Most people will never understand just how traumatic it is to flee your home country to search for safety.
It’s a terrifying prospect, and it’s one that the people of Ukraine are dealing with right now as Russia’s cruel, unjust war wages on. More than 4.4 million people have fled Ukraine in the six weeks since the attack began.
For LGBT+ people fleeing war and violence, there are specific issues they have to face. On top of leaving their homes behind, some will have to contend with homophobia, biphobia or transphobia along the way. That’s why they need specific, targeted supports.
Micro Rainbow is just one of the organisations working to make sure LGBT+ refugees are being adequately cared for when they arrive in the UK. They operate 16 safe houses around the UK for queer refugees arriving into the country, and they also provide numerous other services to help them adjust to their new lives.
Their work has never been so important – that’s why PinkNews has launched the LGBTQ Refugees Welcome campaign, an initiative that aims to raise £50,000 to support LGBT+ Ukrainians and other displaced people.
Donations will be shared between Micro Rainbow and OutRight Action International, which is distributing funds to LGBT+ groups working on the ground in Ukraine to support the community.
It’s now been six weeks since Russia declared war on Ukraine. In that time, advocacy groups have been working tirelessly to keep the country’s LGBT+ community afloat.
Lenny Emson, director of Kyiv Pride, told PinkNews that the community isfacing specific issues such as family estrangement, homophobia and transphobia that are exacerbating an already impossible situation.
Meanwhile, countless others have already fled the country in the hope that they can get to safety elsewhere as Russia continues its barbaric attack.
Ukraine’s LGBT+ community needs your support – both those who have chosen to stay and those who have already fled to safety. Please donate what you can to the LGBTQ+ Refugees Welcome campaign by visiting our GoFundMe page.
Robbie Pierce wrote about what happened to him, his husband, and their six- and five-year-old children while riding on an Amtrak train. Pierce said they were approached by a man they didn’t know who shouted at the six-year-old: “Remember what I told you. They stole you. They’re pedophiles.”
Pierce told the man to “get away from my family,” and the man allegedly responded: “Family? That’s not a family! You’re both rapists. You steal Black and Asian kids.”
“You guys aren’t natural,” the man continued as the children cried. “Homosexuals are an abomination. They steal and rape kids.”
Pierce said that he took the kids to another car while his husband dealt with the man. A conductor came and further distracted the man.
He said that his children “cried for almost an hour.” During that time, he asked his son if he had seen the man before and the son said that the man had already confronted him when he went to the bathroom.
“Yet we’re the groomers,” Pierce wrote sardonically.
According to Pierce, no one in the car helped. Several people gave what he called “sympathetic looks” or came up to him later to apologize.
The man was arrested for refusing to leave the train, according to Pierce.
Pierce said that this isn’t the first time he and his family have been shouted at by homophobic strangers, but this is the first time that they have been called pedophiles, something he believes is a product of the current political climate.
“We’ve dealt with this brand of terrifying homophobic stranger before with our son,” he wrote. “But ‘pedophiles’ and ‘rapists’ were new in the mix, at least out loud.”
“We all know where that comes from. So thanks to Fox [News and CEO Rupert] Murdoch, JK Rowling [and Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Green, to the senators and priests and everyone else who harms kids and thinks it’s politically expedient to project onto gentle families like mine to stir up their lucrative culture war.”
Since Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February, more than 2.4 million refugees have fled across the border to Poland.
In order to get to Lublin, the closest major Polish city to the northern border, refugees often have to travel through some of Poland’s so-called “LGBT-free zones”.
These zones began popping up across the country in 2019, with almost 100 municipalities declaring themselves unwelcoming of “LGBT ideology”.
“One of the trans women we were helping asked me: ‘Are we going to be going through those ‘LGBT-free zones’, and what does that mean?” explains Filip Kijowski, 28, co-founder of the LGBT+ library Biblioteka Azyl, based in Lublin.
He and curator Waldemar Tatarczuk, 57, have been working flat-out to assist LGBT+ refugees in finding community, safety and healthcare after leaving Ukraine.
“It’s horrific that they are not only fleeing war and have these traumas, but also have to be worried about being more traumatised by our government,” Kijowski tells PinkNews.
In 2020 “LGBT-free zones” covered a third of Poland; a small handful have since renounced the declarations.
In February, Poland’s parliament passed a law banning so-called “LGBT+ propaganda” in schools across the country. It is illegal for same-sex couples to marry or adopt children, and a 2019 opinion poll found that almost a quarter of the population believes homosexuality must not be tolerated.
Although it is hard to ascertain how many Polish citizens identify as queer, ninety per cent of anti-LGBT attacks go unreported, a 2016 survey found.
Standing against this bigotry as a beacon of hope is exactly why the library was founded last year. The largest of its kind in Poland, it houses more than 1,000 books, all donated by queer authors and publishers from around the world.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Kijowski knew that he had the framework and connections to begin a “direct response” to the situation.
“We’re assisting people specifically to escape from the war,” he explains. “What I mean by this is we are in touch with drivers who are able to drive into Ukraine… they’re able to drive people out, and I usually meet them at the border.
“We try and create a safe space for them to rest in Poland for a short while, because most of them want to move on, actually, they want to go to Berlin or Sweden. Some want to stay in Poland but it, unfortunately, isn’t the most queer-friendly environment.”
The pair have so far assisted more than 20 people, in some cases finding them work and accommodation.
Recently they found a home for “a young trans person and their parents”, and secured work and housing in Berlin for a non-binary refugee and a trans woman.
However, Kijowski stresses it is all about catering to people’s “specific needs”. For instance, they were able to raise the funds to get a new laptop for a graphic designer to continue working after hers was left behind in Ukraine.
Kijowski and Tatarcuk’s daily work includes linking people up with doctors to provide psychological and medical care, as well as securing vital hormones for trans people, which have been donated by the international community.
Some trans people, particularly trans women, are unable to flee the war zone. While Ukrainian trans people are able to have their gender legally recognised, the process is lengthy and some who haven’t completed it are reportedly being turned away at the borders because they have male gender markers.
The Polish pair want to be ready when more Ukrainian LGBT+ people come across the border, so are crowdfunding for their organisation’s move to a larger building in May.
It will be an “LGBTQ+ refugee centre for Ukrainian queer people”, giving people “access to safety, to be able to rest, to have some food, talk with us and talk amongst each other.” It will also house the library.
So far they have raised more than £6,000 on their GoFundMe page.
Kijowski says that the moment that he realised he needed to help came when he was on the phone with a Ukrainian friend and heard sirens in the background.
“I could sense the fear,” he says. “As a queer person, knowing what it’s like to receive support, and having been helped for quite a few years growing up in the queer community, it’s also a responsibility.
“That’s a strong word, but it is a responsibility to be able to at least give doses of that support back into the community.”
Weeks before The Walt Disney Co. took a stand against Florida’s contentious “Parental Rights in Education” law — which has been called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by its critics — the theme park operator and entertainment conglomerate donated $190,000 to support Florida Republicans.
The company gave $125,000 to the Republican Party of Florida and $65,000 to a committee that helps elect GOP state senators, led by incoming state Senate President Kathleen Passidomo. All the donations, which were disclosed in new campaign filings Monday, arrived as the state legislative session was getting underway in January.
Disney last month announced it would pause making campaign donations in Florida amid a backlash over its jumbled response to the legislation.
The U.S. Agency for International Development and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief on Wednesday announced they delivered more than 18 million doses of antiretroviral drugs for Ukrainians with HIV/AIDS.
USAID Administrator Samantha Power posted a picture of the shipment on Twitter. She said it is “part of a broader U.S. effort to maintain continuity of life-saving treatments for chronic illnesses during Russia’s war.”
A USAID spokesperson told the Washington Blade that “USAID delivered the PEPFAR-funded antiretroviral drugs to a Ukrainian non-profit organization that provides health services to people living with HIV.”
“The organization is distributing the antiretroviral drugs to different regions within Ukraine based on need and logistical feasibility,” said the spokesperson.
The spokesperson did not identify the Ukrainian organization that received the drugs.
If convicted, medical professionals face up to 10 years in prison and a hefty fine for providing what researchers argue is ‘life-saving’ care to trans minors.
Ivey’s signature makes Alabama the latest state in the US to pass legislation restricting gender-affirming care after Arkansas, Tennessee and Arizonapassed various anti-trans healthcare bans. But Alabama is the first state to impose criminal penalties for such care, according to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
Two doctors and two families of trans kids have filed a lawsuit against the state, challenging the new law which is set to go into effect on 8 May.
The families said in the complaint, which was filed on Monday (11 April), that being denied the medically necessary treatment will be devastating to the mental health of their children. The lawsuit alleges that the new Alabama law violates the Affordable Care Act and the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.
One plaintiff, referred to as Robert Roe, is the father of a 13-year-old trans girl who is called Mary in the lawsuit. The complaint detailed how it is “essential for Mary’s mental health” that she can receive “puberty-blocking medications every three months” and can receive future medical treatments that her healthcare providers determine are “medically necessary to treat her gender dysphoria”.
“For Mary to be forced to go through male puberty would be devastating; it would predictably result in her experiencing isolation, depression, anxiety and distress,” the lawsuit continued. “Mary’s parents are also concerned that without access to the puberty-blocking medication she needs, Mary would resort to self-harm as a means of coping with her psychological distress or even attempt suicide.”
Roe said in a press release by the HRC, which is supporting the lawsuit, described how his family has seen “our daughter change from being reclusive and anxious to being an engaged, happy child” after being able to access the “care she needs” to flourish.
But he said this law threatens “all of this” and “takes away our ability to follow the advice of highly qualified medical professionals”.
“I was born and raised in Alabama and came back here with my wife to raise our family,” Roe said. “We love this community which has shown us incredible support. But if this law goes into effect we may be forced to leave the state we call home in order to protect our daughter’s life.”
The parents of another trans teen, referred to as John Doe, described in the lawsuit how starting hormone therapy had been “amazing” for the 17-year-old as he was finally able to feel “more like himself, building greater confidence” and is now “happier overall”.
However, the lawsuit said that John will suffer “devastating physical and psychological consequences” if the trans healthcare ban goes into effect. According to the lawsuit, the teen’s healthcare will be “disrupted” as he won’t be able to access “medications his physicians have prescribed to treat his gender dysphoria” if the law goes into effect and won’t be able to undergo gender-affirming surgery until he “reaches the age of majority, which in Alabama is age 19”.
Dr Morissa Ladinsky, a third plaintiff, works at the Children’s Hospital of Alabama alongside another plaintiff, Dr Hussein D Abdul-Latif. Both physicians provide medical care to trans youth in Alabama.
The lawsuit described how Dr Ladinsky has treated and is currently treating “dozens of trans youth people for gender dysphoria” – including the two trans teens listed in the complaint – in her role as a paediatrician as well as co-lead of the multi-disciplinary gender clinic at the UAB Hospital.
Dr Ladinsky said in a statement that governor Ivey has told “kind, loving and loyal Alabama families that they cannot stay here without denying their children the basic medical care they need” by signing the trans healthcare ban.
“She has undermined the health and well-being of Alabama children and put doctors like me in the horrifying position of choosing between ignoring the medical needs of our patients or risking being sent to prison,” she said.
The plaintiffs are represented by a host of LGBT+ and civil rights organisations including the Southern Poverty Law Center, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the HRC with King & Spalding LLP and Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC.
A trans woman in Ukraine has said the community is struggling to access essential healthcare as the Russian war rages on.
Anastasiia, director of Cohort NGO, an organisation for transgender people in Ukraine, has chosen to remain in the country – though many trans people have had that choice taken away from them, and are unable to flee.
“I’m empowered by the opportunity to help people,” Anastasiia told Gaydiohosts Dave Cooper and Paris Munro.
She explained that many trans women are unable to leave because they have male gender markers in their passports. The same is true for cis queer men, and some intersex people.
When asked by Gaydio what the community needs, Anastasiia said: “We need medication [and] hormones.”
Russia has targeted hospitals and other healthcare facilities throughout its barbaric invasion, including children’s hospitals.
The World Health Organisation reported in late March that there had been more than 70 separate attacks on hospitals, ambulances and doctors in Ukraine. It said the number was rising on a daily basis.
Anastasiia also urged Gaydio listeners to support local trans and LGBT+ groups financially. She recommended her organisation, Cohort, alongside Kyiv Pride, Trans Generation and Insight, which provide shelter, financial aid and medical help to LGBT+ people in Ukraine.
“This broadcast, this visibility allows us to be spoken about, and not forgotten at this time,” she added. “It creates the opportunity for donations, not just from organisations, but also from private donors.”
Anastasiia added: “I’m not intimidated by violence and danger, I have two revolutions behind my back.”
She continued: “It’s important that I can do this work, and that I can do this work mostly from here.
“If I was anywhere else I wouldn’t find my place, I would be restless and full of self-deprecation. Here, I can really do the work that I need to be doing. It empowers me when I see that I’m really helping people.”
More than four million people have fled the country since Russia invaded, while 20,000 have been killed, according to Ukrainian officials.
The Human Rights Campaign’s TikTok account was suspended for two days after it posted in support of another TikTok user’s pro-LGBTQ+ video.
On Monday, the LGBTQ+ rights group wrote on Twitter explaining it had been suspended for a couple of days last week after it commented on a video protesting Florida’s “don’t say gay” law. The video in question showed a teenager driving past a sign welcoming people to the state while they yelled “gay!”
On Monday, the LGBTQ+ rights group wrote on Twitter explaining it had been suspended for a couple of days last week after it commented on a video protesting Florida’s “don’t say gay” law. The video in question showed a teenager driving past a sign welcoming people to the state while they yelled “gay!”
HRC posted “GAY” with hearts in yellow and blue, the organization’s colors. The comment received 2000 likes before it was taken down and reported by other TikTok users, according to HRC. The group’s account was suspended on April 3 and the group was notified on April 4. HRC had initially been told that its account would be suspended until April 10, however, they were able to appeal.
“What message does it send to young people when we comment or post LGBTQ+ content and it’s deemed inappropriate and a violation of community guidelines?,” Ty Cobb, senior director of strategic initiatives at HRC, told The Advocate in a statement. “We’re fighting a battle for our lives. Elected officials are trying to censor our speech and restrict our access to healthcare and equal opportunity. Our need to communicate to our community and allies is more important than ever right now. Having our TikTok account suspended for two days means our ability to post educational, affirming content was restricted, which is nothing short of devastating.”
TikTok has a history of blocking LGBTQ+ content. In 2020, the company even apologized for censoring it. The apology followed a report released by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute indicating that terms like “gay,” “lesbian,” and “transgender” were restricted in several languages for global users wherever they were.
In an email to The Advocate, a TikTok spokesperson explained the company took action immediately after it knew of the issue with HRC.
“We restored the comment as soon as we were made aware of this error and will continue to provide ongoing training to help our moderators make consistent and accurate decisions,” the spokesperson for the company said. “We are proud that LGBTQ+ community members choose to create and share on TikTok, and our policies seek to protect and empower these voices on our platform.”
In a landmark ruling, a federal court has ordered the Defense Department to end a long-standing Pentagon policy forbidding enlisted military service members from deploying in active duty outside the continental U.S. and being commissioned as officers if they have HIV.
Supporters hailed it as overdue legal affirmation that people receiving effective antiretroviral treatment for HIV are essentially healthy and pose no risk to others.
The judgment topples one of the country’s last major pillars of HIV-related employment discrimination. Federal law has for decades barred employers from discriminating against people with HIV under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The military has stood alone as the sole U.S. employer maintaining such explicit discriminatory practices.
“This is one of the biggest rulings for people living with HIV and enshrining their protections under the Constitution in decades,” said Kara Ingelhart, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, which along with a team of private-practice attorneys litigated the cases.
The Pentagon still bans people with HIV from enlisting in the military or from being commissioned out of military academies. The new ruling, which could affect those other prohibitions, concerns service members who are diagnosed after they enter the military.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of Eastern Virginia ruled Wednesday in the two cases, Harrison v. Austin and Roe & Woe v. Austin, in which a trio of men sued the military for HIV-related discrimination. The Air Force tried to discharge two pseudonymous plaintiffs, while the D.C. Army National Guard denied Sgt. Nick Harrison a commission in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, or JAG Corps, because they had HIV.
Brinkema ruled that the Pentagon’s policy qualifying HIV as a chronic condition requiring a waiver was scientifically outdated and that it unfairly treated people with the virus differently from other service members living with chronic health conditions requiring routine medication.
“This is the first decision securing the rights of people living with HIV that is rooted in the equal protection clause of the Constitution,” said Scott Schoettes, a former Lambda attorney in private practice in Chicago, who is co-counsel in the two cases.
Brinkema, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, has ordered the Air Force to rescind the discharges of the two airmen. She further ordered the Army to rescind and reconsider its denial of Harrison’s JAG Corps application.
Under the ruling, the Pentagon can no longer use the virus as a reason to discriminate against asymptomatic HIV-positive service members whose viral loads are undetectable thanks to antiretroviral treatment. In particular, the Pentagon may not separate, discharge or deny applications for deployment from such people.
The Justice Department could appeal the ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In January 2020, the court upheld a preliminary injunction in the case of the two airmen, blocking the Air Force from discharging them while their case was litigated.
President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign platform included a measure supporting the right of people with HIV to serve fully in the military. Ingelhart expressed hope that the administration will compel the Pentagon to reverse the remaining policies that discriminate based on HIV status.
The Defense Department is the world’s largest employer, with 3 million service members worldwide.
The Pentagon referred questions to the Justice Department, which declined to comment.
Get the Morning Rundown
Get a head start on the morning’s top stories.SIGN UPTHIS SITE IS PROTECTED BY RECAPTCHA PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF SERVICE
In defending the two cases, the military argued that service members with HIV pose a theoretical risk to others, such as on the battlefield.
After the Pentagon appealed the injunction to the 4th Circuit in 2019, a group of former military leaders filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs. The brief criticized as scientifically outdated the Pentagon’s policy qualifying HIV as a chronic condition requiring a waiver and argued that the policy compromised military readiness.
Effective antiretroviral treatment for HIV has been on the market since 1996. Today, HIV is typically treated with a once-a-day pill.
Scientists have known for decades that HIV cannot be transmitted through casual contact. Extensive research led the global HIV scientific community to conclude in the late 2010s that people with undetectable viral loads thanks to HIV treatment cannot transmit the virus through sex.
According to Lambda Legal, nearly all of the approximately 2,000 members of the U.S. military living with HIV have undetectable viral loads.
Today, people treated for HIV have near-normal life expectancies.
“The military is being forced to acknowledge the current science regarding HIV: It is easily treatable; there are zero documented cases of transmission in combat; and, most importantly, it is never a reason for discrimination,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, who was not involved with the litigation.
Harrison, 45, an Oklahoma native who joined the military in 2000, was diagnosed with HIV in 2012 after he returned from a tour of duty in Kuwait. In May 2018, he sued the Army and the Defense Department for denying his application to become a military lawyer with the JAG Corps.
“It’s nice to see the court make a decision placing science over stigma,” Harrison said of the judge’s ruling.
In December 2018, Harrison’s legal team further sued the Air Force and the Justice Department on behalf of two airmen who received notifications discharging them from service because their HIV statuses prevented their potential deployment to the Middle East.
The policy, codified in a February 2018 memorandum and dubbed “Deploy or Get Out,” outraged the HIV community by forcing some HIV-positive service members out of the military, not previously a common practice, if they faced potential deployment.
Harrison said he keeps in touch with the two other plaintiffs, as well as a collection of fellow HIV-positive members of the military. “We’re looking forward to the opportunity to go forward with our lives and to continue to serve the military in the best way possible,” he said.
His lawyers have also sued the Navy and the Air Force on behalf of a pair of cadets who were blocked from commissioning in the military after their military academy graduations because they had HIV. The case, Deese and Doe v. Austin, which is pending in U.S. District Court for Maryland, is in the discovery phase after the court denied the Pentagon’s request for dismissal.
Amid several bills introduced in Tennessee that have attracted national attention this year, none has sparked as much alarm among both Republicans and Democrats as a proposal that would create a new marriage contract specifically designed to exclude same-sex couples.
Supporters argue the measure is needed to give religious officials, couples and others opposed to gay marriage an option that wouldn’t conflict with their beliefs.
Critics say it’s a deliberate effort to circumvent the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling legalizing gay marriage and could lead to costly legal battles. Many have noted that the bill initially failed to include a minimum age — an omission that has opened the door to widespread mockery. Some worry the move helped reinforce stereotypes regarding Tennessee as backward.
The bill’s Republican sponsors have downplayed concerns that the age omission would result in a wave of child marriages, but they’ve since introduced an amendment that would incorporate an age requirement of 18 years old or older.
Who would be eligible for common law marriage contract?
If enacted, the legislation would allow opposite-sex couples to fill out marriage “contracts” based on common law marriage principles. Typically, common law marriage refers to the legal protections of marriage given to couples who live together as a married couple, but who haven’t gotten a state marriage license.
Just eight states allow common law marriages, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and Tennessee isn’t one of them. It’s a practice that in America has dated back to Colonial times when it was sometimes difficult to find a preacher to solemnize a marriage.
The Tennessee bill, however, specifically states the contract would only apply to “one man and one woman,” thereby banning same-sex couples from pursuing the option. Opposite-sex couples wouldn’t have to file the contract with the state, meaning county clerks wouldn’t have to recognize the contracts like they do with marriage licenses.
“This legislation has kept me up at night,” Republican Rep. Johnny Garrett told lawmakers earlier this week.
Garrett, who is an attorney, said the lack of state recognition would mean couples would likely be unable to claim benefits and be denied rights typically given to married couples. He also pointed out that there’s nothing prohibiting individuals from entering into multiple contracts.
“We’re going to legalize polygamy in this state,” he warned.
Republican Rep. Tom Leatherwood countered that people could commit fraud using marriage licenses and added that he believed courts would recognize the contracts so that individuals could receive spousal benefits.
“All this bill does is give an alternative form of marriage for those pastors and other individuals who have a conscientious objection to the current pathway to marriage in our law,” Leatherwood said during a legislative hearing in March.
Would the bill allow child marriage?
Get the Morning Rundown
Get a head start on the morning’s top stories.SIGN UPTHIS SITE IS PROTECTED BY RECAPTCHA PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF SERVICE
When the bill was first introduced in the House, Democratic Rep. Mike Stewart quickly pointed out that the proposed common law marriage contract did not include an age minimum.
Currently, there is no federal minimum age requirement to be married. Instead, that decision is left to the states. For Tennessee, the minimum age to obtain a marriage license is 18, but 17-year-olds can still be married as long as they have parental consent. It is illegal for minors ages 11-17 to be married under a 2018 state law.
The proposed common law marriage bill wouldn’t automatically legalize child marriages. But the omission of an age requirement sparked widespread criticism that it would create a loophole allowing children to marry.
After downplaying child marriage accusations, the sponsors have since tweaked the bill to say it would apply to opposite-sex couples who “both have attained the age of majority,” which is 18 years old in Tennessee.
But that hasn’t stopped the skepticism from Democrats and Republicans who worry the bill is setting up the state for a costly lawsuit.
“This argument that it is going to set up two separate paths to marriage is blatantly unconstitutional in violation of the Obergefell decision, which is the law of the land,” said attorney Abby Rubenfeld, who in 2013 helped lead the challenge to Tennessee’s ban on same-sex marriage.
The suit, which was filed by Rubenfeld, was included in the SCOTUS case that eventually legalized gay marriage in 2015.
“We won that case before the Supreme Court and we also obtained, as you probably know, a substantial award in attorney fees and costs — which Tennessee taxpayers had to pay,” Rubenfeld warned lawmakers. “It can be expensive for our state to adopt unconstitutional laws.”
Who is supporting the proposal?
The fate of the bill remains unknown. Despite having nearly 20 Republican cosponsors, GOP Senate Speaker Randy McNally told reporters this week that he wouldn’t support it due to the lingering constitutional problems. The bill has been scheduled for several weeks to be debated before the full Senate, but has been delayed several times at the request of the sponsor.
Over in the House, the bill was discussed in a committee this week, but lawmakers ran out of time before taking a vote. It’s slated to come up again next Wednesday.
“I don’t know if it has the votes or not,” Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton told reporters recently. “I guess we’ll find out next week.”