DD H92ED@6G6C[” E96 8C@FA D2:5 😕 2 C646?E C6A@CE]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED =:3C2C:2?D D2J E96J 92G6 366? D66:?8 2? FAE:4< 😕 E96 ?F>36C @7 3@@< 492==6?86D 7C@> A2C6?ED 2?5 @FED:56 8C@FAD FAD6E H:E9 H92E E96J G:6H 2D :?2AAC@AC:2E6 4@?E6?E @? D6IF2=:EJ 2?5 C24:D> 7@C J@F?86C C6256CD]k^Am

    kAmr@?D6CG2E:G6 8C@FAD 2C8F6 E96J 2C6 ?@E =@@<:?8 E@ 32? 3@@@E:@?2= =62C?:?8 @G6C 2 EC25:E:@?2= 65F42E:@?[ 2?5 E96 :?EC@5F4E:@? @7 D6IF2==J 6IA=:4:E 3@@:55=6 2?5 9:89 D49@@= =:3C2C:6D]k^Am

    kAmqFE 4C:E:4D 4@?E6?5 E96 3@@< 492==6?86D 2C6 36:?8 5C:G6? =2C86=J 3J C24:D> 2?5 9@>@A9@3:2[ 2?5 2C6 92C>:?8 DEF56?ED 2?5 DE:7=:?8 7C66 DA6649]k^Am

    kAm~3D6CG6CD D2J 3@@< 32??:?8 92D 8@?6 7656C2= F?56C E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@?[ H:E9 E96 s6A2CE>6?E @7 s676?D6 C6>@G:?8 5:G6CD:EJ[ 6BF:EJ 2?5 :?4=FD:@? >2E6C:2=D 7C@> =:3C2C:6D @? >:=:E2CJ 32D6D E92E D6CG6 24E:G6 D6CG:46 >6>36CD]k^Am

    kAm%96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? D2:5 3@@65 E@ 36 😕 A@DD:3=6 G:@=2E:@? @7 E96 AC6D:56?E’D 6I64FE:G6 @C56CD E2C86E:?8 EC2?D86?56C A6@A=6 2?5 D@42==65 “C25:42= :?5@4EC:?2E:@?” @7 D49@@=49:=5C6? 92G6 366? C6>@G65 7C@> =:3C2CJ D96=G6D]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Supreme Court lets Trump block transgender and nonbinary people from choosing passport sex markers

    The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to enforce a policy blocking transgender and nonbinary people from choosing passport sex markers that align with their gender identity.The decision by the high court’s conservative majority is Trump’s latest win on the high court’s emergency docket, and it means his administration can enforce the policy while a lawsuit over it plays out. It halts a lower-court order requiring the government to keep letting people choose male, female or X on their passport to line up with their gender identity on new or renewed passports.The State Department changed its passport rules after Trump, a Republican, handed down an executive order in January declaring the United States would “recognize two sexes, male and female,” based on birth certificates and “biological classification.”Transgender actor Hunter Schafer, for example, said in February that her new passport had been issued with a male gender marker, even though she’s marked female on her driver’s license and passport for years.The plaintiffs argue that passports limited to the sex listed on a birth certificate can spark harassment or even violence for transgender people.”By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely,” attorneys wrote in court documents.Sex markers began appearing on passports in the mid-1970s and the federal government started allowing them to be changed with medical documentation in the early 1990s, the plaintiffs said in court documents. A 2021 change under President Joe Biden, a Democrat, removed documentation requirements and allowed nonbinary people to choose an X gender marker after years of litigation.A judge blocked the Trump administration policy in June after a lawsuit from nonbinary and transgender people, some of whom said they were afraid to submit applications. An appeals court left the judge’s order in place.Solicitor General D. John Sauer then turned to the Supreme Court, pointing to its recent ruling upholding a ban on transition-related health care for transgender minors. He also argued Congress gave the president control over passports, which overlap with his authority over foreign affairs.”It is hard to imagine a system less conducive to accurate identification than one in which anyone can refuse to identify his or her sex and withhold relevant identifying information for any reason, or can rely on a mutable sense of self-identification,” Sauer wrote in court documents.

    The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to enforce a policy blocking transgender and nonbinary people from choosing passport sex markers that align with their gender identity.

    The decision by the high court’s conservative majority is Trump’s latest win on the high court’s emergency docket, and it means his administration can enforce the policy while a lawsuit over it plays out. It halts a lower-court order requiring the government to keep letting people choose male, female or X on their passport to line up with their gender identity on new or renewed passports.

    The State Department changed its passport rules after Trump, a Republican, handed down an executive order in January declaring the United States would “recognize two sexes, male and female,” based on birth certificates and “biological classification.”

    Transgender actor Hunter Schafer, for example, said in February that her new passport had been issued with a male gender marker, even though she’s marked female on her driver’s license and passport for years.

    The plaintiffs argue that passports limited to the sex listed on a birth certificate can spark harassment or even violence for transgender people.

    “By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely,” attorneys wrote in court documents.

    Sex markers began appearing on passports in the mid-1970s and the federal government started allowing them to be changed with medical documentation in the early 1990s, the plaintiffs said in court documents. A 2021 change under President Joe Biden, a Democrat, removed documentation requirements and allowed nonbinary people to choose an X gender marker after years of litigation.

    A judge blocked the Trump administration policy in June after a lawsuit from nonbinary and transgender people, some of whom said they were afraid to submit applications. An appeals court left the judge’s order in place.

    Solicitor General D. John Sauer then turned to the Supreme Court, pointing to its recent ruling upholding a ban on transition-related health care for transgender minors. He also argued Congress gave the president control over passports, which overlap with his authority over foreign affairs.

    “It is hard to imagine a system less conducive to accurate identification than one in which anyone can refuse to identify his or her sex and withhold relevant identifying information for any reason, or can rely on a mutable sense of self-identification,” Sauer wrote in court documents.

    Source link

  • Supreme Court hears arguments on whether states can ban conversion therapy for LBGTQ+ kids

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments in its latest LGBTQ+ rights case Tuesday, weighing the constitutionality of bans passed by nearly half of U.S. states on the practice known as conversion therapy for children.The justices are hearing a lawsuit from a Christian counselor challenging a Colorado law that prohibits therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, argues the law violates her freedom of speech by barring her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.Colorado, on the other hand, says the measure simply regulates licensed therapists by barring a practice that’s been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.The arguments come months after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority found states can ban transition-related health care for transgender youths, a setback for LGBTQ rights. The justices are also expected to hear a case about sports participation by transgender players this term.State says therapy is health care and subject to regulationColorado has not sanctioned anyone under the 2019 law, which exempts religious ministries. State attorneys say it still allows any therapist to have wide-ranging, faith-based conversations with young patients about gender and sexuality.“The only thing that the law prohibits therapists from doing is performing a treatment that seeks the predetermined outcome of changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity because that treatment is unsafe and ineffective,” Colorado state attorneys wrote.Therapy isn’t just speech, they said — it’s health care that governments have a responsibility to regulate. Violating the law carries potential fines of $5,000 and license suspension or even revocation.Linda Robertson is a Christian mom of four from Washington state whose son Ryan underwent therapy that promised to change his sexual orientation after he came out to her at age 12. The techniques led him to blame himself when it didn’t work, leaving him ashamed and depressed. He died in 2009, after multiple suicide attempts and a drug overdose at age 20.“What happened in conversion therapy, it devastated Ryan’s bond with me and my husband,” she said. “And it absolutely destroyed his confidence he could ever be loved or accepted by God.”Chiles contends her approach is different from the kind of conversion therapy once associated with practices like shock therapy decades ago. She said she believes “people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” and she argues evidence of harm from her approach is lacking.Chiles says Colorado is discriminating because it allows counselors to affirm minors coming out as gay or identifying as transgender but bans counseling like hers for young patients who may want to change their behavior or feelings. “We’re not saying this counseling should be mandatory, but if someone wants the counseling they should be able to get it,” said one of her attorneys, Jonathan Scruggs.The Trump administration said there are First Amendment issues with Colorado’s law that should make the law subject to a higher legal standard that few measures pass.Similar laws also face court challengesChiles is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years. The group also represented a Christian website designer who doesn’t want to work with same-sex couples and successfully challenged a Colorado anti-discrimination law in 2023.The group’s argument in the conversion therapy case also builds on another victory from 2018: A Supreme Court decision found California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Chiles should also be free from that kind of state regulation, the group argued.Still, the Supreme Court has also found that regulations that only “incidentally” burden speech are permissible, and the state argues that striking down its law against conversion therapy would undercut states’ ability to regulate discredited health care of all kinds.The high court agreed to hear the case after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law. Another appeals court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, has struck down similar bans in Florida.Legal wrangling has continued elsewhere as well. In Wisconsin, the state’s highest court recently cleared the way for the state to enforce its ban. Virginia officials, by contrast, have agreed to scale back the enforcement of its law as part of an agreement with a faith-based conservative group that sued.

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments in its latest LGBTQ+ rights case Tuesday, weighing the constitutionality of bans passed by nearly half of U.S. states on the practice known as conversion therapy for children.

    The justices are hearing a lawsuit from a Christian counselor challenging a Colorado law that prohibits therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, argues the law violates her freedom of speech by barring her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.

    Colorado, on the other hand, says the measure simply regulates licensed therapists by barring a practice that’s been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.

    The arguments come months after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority found states can ban transition-related health care for transgender youths, a setback for LGBTQ rights. The justices are also expected to hear a case about sports participation by transgender players this term.

    State says therapy is health care and subject to regulation

    Colorado has not sanctioned anyone under the 2019 law, which exempts religious ministries. State attorneys say it still allows any therapist to have wide-ranging, faith-based conversations with young patients about gender and sexuality.

    “The only thing that the law prohibits therapists from doing is performing a treatment that seeks the predetermined outcome of changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity because that treatment is unsafe and ineffective,” Colorado state attorneys wrote.

    Therapy isn’t just speech, they said — it’s health care that governments have a responsibility to regulate. Violating the law carries potential fines of $5,000 and license suspension or even revocation.

    Linda Robertson is a Christian mom of four from Washington state whose son Ryan underwent therapy that promised to change his sexual orientation after he came out to her at age 12. The techniques led him to blame himself when it didn’t work, leaving him ashamed and depressed. He died in 2009, after multiple suicide attempts and a drug overdose at age 20.

    “What happened in conversion therapy, it devastated Ryan’s bond with me and my husband,” she said. “And it absolutely destroyed his confidence he could ever be loved or accepted by God.”

    Chiles contends her approach is different from the kind of conversion therapy once associated with practices like shock therapy decades ago. She said she believes “people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” and she argues evidence of harm from her approach is lacking.

    Chiles says Colorado is discriminating because it allows counselors to affirm minors coming out as gay or identifying as transgender but bans counseling like hers for young patients who may want to change their behavior or feelings. “We’re not saying this counseling should be mandatory, but if someone wants the counseling they should be able to get it,” said one of her attorneys, Jonathan Scruggs.

    The Trump administration said there are First Amendment issues with Colorado’s law that should make the law subject to a higher legal standard that few measures pass.

    Similar laws also face court challenges

    Chiles is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years. The group also represented a Christian website designer who doesn’t want to work with same-sex couples and successfully challenged a Colorado anti-discrimination law in 2023.

    The group’s argument in the conversion therapy case also builds on another victory from 2018: A Supreme Court decision found California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Chiles should also be free from that kind of state regulation, the group argued.

    Still, the Supreme Court has also found that regulations that only “incidentally” burden speech are permissible, and the state argues that striking down its law against conversion therapy would undercut states’ ability to regulate discredited health care of all kinds.

    The high court agreed to hear the case after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law. Another appeals court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, has struck down similar bans in Florida.

    Legal wrangling has continued elsewhere as well. In Wisconsin, the state’s highest court recently cleared the way for the state to enforce its ban. Virginia officials, by contrast, have agreed to scale back the enforcement of its law as part of an agreement with a faith-based conservative group that sued.

    Source link

  • Kirk killing suspect feared being shot by police and agreed to surrender if peaceful, sheriff says

    Tyler Robinson, the Utah man charged with assassinating Charlie Kirk, was afraid of being shot by police and agreed to surrender as long as it was done peacefully, a sheriff involved with taking him into custody said Wednesday.Robinson appeared quiet and somber when he turned himself in with his parents last Thursday at the Washington County Sheriff’s office, a day after Kirk was shot and killed at Utah Valley University, said Sheriff Nate Brooksby.”He didn’t want a big SWAT team at his parent’s house or his apartment,” said the sheriff, who was only involved with the surrender and not the broader investigation. “He was truly fearful about being shot by law enforcement.”On Tuesday, prosecutors charged the 22-year-old Robinson with capital murder and announced they will seek the death penalty while revealing a series of incriminating messages and DNA evidence that they say connect Robinson to the killing of Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and confidant of President Donald Trump.Utah Valley University students returning to campus Wednesday clustered silently, staring down at the barricaded courtyard where an assassin struck down conservative activist Charlie Kirk in an attack that upended the nation.Care stations offering stuffed animals, candy and connections to counseling dotted the campus on the first day of classes since the shooting more than a week ago.Matthew Caldwell, 24, said his classmates were quieter and seemed more genuine about being in class, even with sadness still in the air.”The way that we treat each other in our words can ultimately lead to things like this,” he said. “And I think everybody sort of understands that a little bit better now.”Since the shooting, the Republican president has threatened to crack down on what he calls the “radical left” and has classified some groups as domestic terrorists. Former Democratic President Barack Obama said this week that Trump has further divided the country rather than working to bring people together.On Wednesday, the House Oversight Committee called on the chief executives of Discord, Steam, Twitch and Reddit to testify on how they are regulating their platforms to prevent violence.”Congress has a duty to oversee the online platforms that radicals have used to advance political violence,” said GOP Rep. James Comer, the committee chair, signaling a shift for congressional Republicans, who had previously scrutinized online platforms for policing free speech.Video below: Students at Utah Valley University returned to campus after Kirk’s killingHidden note in suspect’s apartmentInvestigators say that sometime after Robinson fired a single fatal shot from the rooftop of a campus building overlooking where Kirk was speaking on Sept. 10, he texted his romantic partner and said to look under a keyboard.There was a note, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it,” according to court documents.After expressing shock, his partner who lived with Robinson in southwestern Utah, asked Robinson if he was the shooter. Robinson responded, “I am, I’m sorry.”Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray said DNA on the trigger of the rifle used to kill Kirk matched Robinson, who faced his first hearing in the case Tuesday. A judge read the charges and said he would appoint an attorney to represent him. A message was left Wednesday with the county’s public defender office.Robinson’s family has declined to comment to The Associated Press since his arrest.Investigators looking at whether Robinson had helpLaw enforcement officials say they are looking at whether others knew about Robinson’s plans or helped, but they have not said if his partner is among those being investigated, only expressing appreciation for the partner sharing information.The partner apparently never went to law enforcement after receiving the texts. Robinson remained on the run for more than a day until his parents recognized him in a photo released by authorities.Also getting a closer look is the security on the day of the attack. Utah Valley is conducting a review, university President Astrid S. Tuminez said Wednesday.Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox met with students and campus leaders near the shooting scene, saying he understands they might still be haunted and angry over what happened. “What you do with that anger, that’s what determines where we go from here,” he said.Was Charlie Kirk targeted over anti-transgender views?Authorities have not revealed a clear motive in the shooting, but Gray said that Robinson wrote in a text about Kirk to his partner: “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”Kirk, a 31-year-old father of two, was credited with energizing the Republican youth movement and helping Trump win back the White House in 2024. His political organization, Arizona-based Turning Point USA, brought young, evangelical Christians into politics through social media, his podcast and campus events.While court documents said Robinson wrote in one text that planned the attack for more than a week, authorities have not said what they believe that entailed.Gray declined to answer whether Robinson targeted Kirk for his anti-transgender views. Kirk was shot while taking a question that touched on mass shootings and transgender people.Robinson was involved in a romantic relationship with his roommate, who investigators say is transgender.Parents said their son became more politicalRobinson’s mother told investigators that their son had turned hard left politically in the last year and became more supportive of gay and transgender rights, Gray said.She recognized him when authorities released a picture of the suspect and his parents confronted him, at which time Robinson said he wanted to kill himself, Gray said.The family persuaded him to meet with a family friend who is a retired sheriff’s deputy. That person was able to get Robinson to turn himself in, the prosecutor said.Robinson detailed movements after the shootingIn a text exchange with his partner released by authorities, Robinson wrote about planning to get his rifle from his “drop point,” but that the area was “locked down.”The texts, which Robinson later told his partner to delete, did not include timestamps, leaving it unclear how long after the shooting Robinson sent the messages.”To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you,” Robinson wrote.___Seewer reported from Toledo, Ohio.

    Tyler Robinson, the Utah man charged with assassinating Charlie Kirk, was afraid of being shot by police and agreed to surrender as long as it was done peacefully, a sheriff involved with taking him into custody said Wednesday.

    Robinson appeared quiet and somber when he turned himself in with his parents last Thursday at the Washington County Sheriff’s office, a day after Kirk was shot and killed at Utah Valley University, said Sheriff Nate Brooksby.

    “He didn’t want a big SWAT team at his parent’s house or his apartment,” said the sheriff, who was only involved with the surrender and not the broader investigation. “He was truly fearful about being shot by law enforcement.”

    On Tuesday, prosecutors charged the 22-year-old Robinson with capital murder and announced they will seek the death penalty while revealing a series of incriminating messages and DNA evidence that they say connect Robinson to the killing of Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and confidant of President Donald Trump.

    Utah Valley University students returning to campus Wednesday clustered silently, staring down at the barricaded courtyard where an assassin struck down conservative activist Charlie Kirk in an attack that upended the nation.

    Care stations offering stuffed animals, candy and connections to counseling dotted the campus on the first day of classes since the shooting more than a week ago.

    Matthew Caldwell, 24, said his classmates were quieter and seemed more genuine about being in class, even with sadness still in the air.

    “The way that we treat each other in our words can ultimately lead to things like this,” he said. “And I think everybody sort of understands that a little bit better now.”

    Since the shooting, the Republican president has threatened to crack down on what he calls the “radical left” and has classified some groups as domestic terrorists. Former Democratic President Barack Obama said this week that Trump has further divided the country rather than working to bring people together.

    On Wednesday, the House Oversight Committee called on the chief executives of Discord, Steam, Twitch and Reddit to testify on how they are regulating their platforms to prevent violence.

    “Congress has a duty to oversee the online platforms that radicals have used to advance political violence,” said GOP Rep. James Comer, the committee chair, signaling a shift for congressional Republicans, who had previously scrutinized online platforms for policing free speech.

    Video below: Students at Utah Valley University returned to campus after Kirk’s killing

    Hidden note in suspect’s apartment

    Investigators say that sometime after Robinson fired a single fatal shot from the rooftop of a campus building overlooking where Kirk was speaking on Sept. 10, he texted his romantic partner and said to look under a keyboard.

    There was a note, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it,” according to court documents.

    After expressing shock, his partner who lived with Robinson in southwestern Utah, asked Robinson if he was the shooter. Robinson responded, “I am, I’m sorry.”

    Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray said DNA on the trigger of the rifle used to kill Kirk matched Robinson, who faced his first hearing in the case Tuesday. A judge read the charges and said he would appoint an attorney to represent him. A message was left Wednesday with the county’s public defender office.

    Robinson’s family has declined to comment to The Associated Press since his arrest.

    Investigators looking at whether Robinson had help

    Law enforcement officials say they are looking at whether others knew about Robinson’s plans or helped, but they have not said if his partner is among those being investigated, only expressing appreciation for the partner sharing information.

    The partner apparently never went to law enforcement after receiving the texts. Robinson remained on the run for more than a day until his parents recognized him in a photo released by authorities.

    Also getting a closer look is the security on the day of the attack. Utah Valley is conducting a review, university President Astrid S. Tuminez said Wednesday.

    Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox met with students and campus leaders near the shooting scene, saying he understands they might still be haunted and angry over what happened. “What you do with that anger, that’s what determines where we go from here,” he said.

    Was Charlie Kirk targeted over anti-transgender views?

    Authorities have not revealed a clear motive in the shooting, but Gray said that Robinson wrote in a text about Kirk to his partner: “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

    Kirk, a 31-year-old father of two, was credited with energizing the Republican youth movement and helping Trump win back the White House in 2024. His political organization, Arizona-based Turning Point USA, brought young, evangelical Christians into politics through social media, his podcast and campus events.

    While court documents said Robinson wrote in one text that planned the attack for more than a week, authorities have not said what they believe that entailed.

    Gray declined to answer whether Robinson targeted Kirk for his anti-transgender views. Kirk was shot while taking a question that touched on mass shootings and transgender people.

    Robinson was involved in a romantic relationship with his roommate, who investigators say is transgender.

    Parents said their son became more political

    Robinson’s mother told investigators that their son had turned hard left politically in the last year and became more supportive of gay and transgender rights, Gray said.

    She recognized him when authorities released a picture of the suspect and his parents confronted him, at which time Robinson said he wanted to kill himself, Gray said.

    The family persuaded him to meet with a family friend who is a retired sheriff’s deputy. That person was able to get Robinson to turn himself in, the prosecutor said.

    Robinson detailed movements after the shooting

    In a text exchange with his partner released by authorities, Robinson wrote about planning to get his rifle from his “drop point,” but that the area was “locked down.”

    The texts, which Robinson later told his partner to delete, did not include timestamps, leaving it unclear how long after the shooting Robinson sent the messages.

    “To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you,” Robinson wrote.

    ___

    Seewer reported from Toledo, Ohio.

    Source link

  • What you missed at the CD-14 debate between Ysabel Jurado and Kevin De León

    What you missed at the CD-14 debate between Ysabel Jurado and Kevin De León

    PUBLISHER’S NOTE:
    Yes on Proposition 3 and Los Angeles Blade will present an urgent Town Hall on October 28 from 7:00 PM at St. Thomas Episcopal Church, 7501 Hollywood Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90046. For more information or to RSVP, click here.

    As California voters prepare for the Election Day ballot, they have a critical opportunity to address a potentially dangerous inconsistency in the state’s constitution regarding the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

    Think of it as a firewall against a potential 2nd Trump administration and Supreme Court effort to overturn same-sex marriage.

    Proposition 3, the Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment, seeks to remove outdated language from the Prop 8 era, a ballot initiative that successfully defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman. 

    Although federal court rulings have rendered this language unenforceable, it has lingered in California’s constitution since 2008.

    Proposition 3 would not only eliminate this vestigial language but also establish a constitutional right to marriage regardless of gender or race.

    The history of Prop 8 is a complex and contentious chapter in California’s past. Passed in the 2008 state election, Prop 8 effectively banned same-sex marriage, following a California Supreme Court ruling that had declared a previous ban (Proposition 22 from 2000) unconstitutional. Prop 8 added language to the state constitution stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

    The passage of Prop 8 shocked many who viewed California as a bastion of progressive values, highlighting a divide within the state and igniting intense debate and legal battles. Religious organizations, particularly the Roman Catholic Church and the now somewhat repentant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, played significant roles in supporting Prop 8, with the LDS Church notably contributing more than $20 million to the campaign and mobilizing volunteers for door-to-door canvassing.

    The legal journey of Prop 8 has been long and complex. Initially upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2009, it was later challenged in federal court. In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. This decision was upheld by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012, albeit on narrower grounds.

    The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court in “Hollingsworth v. Perry” (2013). However, rather than ruling on the merits of same-sex marriage, the Court decided that the proponents of Prop 8 lacked legal standing to defend the law in federal court. This effectively upheld Walker’s 2010 ruling, paving the way for the resumption of same-sex marriages in California.

    The uncertain landscape of LGBTQ+ rights

    The current Proposition 3 arises from recent concerns about the stability of LGBTQ+ rights at the federal level. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested reconsidering other precedents, including the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This potential threat prompted California legislators to act proactively to safeguard marriage equality at the state level.

    Moreover, 2024 has seen a surge of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation across the nation and in Congress. “Extremist lawmakers in Congress failed in their hateful attempts to add anti-LGBTQ+ provisions to must-pass spending bills. These measures would have restricted medically necessary health care for transgender people, allowed taxpayer-funded discrimination against married same-sex couples, and further stigmatized the LGBTQ+ community,” said a spokesperson from Equality California.

    Strong bipartisan negotiations led to the removal of 51 of 52 anti-LGBTQ+ riders, thanks in large part to the efforts of the Congressional Equality Caucus and the relentless advocacy of LGBTQ+ organizations. Speaker Mike Johnson — considered the most anti-LGBTQ+ speaker in history — attempted to slow the appropriations process with these “poison pill” amendments, leading the country to the brink of a government shutdown multiple times. 

    Despite his failures, Johnson is attempting to claim victory by highlighting a limited provision that prohibits the flying of Pride flags on embassy buildings, which imposes no limits on other displays of the flag. “While we are disappointed in the passage of this provision, it is important to consider it in the context of the overwhelming defeat of other measures. The Speaker’s attempt to use this as a symbol of victory is as laughable as his dysfunctional term as Speaker has been,” the spokesperson added.

    The fragility of rights

    The overturning of Roe v. Wade has sent shockwaves through the legal community, particularly among LGBTQ+ advocates. The decision raised alarms about the vulnerability of other civil rights protections, including marriage equality. Legal experts are now grappling with unprecedented questions about how to secure these rights amid a shifting judicial landscape.

    The fragility of unenumerated rights — those not explicitly written in the Constitution but granted through Supreme Court interpretation — has become increasingly apparent. Marriage equality, like abortion rights, falls into this category and has been upheld through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. However, Thomas’s opinion in the Dobbs case hints at a willingness to reexamine these precedents.

    A significant concern for marriage equality advocates is the idea that rights relying on due process must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” Since nationwide marriage equality is only seven years old, it lacks the historical foundation that might protect it from future challenges.

    The patchwork possibility

    If Obergefell were overturned, the U.S. could revert to a patchwork of marriage laws reminiscent of the pre-2015 era. According to the Movement Advancement Project, as many as 32 states could potentially revert to banning same-sex marriages. This scenario would create a stark divide across the country, with some states recognizing LGBTQ+ marriages while others outlaw them.

    Such a reversion would have far-reaching implications for hundreds of thousands of couples who have married since Obergefell. While it’s unlikely that existing marriages would be invalidated, the legal status of these unions could become uncertain. This potential outcome underscores the urgency of enshrining marriage equality in state constitutions and laws.

    The challenge of codification

    While some lawmakers have expressed interest in codifying marriage equality at the federal level, legal experts are divided on whether Congress has that authority. Traditionally, marriage laws have fallen under state jurisdiction, complicating efforts to establish federal protections.

    This uncertainty adds pressure to state-level efforts to protect marriage equality. In states with existing bans, securing marriage rights would require constitutional amendments or ballot measures, necessitating extensive public education campaigns and grassroots organizing.

    The importance of proactive constitutional change

    Despite California’s progressive reputation, the state constitution still contains language that could be used to restrict same-sex marriages if federal protections were overturned. This highlights the importance of Prop 3.

    Currently, 35 states maintain constitutional or statutory bans on same-sex marriage. Although these bans are unenforceable due to the Obergefell decision, they could be reactivated if the Supreme Court were to overturn that ruling. California, despite its forward-thinking values, is among these states due to the lingering effects of Prop 8.

    Without the passage of Prop 3, California could face a situation where existing same-sex marriages remain valid, but new marriages could be denied. This potential legal limbo underscores the urgency of updating the state constitution to explicitly protect marriage equality.

    By passing Prop 3, California would not only eliminate discriminatory language from its constitution but also create a robust state-level protection for same-sex marriages. This proactive approach would ensure that, regardless of future federal court decisions, the right to marry would remain secure for all Californians.

    The path forward

    The journey to this point reflects a remarkable shift in public opinion. In 1996, 68 percent of Americans opposed legalizing same-sex marriage. By 2023, that figure had flipped, with 71 percent supporting marriage equality. This change crosses party lines, with a majority of Republicans now in favor. The trend is particularly strong among younger voters, indicating a generational shift toward greater acceptance and equality.

    The importance of Prop 3 extends beyond its practical effects. While same-sex marriages are of course recognized in California, enshrining this right in the state constitution provides an additional layer of protection against potential future challenges. Moreover, it represents a formal acknowledgment of past mistakes and a clear statement of California’s values of equality and inclusion.

    Critics of Prop 3 have raised concerns about its potential to open doors for challenges to laws against polygamy or underage marriages. However, these arguments are misleading. Constitutional rights are not absolute and can be limited by compelling state interests, as seen with other fundamental rights like freedom of speech.

    This situation highlights the ongoing nature of the struggle for equal rights and the importance of vigilance in protecting hard-won freedoms. Prop 3 represents an opportunity for California to lead by example, demonstrating how states can take concrete steps to safeguard the rights of their LGBTQ+ citizens in an uncertain legal landscape.

    As the November election approaches, California voters can align the state’s constitution with the prevailing values of equality and inclusivity. By voting yes on Prop 3, Californians can eliminate the last remnants of discrimination from their constitution and send a clear message that bigotry has no place in California’s fundamental laws.

    In a time when LGBTQ+ rights face renewed challenges across the nation, California has the chance to reaffirm its status as a progressive leader and to correct a long-standing injustice in its constitution. 

    Prop 3 is not just about changing words in a document; it’s about enshrining the principle that love and commitment deserve equal recognition under the law, regardless of who you are or whom you love.

    Gisselle Palomera

    Source link

  • 40th anniversary AIDS Walk happening this weekend in West Hollywood

    40th anniversary AIDS Walk happening this weekend in West Hollywood

    Four months after seeking asylum in the U.S., Fernando Hermida began coughing and feeling tired. He thought it was a cold. Then sores appeared in his groin and he would soak his bed with sweat. He took a test.

    On New Year’s Day 2022, at age 31, Hermida learned he had HIV.

    “I thought I was going to die,” he said, recalling how a chill washed over him as he reviewed his results. He struggled to navigate a new, convoluted health care system. Through an HIV organization he found online, he received a list of medical providers to call in D.C., where he was at the time, but they didn’t return his calls for weeks. Hermida, who speaks only Spanish, didn’t know where to turn.

    By the time of Hermida’s diagnosis, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was about three years into a federal initiative to end the nation’s HIV epidemic by pumping hundreds of millions of dollars annually into certain states, counties, and U.S. territories with the highest infection rates. The goal was to reach the estimated 1.2 million people living with HIV, including some who don’t know they have the disease.

    Overall, estimated new HIV infection rates declined 23 percent from 2012 to 2022. But a KFF Health News-Associated Press analysis found the rate has not fallen for Latinos as much as it has for other racial and ethnic groups.

    While African Americans continue to have the highest HIV rates in the U.S. overall, Latinos made up the largest share of new HIV diagnoses and infections among gay and bisexual men in 2022, per the most recent data available, compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Latinos, who make up about 19 percent of the U.S. population, accounted for about 33 percent of new HIV infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    The analysis found Latinos are experiencing a disproportionate number of new infections and diagnoses across the U.S., with diagnosis rates highest in the Southeast. Public health officials in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and Shelby County, Tennessee, where data shows diagnosis rates have gone up among Latinos, told KFF Health News and the AP that they either don’t have specific plans to address HIV in this population or that plans are still in the works. Even in well-resourced places like San Francisco, HIV diagnosis rates grew among Latinos in the last few years while falling among other racial and ethnic groups despite the county’s goals to reduce infections among Latinos.

    “HIV disparities are not inevitable,” Robyn Neblett Fanfair, director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention, said in a statement. She noted the systemic, cultural, and economic inequities — such as racism, language differences, and medical mistrust.

    And though the CDC provides some funds for minority groups, Latino health policy advocates want HHS to declare a public health emergency in hopes of directing more money to Latino communities, saying current efforts aren’t enough.

    “Our invisibility is no longer tolerable,” said Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, co-chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.

    Lost without an interpreter

    Hermida suspects he contracted the virus while he was in an open relationship with a male partner before he came to the U.S. In late January 2022, months after his symptoms started, he went to a clinic in New York City that a friend had helped him find to finally get treatment for HIV.

    Too sick to care for himself alone, Hermida eventually moved to Charlotte to be closer to family and in hopes of receiving more consistent health care. He enrolled in an Amity Medical Group clinic that receives funding from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, a federal safety-net plan that serves over half of those in the nation diagnosed with HIV, regardless of their citizenship status.

    His HIV became undetectable after he was connected with case managers. But over time, communication with the clinic grew less frequent, he said, and he didn’t get regular interpretation help during visits with his English-speaking doctor. An Amity Medical Group representative confirmed Hermida was a client but didn’t answer questions about his experience at the clinic.

    Hermida said he had a hard time filling out paperwork to stay enrolled in the Ryan White program, and when his eligibility expired in September 2023, he couldn’t get his medication.

    He left the clinic and enrolled in a health plan through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. But Hermida didn’t realize the insurer required him to pay for a share of his HIV treatment.

    In January, the Lyft driver received a $1,275 bill for his antiretroviral — the equivalent of 120 rides, he said. He paid the bill with a coupon he found online. In April, he got a second bill he couldn’t afford.

    For two weeks, he stopped taking the medication that keeps the virus undetectable and intransmissible.

    “Estoy que colapso,” he said. I’m falling apart. “Tengo que vivir para pagar la medicación.” I have to live to pay for my medication.

    One way to prevent HIV is preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, which is regularly taken to reduce the risk of getting HIV through sex or intravenous drug use. It was approved by the federal government in 2012 but the uptake has not been even across racial and ethnic groups: CDC data show much lower rates of PrEP coverage among Latinos than among white Americans.

    Epidemiologists say high PrEP use and consistent access to treatment are necessary to build community-level resistance.

    Carlos Saldana, an infectious disease specialist and former medical adviser for Georgia’s health department, helped identify five clusters of rapid HIV transmission involving about 40 gay Latinos and men who have sex with men from February 2021 to June 2022. Many people in the cluster told researchers they had not taken PrEP and struggled to understand the health care system.

    They experienced other barriers, too, Saldana said, including lack of transportation and fear of deportation if they sought treatment.

    Latino health policy advocates want the federal government to redistribute funding for HIV prevention, including testing and access to PrEP. Of the nearly $30 billion in federal money that went toward things like HIV health care services, treatment, and prevention in 2022, only 4% went to prevention, according to a KFF analysis.

    They suggest more money could help reach Latino communities through efforts like faith-based outreach at churches, testing at clubs on Latin nights, and training bilingual HIV testers.

    Latino rates going up

    Congress has appropriated $2.3 billion over five years to the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, and jurisdictions that get the money are to invest 25 percent of it in community-based organizations. But the initiative lacks requirements to target any particular groups, including Latinos, leaving it up to the cities, counties, and states to come up with specific strategies.

    In 34 of the 57 areas getting the money, cases are going the wrong way: Diagnosis rates among Latinos increased from 2019 to 2022 while declining for other racial and ethnic groups, the KFF Health News-AP analysis found.

    Starting Aug. 1, state and local health departments will have to provide annual spending reports on funding in places that account for 30 percent or more of HIV diagnoses, the CDC said. Previously, it had been required for only a small number of states.

    In some states and counties, initiative funding has not been enough to cover the needs of Latinos.

    South Carolina, which saw rates nearly double for Latinos from 2012-2022, hasn’t expanded HIV mobile testing in rural areas, where the need is high among Latinos, said Tony Price, HIV program manager in the state health department. South Carolina can pay for only four community health workers focused on HIV outreach — and not all of them are bilingual.

    In Shelby County, Tennessee, home to Memphis, the Latino HIV diagnosis rate rose 86 percent from 2012 to 2022. The health department said it got $2 million in initiative funding in 2023 and while the county plan acknowledges that Latinos are a target group, department director Michelle Taylor said: “There are no specific campaigns just among Latino people.”

    Up to now, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, didn’t include specific targets to address HIV in the Latino population — where rates of new diagnoses more than doubled in a decade but fell slightly among other racial and ethnic groups. The health department has used funding for bilingual marketing campaigns and awareness about PrEP.

    Moving for medicine

    When it was time to pack up and move to Hermida’s third city in two years, his fiancé, who is taking PrEP, suggested seeking care in Orlando, Fla.

    The couple, who were friends in high school in Venezuela, had some family and friends in Florida, and they had heard about Pineapple Healthcare, a nonprofit primary care clinic dedicated to supporting Latinos living with HIV.

    The clinic is housed in a medical office south of downtown Orlando. Inside, the mostly Latino staff is dressed in pineapple-print turquoise shirts, and Spanish, not English, is most commonly heard in appointment rooms and hallways.

    “At the core of it, if the organization is not led by and for people of color, then we’re just an afterthought,” said Andres Acosta Ardila, the community outreach director at Pineapple Healthcare, who was diagnosed with HIV in 2013.

    “¿Te mudaste reciente, ya por fin?” asked nurse practitioner Eliza Otero. Did you finally move? She started treating Hermida while he still lived in Charlotte. “Hace un mes que no nos vemos.” It’s been a month since we last saw each other.

    They still need to work on lowering his cholesterol and blood pressure, she told him. Though his viral load remains high, Otero said it should improve with regular, consistent care.

    Pineapple Healthcare, which doesn’t receive initiative money, offers full-scope primary care to mostly Latino males. Hermida gets his HIV medication at no cost there because the clinic is part of a federal drug discount program.

    The clinic is in many ways an oasis. The new diagnosis rate for Latinos in Orange County, Florida, which includes Orlando, rose by about a third from 2012 through 2022, while dropping by a third for others. Florida has the third-largest Latino population in the U.S., and had the seventh-highest rate of new HIV diagnoses among Latinos in the nation in 2022.

    Hermida, whose asylum case is pending, never imagined getting medication would be so difficult, he said during the 500-mile drive from North Carolina to Florida. After hotel rooms, jobs lost, and family goodbyes, he is hopeful his search for consistent HIV treatment — which has come to define his life the past two years — can finally come to an end.

    “Soy un nómada a la fuerza, pero bueno, como me comenta mi prometido y mis familiares, yo tengo que estar donde me den buenos servicios médicos,” he said. I’m forced to be a nomad, but like my family and my fiancé say, I have to be where I can get good medical services.

    That’s the priority, he said. “Esa es la prioridad ahora.”

    KFF Health News and The Associated Press analyzed data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the number of new HIV diagnoses and infections among Americans ages 13 and older at the local, state, and national levels. This story primarily uses incidence rate data — estimates of new infections — at the national level and diagnosis rate data at the state and county level.

    Bose reported from Orlando, Fla.. Reese reported from Sacramento, Calif. AP video journalist Laura Bargfeld contributed to this report.

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is responsible for all content.

    This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

    A Project of KFF Health News and the Associated Press co-published by Univision Noticias

    CREDITS:

    Reporters: Vanessa G. Sánchez, Devna Bose, Phillip Reese

    Cinematography: Laura Bargfeld

    Photography: Laura Bargfeld, Phelan M. Ebenhack

    Video Editing: Federica Narancio, Kathy Young, Esther Poveda

    Additional Video: Federica Narancio, Esther Poveda

    Web Production: Eric Harkleroad, Lydia Zuraw

    Special thanks to Lindsey Dawson

    Editors: Judy Lin, Erica Hunzinger

    Data Editor: Holly Hacker

    Social Media: Patricia Vélez, Federica Narancio, Esther Poveda, Carolina Astuya, Natalia Bravo, Juan Pablo Vargas, Kyle Viterbo, Sophia Eppolito, Hannah Norman, Chaseedaw Giles, Tarena Lofton

    Translation: Paula Andalo

    Copy Editing: Gabe Brison-Trezise

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    Gisselle Palomera

    Source link

  • August 2024 MoveOn Member Newsletter

    August 2024 MoveOn Member Newsletter


    In This Issue

    Our 2024 election program, restoring abortion access, protecting LGBTQ+ youth, and more!


    A message from Rahna Epting, MoveOn’s Executive Director

    It is one of my greatest joys as MoveOn’s executive director to speak to you and your fellow MoveOn members. I am inspired by your commitment to building a better future—one rally, phone call, donation, and petition signature at a time. You have shown, time and again, that you care about your families, communities, and future generations. I am honored to co-create a more just country with you—one where we all can thrive.

    I hope that you feel inspired as you read this newsletter. Every accomplishment outlined demonstrates the incredible progress you fuel as one of MoveOn’s most dedicated supporters. Together, we will advance progressive victories in this critical election year and beyond.


    Trump is Not Above the Law

    MoveOn members have long been on the front lines of holding Donald Trump accountable. In 2017, we protested his executive order banning people from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. We denounced him in 2018 for separating migrant children from their families, in 2020 for his disastrous coronavirus response, and in 2021 for fueling the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

    In the last 12 months, more than half a million MoveOn members signed the petition urging secretaries of state, state officials, and Congress to disqualify Trump from holding public office, under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. After Trump was convicted of 34 felonies in New York, MoveOn members began calling for a fair and just sentence that reflects the seriousness of his crimes. More than 120,000 MoveOn members ordered a sticker reminding voters that no one is above the law in the aftermath of his conviction—coming together to show that Trump must be held accountable and not reelected in November.

    Hundreds of thousands of MoveOn members signed petitions demanding trials and verdicts before Election Day. This June, MoveOn ran a full-page ad in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution targeting the Georgia Court of Appeals after continuous delays to Trump’s trial in Georgia to convey MoveOn members’ demand that the courts overseeing Trump’s criminal trials and appeals stop the delays, because voters deserve to know a full accounting of his crimes before Election Day. MoveOn is amplifying our members’ voices through social media and press engagement.

    Together, we’re working to keep Trump out of the White House by making sure that voters across the country know that he has been found guilty—and that they learn what’s on his despicable agenda if he wins a second term.


    Restoring Abortion Access

    MoveOn members are fighting to stop bans and restore access to abortion. Two summers ago, the Trump-packed Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark case protecting abortion rights in the United States. Right-wing antiabortion laws have subsequently been passed in state after state. These efforts to ban abortion and criminalize those who seek and provide it are causing great harm to people across our nation.

    MoveOn members urged Congress to vote for the Right to Contraception Act, a bill to codify the constitutional right to access contraception. In May, MoveOn members hosted more than 100 abortion-rights-themed election parties across the country.

    Abortion is one of the cornerstone issues of MoveOn’s electoral campaign, and we’re working to vote out antiabortion extremists in the 2024 elections. One in eight voters of all ages say that abortion is the most important issue to them. Research shows that these voters are disproportionately Black voters, Democratic voters, women voters, and the youngest voting bloc—voters ages 18 to 29. MoveOn is helping to motivate voters, convince them that their vote matters, and get them to the polls to elect leaders who will protect our freedom to make decisions about our futures and our right to reproductive care.


    MoveOn’s Member-Powered 2024 Election Program

    MoveOn’s greatest strength is the grassroots people power of millions of MoveOn members. In this crucial election year, when our rights and freedoms are threatened more than ever by MAGA Republicans, MoveOn members are leading the charge to victory in November by getting out the vote early—and with great impact.

    MoveOn’s analytics team has identified 1.5 million voters who live in key states and districts and who lean Democratic but may not vote consistently. MoveOn members are reaching out to these “surge” voters in three different ways: sending postcards, making phone calls, and knocking on their doors.

    Members are engaging their friends, families, and communities in this effort by inviting them to informative and fun election parties. These parties are themed around long-term and rapid-response issues, including abortion rights, Pride Month, and Trump’s conviction. In just a few months, MoveOn members have hosted almost 300 parties, mailed 23,374 postcards, and called 57,624 voters.

    To amplify our member-driven voter contact program, MoveOn is implementing paid communications and traditional rapid-response campaigning. That includes a powerful digital advertising campaign, leveraging a team of micro-influencers along with MoveOn’s own social media reach, and sharing MoveOn members’ meaningful and persuasive stories about why the election matters to them.

    MoveOn’s supercharged 2024 election program is strategically designed to secure the presidency and a Democratic trifecta and to protect democracy from Trump and MAGA Republicans.

    MoveOn members have chosen to endorse close to 30 progressive candidates for Congress so far this year. Our members decide which candidates will be endorsed by MoveOn by responding to surveys. MoveOn will endorse a candidate only if the majority of members in their district approve the endorsement.

    In May, MoveOn members in Maryland endorsed Angela Alsobrooks in a crucial race to maintain the Democratic majority in the Senate. Alsobrooks reports that she is “glad to have MoveOn and its strong base of grassroots members alongside me in this fight.” Other endorsements include Representative Andy Kim in his Senate bid in New Jersey and Representative Summer Lee in her reelection bid in Pennsylvania.

    For more than 25 years, MoveOn members have led the way—mobilizing in key moments and staying committed to long-term fights. We’ve taken on great challenges before and won. Together, we can do it again now.


    “When I first heard about MoveOn, it just made sense to me that this was work that needed to be done—and supported. I’ve been a MoveOn member for more than 20 years and have felt very good about the priorities and strategies that MoveOn has taken. Even the name MoveOn. One of its major strengths is that it does move on, it doesn’t stay stuck. So many organizations are doing the same thing year after year. MoveOn amazes me because we don’t. We move on!”

    – Bob R., MoveOn member and supporter


    Sign Up to be a 2024 Vote Mobilizer

    Help to defend democracy and win in November by joining the Vote Mobilizer community! The MoveOn team will train you to bring your community together and reach out to voters. As a volunteer election program leader, you’ll drive voter contact efforts in your area and across the United States—and you’ll meet other MoveOn members who share your commitment to fighting for progress. Sign up at MoveOn.org/VoteMobilizer.


    Protect LGBTQ+ Youth

    Generation Rainbow was created by MoveOn as an online space for queer folks and allies to take action against Republican attacks that seek to erase LGBTQ+ people. MAGA Republicans have increased their bigoted attacks on LGBTQ+ rights—with more than 500 antigay and antitransgender laws introduced in states and in Congress this year alone. From bathroom bans to book bans to drag bans, they’ve scapegoated, bullied, and marginalized the LGBTQ+ community, particularly transgender folks. Together, we will vote them out and elect leaders who will protect the inherent human rights of all people. Learn more, take action, and check out the Pride merch collection at MoveOn.org/GenerationRainbow.


    “As an organizer with MoveOn, I have been so inspired by the enthusiasm and compassion of members organizing during Pride Month to defend equality within the LGBTQ+ community and beyond. MoveOn members are excited to take action.

    Kathie in Beaverton, Oregon, is one of these amazing MoveOn members! She hosted an incredible phone-banking event, bringing together 12 volunteers to speak to voters. They had more than 200 conversations!

    This is the activism we need in 2024 to counter hate and those who divide our country, and to defeat Donald Trump.”

    –Christian P., Pacific Coast Field Organizer


    MoveOn members are the driving force behind our impact. This newsletter celebrates the remarkable progress your generosity has powered.

    Thank you for all you do to protect democracy and lead the resistance against the radical right. With your support, together we are creating a better future, rooted in equality, sustainability, justice, and love.

    Not a MoveOn member yet? Sign up now!

    MoveOn

    Source link

  • Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at some of the most important cases decided by the US Supreme Court since 1789.

    1803Marbury v. Madison
    This decision established the system of checks and balances and the power of the Supreme Court within the federal government.

    Situation: Federalist William Marbury and many others were appointed to positions by outgoing President John Adams. The appointments were not finalized before the new Secretary of State James Madison took office, and Madison chose not to honor them. Marbury and the others invoked an Act of Congress and sued to get their appointed positions.

    The Court decided against Marbury 6-0.

    Historical significance: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “An act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” It was the first time the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that had been passed by Congress.

    1857 – Dred Scott v. Sandford
    This decision established that slaves were not citizens of the United States and were not protected under the US Constitution.

    Situation: Dred Scott and his wife Harriet sued for their freedom in Missouri, a slave state, after having lived with their owner, an Army surgeon, in the free Territory of Wisconsin.

    The Court decided against Scott 7-2.

    Historical significance: The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, where Congress had prohibited slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned later with the adoption of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery in 1865 and the 14th Amendment in 1868, granting citizenship to all born in the United States.

    1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson
    This decision established the rule of segregation, separate but equal.

    Situation: While attempting to test the constitutionality of the Separate Car Law in Louisiana, Homer Plessy, a man of 1/8 African descent, sat in the train car for whites instead of the blacks-only train car and was arrested.

    The Court decided against Plessy 7-1.

    Historical significance: Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote, “The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races… if the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.” The Court gave merit to the “Jim Crow” system. Plessy was overturned by the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In January 2022 Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards granted a posthumous pardon to Homer Plessy. The pardon comes after the Louisiana Board of Pardons voted unanimously in November 2021 in favor of a pardon for Plessy, who died in his 60s in 1925.

    1954 – Brown v. Board of Education
    This decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and granted equal protection under the law.

    Situation: Segregation of the public school systems in the United States was addressed when cases in Kansas, South Carolina, Delaware and Virginia were all decided together under Brown v. Board of Education. Third-grader Linda Brown was denied admission to the white school a few blocks from her home and was forced to attend the blacks-only school a mile away.

    The Court decided in favor of Brown unanimously.

    Historical significance: Racial segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    1963 – Gideon v. Wainwright
    This decision guarantees the right to counsel.

    Situation: Clarence Earl Gideon was forced to defend himself when he requested a lawyer from a Florida court and was refused. He was convicted and sentenced to five years for breaking and entering.

    The Court decided in favor of Gideon unanimously.

    Historical significance: Ensures the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

    1964New York Times v. Sullivan
    This decision upheld the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

    Situation: The New York Times and four African-American ministers were sued for libel by Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner L.B. Sullivan. Sullivan claimed a full-page ad in the Times discussing the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr., and his efforts toward voter registration and integration in Montgomery were defamatory against him. Alabama’s libel law did not require Sullivan to prove harm since the ad did contain factual errors. He was awarded $500,000.

    The Court decided against Sullivan unanimously.

    Historical significance: The First Amendment protects free speech and publication of all statements about public officials made without actual malice.

    1966Miranda v. Arizona
    The decision established the rights of suspects against self-incrimination.

    Situation: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping after he confessed, while in police custody, without benefit of counsel or knowledge of his constitutional right to remain silent.

    The court decided in favor of Miranda 5-4.

    Historical significance: Upon arrest and/or questioning, all suspects are given some form of their constitutional rights – “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

    1973 – Roe v. Wade
    This decision expanded privacy rights to include a woman’s right to choose pregnancy or abortion.

    Situation: “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey), single and living in Texas, did not want to continue her third pregnancy. Under Texas law, she could not legally obtain an abortion.

    The Court decided in favor of Roe 7-2.

    Historical significance: Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Women have the right to choose between pregnancy and abortion.

    1974 – United States v. Nixon
    This decision established that executive privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified.

    Situation: President Richard Nixon’s taped conversations from 1971 onward were the object of subpoenas by both the special prosecutor and those under indictment in the Watergate scandal. The president claimed immunity from subpoena under executive privilege.

    The Court decided against Nixon 8-0.

    Historical significance: The president is not above the law. After the Court ruled on July 24, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned on August 8.

    1978 – Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke
    This decision ruled that race cannot be the only factor in college admissions.

    Situation: Allan Bakke had twice applied for and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke was white, male and 35 years old. He claimed under California’s affirmative action plan, minorities with lower grades and test scores were admitted to the medical school when he was not, therefore his denial of admission was based solely on race.

    The Court decided in Bakke’s favor, 5-4.

    Historical significance: Affirmative action is approved by the Court and schools may use race as an admissions factor. However, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment works both ways in the case of affirmative action; race cannot be the only factor in the admissions process.

    2012 – National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services et al

    Situation: The constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama.

    The Court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act.

    Historical significance: The ruling upholds the law’s central provision – a requirement that all people have health insurance or pay a penalty.

    2013 – United States v. Windsor
    This decision ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman” deprived same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law.

    Situation: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto in 2007. Their marriage was recognized by New York state, where they lived. Upon Spyer’s death in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes, because their marriage was not recognized by federal law.

    The court voted 5-4 in favor of Windsor.

    Historical significance: The court strikes down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that legally married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits.

    2015 – King et al, v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al

    Situation: This case was about determining whether or not the portion of the Affordable Care Act which says subsidies would be available only to those who purchase insurance on exchanges “established by the state” referred to the individual states.

    The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act subsidies.

    Historical significance: The court rules that the Affordable Care Act federal tax credits for eligible Americans are available in all 50 states, regardless of whether the states have their own health care exchanges.

    2015 – Obergefell et al, v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al.

    Situation: Multiple lower courts had struck down state same-sex marriage bans. There were 37 states allowing gay marriage before the issue went to the Supreme Court.

    The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Obergefell et al.

    Historical significance: The court rules that states cannot ban same-sex marriage and must recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.

    2016 – Fisher v. University of Texas

    Situation: Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas after her admission application was rejected in 2008. She claimed it was because she is white and that she was being treated differently than some less-qualified minority students who were accepted. In 2013 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts for further review.

    The Court ruled 4-3 in favor of the University of Texas. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she dealt with it in her previous job as solicitor general.

    Historical Significance: The court rules that taking race into consideration as one factor of admission is constitutional.

    2020 – Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

    Situation: Gerald Bostock filed a lawsuit against Clayton County for discrimination based on his sexual orientation after he was terminated for “conduct unbecoming of its employees,” shortly after he began participating in a gay softball league. Two other consolidated cases were also argued on the same day.

    The 6-3 opinion in favor of the plaintiff, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that being fired “merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Historical Significance: Federal anti-bias law now protects people who face job loss and/or discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    2022 – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

    Situation: Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, passed in 2018 and which greatly restricts abortion after 15 weeks, is blocked by two federal courts, holding that it is in direct violation of Supreme Court precedent legalizing abortion nationwide prior to viability, which can occur at around 23-24 weeks of pregnancy, and that in an “unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability.” The court said states may “regulate abortion procedures prior to viability” so long as they do not ban abortion. “The law at issue is a ban,” the court held. 

    Mississippi appeals the decision to the Supreme Court.

    The 6-3 opinion in favor of the plaintiff, written by Justice Samuel Alito states that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start…Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”

    In a joint dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan heavily criticized the majority, closing: “With sorrow – for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection – we dissent.”

    Historical Significance: The ruling overturns Roe v. Wade and there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion, leaving abortion rights to be determined by states.

    1944 – Korematsu v. United States – The Court ruled Executive Order 9066, internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, is legal, 6-3 for the United States.

    1961 – Mapp v. Ohio – “Fruit of the poisonous tree,” evidence obtained through an illegal search, cannot be used at trial, 6-3 for Mapp.

    1967 – Loving v. Virginia – Prohibition against interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional, 9-0 for Loving.

    1968 – Terry v. Ohio – Stop and frisk, under certain circumstances, does not violate the Constitution. The Court upholds Terry’s conviction and rules 8-1 that it is not unconstitutional for police to stop and frisk individuals without probable cause for an arrest if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur.

    2008 – District of Columbia v. Heller – The Second Amendment does protect the individual’s right to bear arms, 5-4 for Heller.

    2010 – Citizens United v. FEC – The Court rules corporations can contribute to PACs under the First Amendment’s right to free speech, 5-4 for Citizens United.

    2023 – Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard together with Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina – Colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis in admissions. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Roberts, claims the court is not expressly overturning prior cases authorizing race-based affirmative action and suggests that how race has affected an applicant’s life can still be part of how their application is considered.

    2024 – Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al – The Court rules former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado in a decision that follows months of debate over whether Trump violated the “insurrectionist clause” included in the 14th Amendment.

    Source link

  • The End Is Coming for Trump’s GOP Rivals

    The End Is Coming for Trump’s GOP Rivals

    The arctic chill that upended the final weekend of the Iowa Republican caucus provided a fitting end to a contest that has seemed frozen in place for months.

    This caucus has felt unusually lifeless, not only because former President Donald Trump has maintained an imposing and seemingly unshakable lead in the polls. That advantage was confirmed late Saturday night when the Des Moines Register, NBC, and Mediacom Iowa released their highly anticipated final pre-caucus poll showing Trump at 48 percent and, in a distant battle for second place, Nikki Haley at 20 percent and Ron DeSantis at 16 percent.

    The caucus has also lacked energy because Trump’s shrinking field of rivals has never appeared to have the heart for making an all-out case against him. “I think there was actually a decent electorate that had supported Trump in the past but were interested in looking for somebody else,” Douglas Gross, a longtime GOP activist who chaired Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign in Iowa, told me. But neither DeSantis nor Haley, he adds, found a message that dislodged nearly enough of them from the front-runner. “Trump has run as an incumbent, if you will, and dominated the media so skillfully that it took a lot of the energy out of the race,” Gross said.

    In retrospect, the constrictive boundaries for the GOP race were established when the candidates gathered for their first debate last August (without Trump, who has refused to attend any debate). The crucial moment came when Bret Baier, from Fox News Channel, asked the contenders whether they would support Trump as the nominee even if he was convicted of a crime “in a court of law.” All the contenders onstage raised their hand to indicate they would, except for Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson, two long shots at the periphery of the race. With that declaration, the candidates effectively placed the question of whether Trump is fit to be president again—the most important issue facing Republicans in 2024—out of bounds.

    That collective failure led to Christie’s withering moral judgment on the field when he quit the race last week: “Anyone who is unwilling to say that he is unfit to be president of the United States is unfit themselves to be president of the United States.” But even in practical political terms, the choice not to directly address Trump’s fitness left his principal rivals scrambling to find an alternative way to contrast with the front-runner.

    Over time, DeSantis has built a coherent critique of Trump, though a very idiosyncratic one. DeSantis runs at Trump from the right, insisting that the man who devised and articulated the “America First” agenda can no longer be trusted to advance it. In his final appearances across Iowa, his CNN debate with Haley last week, and a Fox town hall, DeSantis criticized Trump’s presidential record and 2024 agenda as insufficiently conservative on abortion, LGBTQ rights, federal spending, confronting the bureaucracy, and shutting down the country during the pandemic. He has even accused Trump of failing to deport enough undocumented immigrants and failing to construct enough of his signature border wall.

    On issues where politicians in the center or left charge Trump with extremism, DeSantis inverts the accusation: The problem, he argues, is that Trump wasn’t extreme enough. The moment that best encapsulated DeSantis’s approach came in last week’s CNN debate. At one point, the moderators asked him about the claim from Trump’s lawyer that he cannot be prosecuted for any presidential action—including ordering the assassination of a political rival—unless he was first impeached and convicted. DeSantis insisted the problem was that in office, Trump was too restrained in using unilateral presidential authority. He complained that Trump failed to call in the National Guard over the objections of local officials to squelch civil unrest in the Black Lives Matter protests following the 2020 murder of George Floyd. When DeSantis visited campaign volunteers last Friday, he indignantly complained “it’s just not true” that he has gone easy on Trump in these final days. “If you watched the debate,” DeSantis told reporters, “I hit on BLM, not building the wall, the debt, not draining the swamp, Fauci, all those things.”

    Perhaps the prospect of impending defeat has concentrated the mind, but DeSantis in his closing trek across Iowa has offered perceptive explanations for why these attacks against Trump have sputtered. One is that Trump stifled the debates by refusing to participate in them. “It’s different for me to just be doing that to a camera versus him being right there,” DeSantis told reporters. “When you have a clash, then you guys have to cover it, and it becomes something that people start to talk about.” The other problem, he maintained, was that conservative media like Fox News act as “a praetorian guard” that suppresses criticism of Trump, even from the right.

    Those are compelling observations, but incomplete as an explanation. DeSantis’s larger problem may be that the universe of voters that wants Trumpism but doesn’t think Trump can be relied on to deliver it is much smaller than the Florida governor had hoped. One top Trump adviser told me that the fights Trump engaged in as president make it almost impossible to convince conservatives he’s not really one of them. Bob Vander Plaats, a prominent Iowa evangelical leader who has endorsed DeSantis, likewise told me that amid all of Trump’s battles with the left, it’s easier to try to convince evangelical conservatives that the former president can’t win in November than that he has abandoned their causes.

    The analogy I’ve used for DeSantis’s strategy is that Trump is like a Mack truck barreling down the far-right lane of American politics, and that rather than trying to pass in all the space he’s left in the center of the road, DeSantis has tried to squeeze past him on the right shoulder. There’s just not a lot of room there.

    Even so, DeSantis’s complaints about Trump look like a closing argument from Perry Mason compared with the muffled, gauzy case that Haley has presented against him. DeSantis’s choice to run to Trump’s right created a vacuum that Haley, largely through effective performances at the early debates, has filled with the elements of the GOP coalition that have always been most dubious of Trump: moderates, suburbanites, college-educated voters. But that isn’t a coalition nearly big enough to win. And she has walked on eggshells in trying to reach beyond that universe to the Republican voters who are generally favorable toward Trump but began the race possibly open to an alternative—what the veteran GOP pollster Whit Ayres calls the “maybe Trump” constituency.

    The most notable thing in how Haley talks about Trump is that she almost always avoids value judgments. It’s time for generational change, she will say, or I will be a stronger general-election candidate who will sweep in more Republican candidates up and down the ballot.

    At last week’s CNN debate, Haley turned up the dial when she that said of course Trump lost the 2020 election; that January 6 was a “terrible day”; and that Trump’s claims of absolute immunity were “ridiculous.” Those pointed comments probably offered a momentary glimpse of what she actually thinks about him. But in the crucial days before the caucus, Haley has reverted to her careful, values-free dissents. At one town hall conducted over telephone late last week, she said the “hard truths” Republicans had to face were that, although “President Trump was the right president at the right time” and “I agree with a lot of his policies,” the fact remained that “rightly or wrongly, chaos follows him.” Talk about taking off the gloves.

    Jennifer Horn, the former Republican Party chair in New Hampshire who has become a fierce Trump critic, told me, “There’s no moral or ethical judgment against Trump from her. From anyone, really, but we’re talking about her. She says chaos follows him ‘rightly or wrongly.’ Who cares? Nobody cares about chaos. That’s not the issue with Trump. He’s crooked; he’s criminal; he incited an insurrection. That’s the case against Trump. And if his so-called strongest opponent won’t make the case against Trump, why should voters?”

    Gross, the longtime GOP activist, is supporting Haley, but even he is perplexed by her reluctance to articulate a stronger critique of the front-runner. “I don’t know what her argument is,” Gross told me. “I guess it’s: Get rid of the chaos. She’s got to make a strong case about why she’s the alternative, and it’s got to include some element of judgment.”

    The reluctance of DeSantis and Haley to fully confront the former president has created an utterly asymmetrical campaign battlefield because Trump has displayed no hesitation about attacking either of them. The super PAC associated with Trump’s campaign spent months pounding DeSantis on issues including supporting statehood for Puerto Rico and backing cuts in Social Security, and in recent weeks, Trump’s camp has run ads accusing Haley of raising taxes and being weak on immigration. In response, DeSantis and Haley have spent significantly more money attacking each other than criticizing, or even rebutting, Trump. Rob Pyers, an analyst with the nonpartisan California Target Book, has calculated that the principal super PAC supporting Trump has spent $32 million combined in ads against Haley and DeSantis; they have pummeled each other with a combined $38 million in negative ads from the super PACs associated with their campaigns. Meanwhile, the Haley and DeSantis super PACs have spent only a little more than $1 million in ads targeting Trump, who is leading them by as much as 50 points in national polls.

    Haley’s sharpest retort to any of Trump’s attacks has been to say he’s misrepresenting her record. During the CNN debate, Haley metronomically touted a website called DeSantislies.com, but if she has a similar page up about Trump, she hasn’t mentioned it. (Her campaign didn’t respond to a query about whether it plans to establish such a site.)

    “Calling him a liar right now is her strongest pushback, but I just don’t think GOP voters care about liars,” Horn told me. “If she engaged in a real battle with him for these last days [before New Hampshire], that would be fascinating to see. The fact that she’s not pushing back, the fact that she’s not running the strongest possible campaign as she’s coming down the stretch here, makes me wonder if she is as uncertain of her ability to win as I am.”

    Some Republican strategists are sympathetic to this careful approach to Trump, especially from Haley. A former top aide to one of Trump’s main rivals in the 2016 race told me that “nobody has found a message you can put on TV that makes Republicans like Trump less.” Some other veterans of earlier GOP contests believe that Haley and DeSantis were justified in initially trying to eclipse the other and create a one-on-one race with Trump. And for Haley, there’s also at least some argument for preserving her strongest case against Trump for the January 23 New Hampshire primary, where a more moderate electorate may be more receptive than the conservative, heavily evangelical population that usually turns out for the caucus.

    “She has to draw much sharper contrasts,” Gross told me. “And to be fair to her, once she gets out of here, maybe she will. What she strikes me as is incredibly disciplined and calculating. So, I do think you’re going to see modulation.”

    DeSantis has the most to lose in Iowa, because a poor showing will almost certainly end his campaign, even if he tries to insist otherwise for a few weeks. For Haley, the results aren’t as important because whatever happens here, she will have another opportunity to create momentum in New Hampshire, where polls have shown her rising even as DeSantis craters. Still, if Haley is unable or unwilling to deliver a more persuasive argument against Trump, she too will quickly find herself with no realistic hope of overtaking the front-runner, whose lead in national polls of Republican voters continues to grow. That’s one thing common to winter in both Iowa and New Hampshire: It gets dark early.

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Pride Month backlash hurt Target’s sales. They fell for the first time in six years | CNN Business

    Pride Month backlash hurt Target’s sales. They fell for the first time in six years | CNN Business


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Target’s quarterly sales fell for the first time in six years as consumers pulled back on discretionary goods and fierce right-wing backlash to Target’s Pride Month collection took a toll on the brand.

    Target’s sales at stores open for at least one year dropped 5.4% last quarter, including a 10.5% drop online. The company also cut its annual sales forecast.

    Target’s foot traffic dropped 4.8% last quarter, “likely a function of a mix that skews too discretionary, as well as the Pride merchandise issues,” Michael Baker, an analyst at DA Davidson, said in a note to clients.

    Still, Target’s profit came in higher than Wall Street’s expectations, and the stock rose 5% during early trading Wednesday. Heading into Wednesday, Target’s stock dropped 27% over the past year.

    Target was one of the strongest-performing retailers during the pandemic as consumers flocked to stores and its website while stuck at home. But Target has slipped as consumers change their spending patterns.

    Americans are spending more on experiences, including concerts and movies, and less on nonessential items. Home Depot

    (HD)
    said Tuesday that consumers took on fewer major home renovation projects.

    Target

    (TGT)
    is over-exposed to non-essential merchandise compared to competitors such as Walmart

    (WMT)
    and Costco

    (COST)
    . More than half of Target

    (TGT)
    ’s merchandise is discretionary – clothing, home decor, electronics, toys, party supplies and other non-essentials. The company in recent years has added more food and essentials to its stores.

    “Consumers are choosing to increase spending on services like leisure, travel, entertainment and food away from home, putting near-term pressure on discretionary products,” CEO Brian Cornell said on a call with analysts Wednesday.

    Cornell said that store theft and safety have also become bigger concerns.

    “Safety incidents associated with [theft] are moving in the wrong direction,” Cornell said. “During the first 5 months of this year, our stores saw a 120% increase in theft incidents involving violence or threats of violence.”

    Target has been embroiled in the political culture wars over gender and sexual orientation.

    Beginning in May, Target also faced a homophobic campaign that went viral on social media over its annual Pride Month clothing collection. Fueled by far-right personalities, the anti-LGBTQ campaign spread misleading information about the Pride Month products.

    The campaign became hostile, with violent threats levied against Target employees and instances of damaged products and displays in stores. Target said on May 24 that it was removing certain items that caused the most “volatile” reaction from opponents to protect its workers’ safety.

    But Target’s response frustrated supporters of gay and transgender rights, who said the company caved to bigoted pressure.

    “The strong reaction to this year’s Pride assortment” impacted sales during the quarter, Christina Hennington, Target’s chief growth officer, said Wednesday.

    Target will adjust its Pride Month collection next year, including potential changes to timing, placement in stores and the mix of brands it sells.

    “The reaction is a signal for us to pause, adapt and learn,” she said.

    Other brands, such as Bud Light, have faced right-wing backlash over attempts to be more inclusive.

    America’s former top-selling beer has targeted by right-wing media and anti-trans commentators since April, after sponsoring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

    The controversy cost Bud Light’s parent company about $395 million in lost US sales and Bud Light lost its top beer spot to Modelo.

    Source link

  • Michael Imperioli Denies ‘Bigots’ The Right To Watch His Work After SCOTUS Decision

    Michael Imperioli Denies ‘Bigots’ The Right To Watch His Work After SCOTUS Decision

    Michael Imperioli turned the tables on “bigots and homophobes” supporting the Supreme Court’s decision to allow a Christian website designer to discriminate against same-sex couples.

    “The Sopranos” star reacted to the news of the ruling in an angry Instagram post on Saturday, where he posted a screenshot of an article with the headline, “Supreme Court protects web designer who won’t do gay wedding websites.”

    On Friday, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority ruled that a Colorado graphic designer could legally refuse services to same-sex couples on the grounds of her First Amendment rights.

    Imperioli tried to twist the Supreme Court’s own logic in the case, telling fans, “I’ve decided to forbid bigots and homophobes from watching ‘The Sopranos,’ ‘The White Lotus,’ ‘Goodfellas,’ or any movie or TV show I’ve been in.”

    “Thank you Supreme Court for allowing me to discriminate and exclude those who I don’t agree with and am opposed to,” he continued, wryly. “USA! USA!”

    Imperioli expanded his thoughts in the comment section, telling critics, “Hate and ignorance is not a legitimate point of view” and “America is becoming dumber by the minute.”

    The Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis broadened the rights of people who want to refuse services to same-sex couples based on religious or ideological grounds.

    It determined a Colorado anti-discrimination law which prohibits denial of goods, services or facilities “because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry,” would violate her religious liberties and right to free speech if she was made to create a website expressing views she opposed.

    The dispute cited in the case was entirely hypothetical, however. Petitioner Lorie Smith has never been hired to make a website for a same-sex couple, nor has she professionally created any website.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor skewered the majority’s opinion in a dissent with liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing, “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”

    Michael Imperioli attends the Season 2 premiere of “The White Lotus” in Los Angeles on Oct. 20, 2022.

    Axelle/Bauer-Griffin via Getty Images

    “By issuing this new license to discriminate in a case brought by a company that seeks to deny same-sex couples the full and equal enjoyment of its services, the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status,” the dissent continued.

    “In this way, the decision itself inflicts a kind of stigmatic harm, on top of any harm caused by denials of service. The opinion of the Court is, quite literally, a notice that reads: ‘Some services may be denied to same-sex couples.’”

    In the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that states still have the ability to safeguard protected classes from discrimination, but not in matters that “implicate the First Amendment.”

    “States are generally free to apply their public accommodations laws, including their provisions protecting gay persons, to a vast array of businesses,” he wrote, later adding, “When a state public accommodations law and the Constitution collide, there can be no question which must prevail.”

    This week the Supreme Court ended its session with a slew of wins for conservatives.

    Hours after its decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court overturned President Biden’s plan for student loan forgiveness. On Thursday, the Supreme Court decided college’s use of race-conscious admissions, also known as affirmative action, was unconstitutional.

    Source link

  • Pride flags vandalized at Stonewall National Monument in New York | CNN

    Pride flags vandalized at Stonewall National Monument in New York | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    The New York Police Department is investigating “a criminal mischief pattern” of vandalism against Pride and transgender flags at the Stonewall National Monument during Pride month, it said in a statement.

    The police department said its Hate Crime Task Force is investigating three incidents, which occurred June 10, June 15 and June 20.

    According to police, individual or individuals were seen removing Pride flags that were displayed on the fence of the monument. In two of the incidents, the flags were also broken, the statement said.

    There were no injuries as a result of the alleged crimes, and it’s not clear from the statement released Monday if the same person or people were involved.

    Earlier this month, the NYPD tweeted a photo of individuals it said were “wanted for criminal mischief” in connection to the June 10 incident and asked for public assistance.

    President Barack Obama in 2016 designated the area around the Stonewall Inn, the site of the 1969 Stonewall uprising, as the country’s first national monument to honor the LGBTQ+ community.

    The uprising occurred when a police raid of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar, turned violent after patrons fought back. The incident led to the first march for gay and lesbian rights.

    The Stonewall National Monument includes Christopher Park, the Stonewall Inn and the surrounding streets and sidewalks where the uprising occurred.

    Source link

  • Protests Erupt As Florida Advances Expansion To ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Law

    Protests Erupt As Florida Advances Expansion To ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Law

    Protests erupted inside and near Florida’s Capitol building Friday as lawmakers in the state’s House of Representatives voted to pass an expansion to what critics commonly refer to as the “Don’t Say Gay” law.

    The proposed legislation would build on the 2022 Parental Rights in Education Act, which bans discussions of gender identity and sexuality from kindergarten through third grade at public schools. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and other Florida conservatives have argued that teaching such topics in public schools is a form of “indoctrination,” and that these should instead be taught by parents at home.

    The new bill, HB 1069, would place further limits on discussions of sex education, sexual orientation and gender identity in K-12 public schools, and would have them teach that “sex is determined by biology and reproductive function at birth.” It would also restrict the way that teachers in these schools can use students’ preferred pronouns.

    As lawmakers debated the bill Friday, over 100 LGBTQ+ students and allies marched toward the state Capitol. Many flooded into the halls outside the House chamber, with others protesting around the building and in areas near the Capitol grounds.

    The protesters outside the House chamber stood in a large circle, chanting “this is what democracy looks like” and “hey hey, ho ho, Ron DeSantis has got to go.” The crowd started booing upon hearing news of the bill’s passage.

    Many Florida Democrats opposed the proposal, saying it was tantamount to sex discrimination, Politico reports.

    “This bill does nothing but tell certain parts of our community in Florida that they don’t exist,” said state Rep. Ashley Gantt (D), according to Politico.

    Two GOP lawmakers voted against the proposal. But in Florida’s Republican-majority legislative chamber, the bill still passed 77-35. The vote took place on Transgender Day of Visibility, observed annually on March 31.

    HB 1069 is among 10 Florida bills targeting LGBTQ+ rights that have advanced in the current legislative session, as well as hundreds more nationwide. These include similar expansions to the Parental Rights in Education Act, such as SB 1320 and HB 1223, introduced by GOP lawmakers in Florida.

    The Senate version of HB 1069 still awaits one final committee hearing before the proposal can head to the floor for a final vote.

    Source link

  • Wisconsin School Won’t Allow Students To Perform Miley Cyrus And Dolly Parton’s Song

    Wisconsin School Won’t Allow Students To Perform Miley Cyrus And Dolly Parton’s Song

    MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Administrators at a Wisconsin elementary school stopped a first-grade class from performing a Miley Cyrus and Dolly Parton duet promoting LGBTQ acceptance because the song “could be perceived as controversial.”

    Students at Heyer Elementary School in Waukesha had prepared a rendition of “Rainbowland” for their spring concert, but school officials struck the song from the lineup last week. Parents in the district say the decision was made because the song encourages LGBTQ acceptance and references rainbows.

    Superintendent James Sebert, who did not immediately return a call on Monday, confirmed to Fox6 that administrators had removed “Rainbowland” from the first-grade concert because it might not be “appropriate for the age and maturity level of the students.” He also cited a school board policy against raising controversial issues in classrooms.

    Sebert has previously prohibited rainbows and pride flags from being displayed in Waukesha classrooms and suspended the school district’s equity and diversity work in 2021.

    “Let’s all dig down deep inside, brush the judgment and fear aside,” the song from Cyrus’ 2017 album “Younger Now” goes. “Living in a Rainbowland, where you and I go hand in hand. Oh, I’d be lying if I said this was fine, all the hurt and the hate going on here.”

    Dolly Parton (left) and Miley Cyrus performing at the 2019 Grammy Awards.

    Kevin Winter via Getty Images

    First-grade teacher Melissa Tempel said she chose the song because its message seemed universal and sweet. The class concert’s theme was “The World” and included other songs such as “Here Comes the Sun,” by The Beatles and “What a Wonderful World,” by Louis Armstrong.

    “My students were just devastated. They really liked this song and we had already begun singing it,” Tempel said Monday.

    Administrators also initially banned the song “Rainbow Connection” from The Muppets but later reversed that decision, according to Tempel.

    Parents have been angered by the song’s removal, Tempel said. But she was more concerned about what the ban and other district policies against expressing LGBTQ support meant for students.

    “These confusing messages about rainbows are ultimately creating a culture that seems unsafe towards queer people,” she said.

    Spokespersons for Parton and Cyrus did not immediately respond to emails on Monday asking the artists’ thoughts on the ban.

    Wisconsin school boards races, including in Waukesha, have become increasingly partisan in recent years. Republicans saw big gains across the state’s school board races in 2022 and have used the positions to challenge policies from rules about transgender kids to COVID-19 restrictions.

    Harm Venhuizen is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Venhuizen on Twitter.

    Source link

  • We Need More Trans Sanctuary States Now

    We Need More Trans Sanctuary States Now

    Minnesota is about to follow in California’s quest to better protect transgender youth, which is a triumph against hundreds of anti-trans bills actively being considered across the country.

    A new bill, which will turn Minnesota into a sanctuary state for young trans people, passed the state House on Friday. and because the state is predominantly Democratic, full passage is likely. Here’s what that means and why it matters so much right now.

    If you’re unaware of the magnitude of the war on young trans people, Trans Legislation Tracker has reported over 487 bills seeking to police every aspect of a trans person’s existence, from the ability to change their pronouns in public schools to parents’ agency to support their children in accessing gender-affirming care.

    Minnesota’s trans refuge legislation, also known as HF 146, acknowledges that trans young people are under attack and deserve protection. The law will help make gender-affirming care safe and accessible to young people and their families who travel to the state. The legislation would also give state officials the power to reject conservative states’ extradition requests or other harmful punitive measures to thwart gender-affirming care provided in Minnesota.

    In addition to working to pass the bill, earlier this month, Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed an order to protect the health care access of Minnesotans who identify as LGBTQIA+.

    “Protecting and supporting access to gender-affirming health care is essential to being a welcoming and supportive state,” Walz said while signing the executive order. The state has a long history of championing queer rights dating back to the late ’60s.

    While Minnesota and California are the only states with trans sanctuary status right now, there’s a dire need for other states to create safe spaces for trans youth instead of passively watching conservatives fight to keep the nation’s future as white and cis-male-dominated as possible.

    To say we’re at a crossroads is an understatement. Although Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) ultimately vetoed it, a recent bill was introduced that would have effectively allowed students in that state to misgender transgender peers at school. In Nebraska, state Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh (D) effectively halted the legislature to keep an anti-trans bill — this time, a proposal to outlaw gender-affirming medical care for minors — from advancing. These bills won’t be the last attempts from conservatives who can’t seem to just let trans kids exist.

    And outside of attacks on trans youth, there are several other factors that leave them vulnerable. Last fall, Reuters released one of the first studies on young people receiving gender-affirming care, which found gender dysphoria diagnoses have nearly tripled since 2017. Gender dysphoria, defined as a sense of unease due to the mismatch in an individual’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth, can manifest as severe anxiety, depression and even suicide.

    Studies have also shown that nearly 60% of America’s youth are not receiving sufficient mental health care. The need for gender-affirming care of every kind is undeniable, and ensuring it on a state level is essential to improving the mental health of existing and future generations.

    A failure to protect young queer people is a failure to protect our future. And the establishment of trans sanctuary spaces means clarity on where we stand when it comes to protecting them. Here’s hoping that more states follow suit, soon.

    Source link

  • UN and US join chorus of condemnation against Uganda’s hardline anti-LGBT bill | CNN

    UN and US join chorus of condemnation against Uganda’s hardline anti-LGBT bill | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    The United Nations and United States on Wednesday added to international outrage over a hardline bill passed by Ugandan lawmakers that criminalizes simply identifying as LGBTQ+, prescribes a life sentence for convicted homosexuals and a death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality.”

    The UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights asked Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni not to sign the bill passed by lawmakers on Tuesday. Volker Türk called the Anti Homosexuality Bill 2023 “draconian,” saying it would have negative repercussions on society as a whole and violates the nation’s constitution.

    “The passing of this discriminatory bill – probably among the worst of its kind in the world – is a deeply troubling development,” said a statement from Türk’s office.

    “If signed into law by the President, it will render lesbian, gay and bisexual people in Uganda criminals simply for existing, for being who they are. It could provide carte blanche for the systematic violation of nearly all of their human rights and serve to incite people against each other.”

    US Secretary of State Antony Blinken slammed the bill, which would “undermine fundamental human rights of all Ugandans and could reverse gains in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” he tweeted on Wednesday. “We urge the Ugandan Government to strongly reconsider the implementation of this legislation.”

    US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield spoke twice this week with Museveni to express “deep concern” about the legislation, a US official told CNN Wednesday.

    The new legislation constitutes a further crackdown on LGBTQ+ people in a country where same-sex relations were already illegal – punishable by life imprisonment. It targets an array of activities, and includes a ban on promoting and abetting homosexuality as well as conspiracy to engage in homosexuality.

    According to the bill, the death penalty can be invoked for cases involving “aggravated homosexuality” – a broad term used in the legislation to describe sex acts committed without consent or under duress, against children, people with mental or physical disabilities, by a “serial offender,” or involving incest.

    The bill must now go to Museveni for assent. Last week he derided homosexuals as “deviants.”

    Uganda made headlines in 2009 when it introduced an anti-homosexuality bill that included a death sentence for gay sex.

    The country’s lawmakers passed a bill in 2014, but they replaced the death penalty clause with a proposal for life in prison. That law was ultimately struck down.

    The new bill has wide public support in the highly conservative and religious East African nation, where anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment is deeply entrenched.

    But it has drawn strong criticism from civil society groups and LGBTQ+ activists. “It is another way of using the law to punish people who cause no harm but for being who they are,” said a tweet from Pan Africa ILGA.

    “As a community, partners and allies, we’ll do everything to ensure that the constitutional rights that are given to the LGBTI community are met and the legal provisions that are available for us will definitely be looked into if the president assents to this bill and it gets to be law,” activist Richard Lusimbo told CNN.

    Pepe Onziema, a transgender LGBTQ rights activist and program director of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), a non-governmental organization for LGBTQ rights, whose operations were shut by authorities last year, told CNN members of the community were now living in fear.

    “We’ve been having quite excruciating anxiety from the threats of the bill. And now that it has actually passed in Parliament, the (LGBTQ) community is quite in fear,” Onziema said. “There’s a large community of LGBTQ persons in the country, so we can’t just give up. We’ll find different ways of working. We might not be as visible as we’ve been because there are attacks online as well.”

    African Rainbow Family, a UK-based charity that supports LGBTQ+ Africans seeking refuge in the UK, described the bill as an “assault” and “persecution” of Uganda’s LGBTQ community.

    “African Rainbow Family condemns in its entirety, the passing of the Ugandan ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2023’ into law. The law is a violation of the fundamental human rights of LGBTIQ people in Uganda.

    “African Rainbow Family sees this law as again, an assault and added layer of State and non-State agents’ persecution of Ugandan LGBTIQ community,” it told CNN.

    Feminist writer and Human Rights Activist Rosebell Kagumire told CNN the new legislation could have other consequences beyond human rights violation.

    “Seeking to strip LGBTQIA persons of their whole humanity, it extends to deny them housing, education and health care. In a country where AIDS is still an epidemic and men who have sex with men and trans women (and) sex workers are still faced with higher incidence, this law will criminalize health care provision and defeat the whole struggle to end AIDS,” Kagumire said.

    For human rights lawyer Sarah Kihika Kasande, “If President Museveni assents to the bill, it will authorize state-sanctioned attacks and persecution against LGBTQ persons.”

    Seeking refuge elsewhere might be the “last resort” for some members of Uganda’s LGBTQ community, Onziema says.

    “Asylum is sort of a last resort for us, but for people who are really under a lot of threat and feel that they can’t live here anymore, as a leader in this community, I would definitely support them to seek refuge elsewhere.

    “But it’s difficult to seek asylum, especially as a Black queer person. Your chances are sort of narrowed down even further. But I believe that the few people who are looking at that as an option, we are hoping that the countries that they choose to go to for refuge will actually accept them and not further marginalize them,” he told CNN.

    Source link

  • Hundreds protest clampdown on same-sex parents in Milan | CNN

    Hundreds protest clampdown on same-sex parents in Milan | CNN


    Rome, Italy
    CNN
     — 

    Hundreds took to the streets of Milan on Saturday to protest against moves by Italy’s new right-wing government to restrict the rights of same-sex parents.

    The demonstration, called “Hands Off Our Sons and Daughters,” took place in the historical Piazza della Scala pedestrian square and was organized by LGBTQ+ groups across the country.

    “You explain to my son that I am not his mother,” read one protest sign. Others held up ballpoint pens, used to sign birth registrations, in protest.

    Also present at the protests was Milan’s mayor Giuseppe Sala, who had earlier tweeted his support of same-sex families.

    Organizers estimated around 10,000 people took part while Milan city officials gave more modest estimates of hundreds.

    In 2016 Italy became the last country in Europe to legalize same-sex unions but it still does not recognize “stepchildren adoption” or surrogacy, which rights groups say is because of opposition from the Catholic Church.

    Its government led by far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, places a strong emphasis on traditional family values.

    Same-sex parents who wish to register their children born by surrogacy abroad have often had to just put one parental name on official birth registrations or take their cases to family court.

    Several cities, including the capital Rome and Milan, had instituted a Parent 1/Parent 2 policy on birth registrations rather than the traditional mother/father designations, but last week the Interior Ministry ordered the city of Milan to stop the practice.

    The Italian Interior Ministry said it would order other cities’ birth registrars to also halt the practice.

    Last week, the Italian senate voted against a measure introduced by the European Commission to make the recognition of same-sex parents mandatory.

    Source link

  • In wake of Florida law, additional states seek to restrict certain LGBTQ discussions in schools | CNN Politics

    In wake of Florida law, additional states seek to restrict certain LGBTQ discussions in schools | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Bills similar to Florida’s controversial legislation that bans certain instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools are being considered in at least 15 states, data compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union and reviewed by CNN shows.

    Some of the bills go further than the Florida law, dubbed by its critics as “Don’t Say Gay,” which sparked a furious nationwide discussion about LGBTQ rights, education policy and parental involvement in the classroom.

    The debate reflects the sensitive forces of LGBTQ rights becoming increasingly ascendant at a time when some parents are seeking greater input in their children’s education, especially in the wake of the tumult wrought by the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Republicans, arguing that discussions around gender identity and sexuality are inappropriate for young children, have used the banner of “parental rights” to push for a curtailment of such conversations in schools, even though opinions on the matter vary widely among parents. LGBTQ rights advocates see a conscious decision to stigmatize a vulnerable slice of American society and a potential chilling effect on what they believe to be urgently needed discussions.

    “These bills are predicated on the belief that queer identities are a contagion while straight, cisgender identities are somehow more pure or correct,” Gillian Branstetter, a communications strategist for the ACLU, told CNN. “In truth, every student has a right to have their own life stories reflected back at them and every student benefits from stories that serve as a window into the lives of people different from them. Censorship and homogeneity benefit no one while denying all students an equal chance to learn, grow and thrive.”

    The ACLU has tracked a total of 61 bills across 26 states, though efforts in several states, including Mississippi and Montana, have already failed. Earlier this month, Arkansas approved restrictions against such discussions through the fourth grade.

    Ultimately, it’s unclear how many of the bills will be enacted. A Human Rights Campaign report released in January said that of 315 bills that they viewed as anti-LGBTQ that were introduced nationwide last year, only 29 – less than 10% – became law.

    Florida’s law, titled the “Parental Rights in Education” bill, prohibits classroom instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.” It also requires districts to notify a student’s parent if there’s a significant change in their mental or emotional well-being, which LGBTQ rights advocates argue could lead to some students being outed to their parents without the student’s knowledge or consent.

    “We will continue to recognize that in the state of Florida, parents have a fundamental role in the education, health care and well-being of their children. We will not move from that,” Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said when he signed the bill in March 2022.

    According to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit think tank that advocates for issues including LGBTQ rights, Florida’s law was the catalyst for the bills currently under consideration in other states, which include:

    • An Iowa bill that passed the state House last week that would prohibit instruction about gender identity and sexual orientation from kindergarten through sixth grade.
    • A bill in Oregon that would prohibit any discussion on sexual identity for grades kindergarten through third grade without parental notification and consent.
    • Legislation in Alaska that would require parental notification two weeks prior to “any activity, class or program that includes content involving gender identity, human reproduction or sexual matters is provided to a child.”
    • Multiple bills in Florida that seek to double down on last year’s legislation, including one that requires instruction that “sex is determined by biology and reproductive function at birth” and another that prohibits requirements for employees to use pronouns that do not correspond with a student’s sex.

    A recurring theme in the legislation is a requirement that school employees notify a parent if a child expresses a desire to be addressed by a pronoun that matches their gender identity if it differs from the one assigned at birth.

    “We’re not saying that you can’t do this,” Washington Republican state Sen. Phil Fortunato, who introduced legislation that would limit instruction on gender and sexual identity for kindergarten through third grade, told CNN. “I mean, I disagree with it, but, you know, if the parents and the child agree with it, that is their decision. But they shouldn’t be doing it behind the parent’s back when their kid goes to school. And that’s the point of the bill.”

    Missouri’s bill is uniquely far-reaching: no employee at a public or charter school would be allowed to “encourage a student under the age of eighteen years old to adopt a gender identity or sexual orientation,” though what the law means by “encourage” is not explained. School officials would be required to immediately notify parents if their child confides in them “discomfort or confusion” about their “official identity” and teachers would not be allowed to refer to a student by their preferred pronouns without first securing a parent’s approval.

    The bill specifically calls for whistleblower protections for school employees who report violators, who would then face “charges seeking to suspend or revoke the teacher’s license to teach based upon charges of incompetence, immorality or neglect of duty.”

    In a blog post entitled “Evil perpetrated on our children,” Missouri GOP state Sen. Mike Moon, who sponsored the legislation, called it a “lie that boys can be changed into girls and girls can be changed into boys.”

    “One thing we must agree on, though, is that parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children,” he continued. “To that end, parents must be involved in the education of their children.”

    The measures are likely to face swift legal challenges if enacted, though at least two efforts to block Florida’s law have so far failed to take it off the books. One of those lawsuits, brought by a group of students, parents and teachers in Florida, was thrown out last month by US District Judge Allen Winsor, a Trump appointee, who said the challengers were unable to show that they’ve been harmed by the law.

    “Plaintiffs have shown a strident disagreement with the new law, and they have alleged facts to show its very existence causes them deep hurt and disappointment,” Winsor wrote in his order. “But to invoke a federal court’s jurisdiction, they must allege more. Their failure to do so requires dismissal.”

    At the heart of opponents’ concerns is the vagueness in the laws’ language as written. LGBTQ issues are not generally a formal part of public school curricula, they point out, leaving educators with the prospect of having to determine where legal fault lines are drawn with nothing less than their careers at stake.

    “What counts as classroom discussion? As classroom instruction? Does it just include the curriculum for the class?” asked Alice O’Brien, the general counsel for the Alice O’Brien, in an interview with CNN. “For example, does it include teachers’ lesson plans, or does it sweep so broadly as to include classroom discussion? A teacher answering a student’s question, a teacher perhaps intervening in an incident where one student is bullying another student because of that student’s prestige, sexual orientation or gender identity? It’s very unclear what is prohibited and what is not prohibited.”

    There are other concerns. Naomi G. Goldberg, the deputy director of MAP, worries about a “chilling effect on teachers themselves in terms of their ability to support students in the classroom as well as the students themselves in the classroom.”

    A similar point was made in a CNN op-ed last year by Claire McCully, a trans mother who is outraged over Florida’s law.

    “Like any other parent, I expect my family to be welcomed and accepted by others at the school,” McCully wrote. “And of course, this acceptance might be more likely if some of the children’s stories read in classrooms feature two dads, two moms or even a trans mom.”

    Cathryn Oakley, the state legislative director and senior counsel of the Human Rights Campaign, told CNN that using a student’s preferred pronouns is harmless to other students but deeply meaningful to trans children themselves. She urged a cautious approach that recognizes the need for schools to be a safe space for vulnerable children, particularly if there is a risk that outing a child before they are ready could lead to “family rejection or even violence.”

    “No one is suggesting that this is information that won’t be relevant to parents,” she said. “But what we are saying is that young folks should be able to have this conversation on their own terms with their parents and not have a third party be forced to broker a conversation that could put that child in danger.”

    Source link