Timothy Ray Brown, who made history as “the Berlin patient,” the first person known to be cured of HIV infection, has died. He was 54. Brown died Tuesday at his home in Palm Springs, California, according to a social media post by his partner, Tim Hoeffgen.
The cause was a return of the cancer that originally prompted the unusual bone marrow and stem cell transplants Brown received in 2007 and 2008, which for years seemed to have eliminated both his leukemia and HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
“Timothy symbolized that it is possible, under special circumstances,” to rid a patient of HIV — something that many scientists had doubted could be done, said Dr. Gero Huetter, the Berlin physician who led Brown’s historic treatment.
One other man is believed to have been cured of HIV after undergoing to same transplants in 2016.
Chicago’s LGBTQ neighborhood is dropping its longtime nickname, “Boystown,” following a petition started by a local activist claiming the moniker lacks inclusivity and promotes bigotry.
“The Castro, Greenwich Village, West Hollywood, and many more. LGBTQ neighborhoods exist for all intersections of queer identity. Chicago’s is the only gendered nickname,” said the petition, which was addressed to the Northalsted Business Alliance.
Last week, the alliance announced that it would no longer use the nickname in its marketing campaigns when referring to the neighborhood, which sits on the city’s North Side. Instead, it will revert to the name Northalsted.
“While a personal identifier cannot encompass the full diversity of our town, the name Northalsted, signifies the place, its entire community & history, inclusively,” the alliance said in a statement.
In a survey conducted by the alliance, which had nearly 8,000 respondents, 58 percent favored keeping the “Boystown” moniker, and 80 percent said they did not feel unwelcome by the nickname.
“While an overall majority neither were offended by the name nor want it changed, those identifying as Lesbian, Transgender, non-binary and queer largely do favor a name change,” the statement said. “To acknowledge and welcome all members of the LGBTQ+ community, the chamber will discontinue using the name Boystown in marketing and revert to the long standing name Northalsted.”
The Boystown nickname has been in use since the 1980s to represent what the alliance said has historically been a safe place for LGBTQ people. In 1997, then-Mayor Richard Daley officially recognized the neighborhood as a gay village, the first such designation in the country, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
When Charles Hughes and Richard Solomon began making plans in 2018 to open their own gay bar in New York’s historic Harlem neighborhood, they had no idea a pandemic would shut them down before they even opened.
“The first thing we thought was, ‘Oh, my gosh, we’re going to be out of business before we started this business,’” Hughes, 39, told NBC News.
But a global health crisis is not the only headwind their bar, Lambda Lounge, and the few remaining Black-owned gay bars in the United States are facing. Long before anyone had heard of Covid-19, these LGBTQ social spaces were dwindling across the country.
For more than two decades, gay bars, especially those owned by people of color, have been disappearing. Historically, these spaces were where the LGBTQ community gathered to find romance, make long-lasting friendships and engage in community activism. Throughout the 1980s, there were more than 1,500 such bars, a number that has declined steeply since the late ‘90s, with fewer than 1,000 existing today, according to a study published last year by Oberlin College and Conservatory professor Greggor Mattson.
The closures have had a disproportionate impact on bars catering to women and people of color: Between 2007 and 2019, LGBTQ bar listings dropped by an estimated 37 percent, and those serving people of color plummeted by almost 60 percent, according to the study. Though the reasons are not entirely clear, experts suspect the overall decline in gay bars is related to decades of skyrocketing rents and gentrification, which have disproportionately impacted small, Black-owned businesses; the emergence of online dating sites and apps; and circuit parties that rotate among venues, which have become increasingly popular among younger crowds.
According to online listings, there are more than 60 LGBTQ bars across the five boroughs of New York City, one of the metropolitan areas hardest hit by the pandemic, and many of these spaces are struggling to stay open. Of the city’s dozens of remaining gay bars, just two — Lambda Lounge and Alibi Lounge, both in Harlem — are known to be Black owned. Club Langston in Brooklyn closed last year after nearly two decades in business.
Since it opened in 2015, Alibi Lounge has become a sanctuary for LGBTQ people of color. In March, under city mandates, owner Alexi Minko was forced to temporarily shutter his bar and soon began to run out of money. A former lawyer who had poured his life savings into his business, Minko frantically applied for emergency aid through the government’s overwhelmed Paycheck Protection Program application, whose website he said continuously crashed.
Desperate for assistance, Minko reluctantly set up an online fundraising campaign for his bar. He was on the brink of ending his lease, he said, when donations suddenly surged. In only a matter of weeks, the campaign raised $165,000. While Minko eventually received a small loan through the government’s emergency relief program, he said the donations “absolutely saved my business,” as well as the idea that it’s possible for a Black gay man to open his own bar.
“My fear if Alibi had gone down is to instill in the young mind that, ‘Oh, why bother? We’re Black and gay, it’s just going to fail anyway,’” said Minko, who has since reopened his bar outside at limited capacity in compliance with New York City’s rules.
Earlier this month, Alibi Lounge was one of 10 LGBTQ-owned businesses to be awarded funding through the Queer to Stayprogram, a small business initiative from Showtime and the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBTQ advocacy group.
Access to ‘mainstream capital’
While the total economic fallout from the pandemic won’t be known for some time, August data from the business listing site Yelp found that more than 2,800 businesses had permanently closed since March in New York City alone, and a report published last month from the Partnership for New York City, a nonprofit business group, said as many as a third of the city’s “230,000 small businesses that populate neighborhood commercial corridors may never reopen.”
The national picture is also grim, especially for Black business owners: A report released in August by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found the number of Black-owned businesses declined more than 40 percent across the U.S. between February and April, while white-owned businesses declined 17 percent.
In June, the Small Business Administration released a list of 661,218 organizations that received loans of $150,000 or more. It received racial and ethnic backgrounds from just 94,501 owners. Of those, 1,827 Black-owned businesses received loans.
Most of these business owners rely on personal finance and credit, and often lack relationships with banks, according to Cy Richardson, senior vice president for economics and housing programs at the National Urban League, a nonprofit that advocates for economic and social justice for Black Americans.
“Broadly, the notion of access to mainstream capital, that’s where the racial wealth gap is really exacerbated,” he said.
Those at the intersection of the Black and the LGBTQ communities have been particularly hit hard amid the pandemic, according to asurvey released last month by the Human Rights Campaign, which found Black LGBTQ respondents fared worse than both the overall Black population and the overall LGBTQ population along every economic indicator measured.
‘Envy of the wider gay community’
Scholars who study LGBTQ nightlife say the loss of Black-owned gay bars would be devastating. Historically, these bars have been havens for people of color, who have experienced discrimination in white-owned bars for generations, according to Eric Gonzaba, an assistant professor of American Studies at California State University, Fullerton, who is writing a book about the history of gay nightlife.
Around the 1960s, gay bars began to sprout in metropolitan areas across the U.S. At the time, closeted white people didn’t want to be seen entering a gay bar where someone they knew might recognize them, so owners had a tendency to open these bars in predominantly Black neighborhoods. They would then often enact racist policies — including unfair carding measures and dress codes — to keep Black people out, according to Gonzaba, who said even up until the 1990s, some white bar owners would require people of color to show three forms of government picture ID to enter.
“These are places that were highly segregated for much of their history and are perfect examples of the inability for the LGBTQ rights movement to have a unified coalition into the ‘70s and ‘80s,” Gonzaba explained. He said even the Stonewall Inn, the once mafia-owned New York City gay bar that has become a symbol of the LGBTQ rights movement, “didn’t let a lot of people of color into the doors” (it has long since operated under new owners who do not engage in such discrimination). Since many gay bars in the ‘80s and ‘90s were where gay activists gathered to educate the community about HIV and AIDS, he said lifesaving information about the virus often didn’t reach the Black community.
Fed up, the Black LGBTQ community began to form its own house parties and unique social clubs in cities with large Black populations. Washington, D.C., alone boasted about 20 bars, nightclubs, coffeehouses and social gatherings that catered to a Black LGBTQ clientele, according to the Rainbow History Project, though it’s unclear if all were Black-owned and operated. Black gay activist groups used these spaces to educate patrons about HIV and AIDs and to organize around issues for racial justice. Perhaps the most epic among them, the The Club House, remained a popular D.C. haunt until it shuttered in 1990.
Unlike most LGBTQ bars at the time, Black-owned bars welcomed a gender diverse crowd, including transgender and gender-nonconforming people, according to Gonzaba. He said these patrons cultivated a unique music subculture in the 1970s composed of early disco and drag, and a “more sexually expressive culture” began to flourish.
“This is music that’s founded by African American and Latinx people in inner cities, parts of Chicago and Philadelphia and Washington, and dancing becomes normalized … and this kind of style of music and this kind of style of dancing that’s highly sexualized becomes the envy of the wider gay community,” Gonzaba said of this early disco era that would later give rise to house and electronic dance music.
“It’s the ability for clubs to be places of refuge and sexual expression and sexual exploration,” he said, that still lead people today to “think of bars and nightlife as a place to not just have a drink but to explore different avenues of one’s sexuality, and that’s hugely borrowed from Black culture.”
Where are all the Black-owned gay bars?
The number of Black-owned gay bars, currently and historically, is unknown, since there is no resource that specifically tracks them, and Gonzaba said many bars frequented by LGBTQ people of color have historically been white-owned. But business listings suggest there may not be many of them left.
In addition to Lambda Lounge and Alibi Lounge in New York, at least three others — Jeffery Pub in Chicago, Metro 2.0 in Jackson, Mississippi, and Jocks PHL in Philadelphia — are still in business.https://www.instagram.com/p/BzWSKlLBq7l/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=8&wp=1116&rd=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com&rp=%2Ffeature%2Fnbc-out%2Fblack-owned-gay-bars-are-dwindling-can-they-survive-covid-n1241100#%7B%22ci%22%3A0%2C%22os%22%3A877%2C%22ls%22%3A852%2C%22le%22%3A873%7D
In Chicago, the pandemic is threatening to shut down what might be the country’s oldest Black-owned gay bar. Jeffery Pub opened in the 1960s and has gone through multiple owners, according to the current owner, Jamal Junior. The businessman, who purchased the bar in the mid-2000s, was forced to temporarily close the pub in March under a city ordinance as the pandemic swept through the Midwest. He said the pub has not been able to reopen in compliance with city mandates because it lacks outdoor space.
“I’m just praying and hoping that we can survive,” Junior, 46, told NBC News.
Metro 2.0 owner Temica Morton is currently trying to hold on to what might be the only Black-owned gay bar in the South. Morton, a Jackson-based LGBTQ advocate, acquired the lease to the bar in February just as the pandemic struck the U.S. She invested her entire savings into Metro 2.0, which she said has been a popular venue for LGBTQ people of color of all genders since it opened in the late 1990s. But a seesawing series of shutdown orders from state and city officials left the businesswoman in “panic mode” as she struggled to figure out how to keep the bar alive. The bar temporarily shut down Aug. 5, and reopened in September at limited capacity after the shutdown lifted. Morton, 44, said she’s now “taking it one day at a time.”
Many Black-owned bars whose clientele was composed largely of people of color have shuttered in the past decade, including several in New York City alone, like Starlite Lounge, No Parking and Club Langston. Perhaps the most famous of the shuttered bars was Jewel’s Catch One, a Los Angeles venue known for its Black disco scene that operated between 1973 and 2015 under the ownership of lesbian Jewel Thais-Williams. And a decade before that, the community lost beloved bar Knob Hill in Washington, D.C., which operated between 1957 and 2004.
In 1990, after dealing with decades of discrimination at gay bars in San Francisco, where he moved in 1969, Rodney Barnette, a Vietnam War veteran, former member of the Black Panther Party and gay rights activist, opened his own bar. The New Eagle Creek Saloon, which operated under the slogan “A friendly place with a funky base for every race,” was forced to shut down after only three years due to rent increases that Barnette said he could not afford. But before it shuttered, he said the saloon served as a refuge for San Francisco’s LGBTQ people of color. Activist groups like Lesbians and Gays of African Descent for Democratic Action (LAGADDA) gathered there to organize against racist carding policies in San Francisco and to educate the Black community about HIV prevention, he said.
“I call it a community center that served alcohol, that’s the way I describe it,” said Barnette, whose bar has been memorialized by his daughter, artist Sadie Barnette, in an exhibit commissioned by The Lab in San Francisco.
“People felt good,” he said of the saloon’s patrons. “You could walk in the bar, and know there wouldn’t be any discrimination against you, that you were welcome, that everybody was welcome.”
‘Everybody should be treated equal’
By the 1990s, Black LGBTQ activists and allies had successfully fought to end racist carding policies. However, a number of recent incidents indicate that racism still plagues gay nightlife.
In 2016, fury erupted in Philadelphia after a video shared widely on social media showed the owner of a popular gay bar using the N-word. A 2017 report issued by the city’s Commission on Human Rights found that women, minorities and transgender people felt unwelcome and unsafe in Philadelphia’s gay neighborhood for decades. The report recommended establishments and organizations in the so-called gayborhood undergo training for racial bias and hire more diverse staff.
In 2018, a group of Atlanta drag performers, all trans women of color, collectively quit their jobs at a popular gay club, Burkhart’s, after its white owner made racist posts on his Facebook page.
Last year, an email from a manager at Progress Bar, a gay bar in Chicago’s “gayborhood,” ordered DJs to stop playing rap music at the bar. “Anything vulgar, aggressive or considered mumble rap (including certain Cardi B tracks and newer Nicki Minaj) is off limits,” the manager wrote in a leaked message.
In June, activists gathered in front of 941 Saloon, a Pittsburgh gay bar, to protest dress codes they said discriminated against Black people.
In July, a picture circulating on Facebook showed a bartender at Number Nine, a popular gay bar in Washington, D.C., apparently wearing a “black face” Covid-19 mask. The management later posted an apology, claiming the bartender didn’t know the mask was racist.
Over the years, as wealth in the U.S. has become more concentrated, Gonzaba said it is not uncommon for multiple gay bars to be managed under a single owner.
“These bars are owned by wealthy, white men who often have many different establishments in the cities,” he explained.
Some bars, even if they don’t engage in discriminatory practices within their establishment, try to cultivate loyalty among white clientele through their branding, according to Gonzaba. For example, in 2012, a leaked email from a gay bar owner in Washington, D.C., revealed that he had requested an advertisement for the bar, which displayed a Black man, be replaced with “a hot white guy,” stating it was “more our clientele.”
Barnette, who now resides in Los Angeles, said that despite progress made by activists, LGBTQ nightlife still caters predominantly to white men.
“The overall gay white male community has not reformed into making it a point that everybody should be treated equal,” he said.
‘A responsibility to queer people of color’
In New York City, where Covid-19 cases have plummeted, bars and restaurants have been allowed to slowly reopen outdoors at limited capacity. Starting Sept. 30, restaurants will be allowed to reopen their indoor space at 25 percent capacity, though bar service will not be permitted.
In July, Lambda Lounge celebrated its grand opening with a “nice turnout” despite restrictions, according to Hughes and Solomon, 38, who set up their lounge outdoors.
“It was so nice,” Hughes said. “We had to literally stop people coming in so we could be compliant with Covid rules.”
While the couple said they did receive a small loan through the emergency relief program, they are unsure how long they will remain open without more assistance, especially as the weather cools and a possible second wave of Covid-19 could force the city to shut down bars and restaurants later this year. So far, they’ve raised nearly $6,000 through a GoFundMe campaign for their lounge.
Hughes said the ongoing stress is giving him migraines, and Solomon said it has been “hard to find optimism right now.” Their insurance premium has already increased by $1,000 a month due to the pandemic, they said, and they are not currently bringing in enough money to cover their rent and other expenses. Still, the men vow to stay open as long as they can.
“We have a responsibility to queer people of color to make sure that this place lasts, and it’s extremely difficult when we run into obstacles,” Solomon said, “but the glass is half full.”
A man in New York City is believed to have been violently hacked to death with a machete during a Grindr hook-up.
Juan Alonso, 50, has been charged with murder, manslaughter and criminal possession of a weapon after police were called to an apartment in the Bronx on Sunday evening.
Alonso’s flatmate had returned home to discover the victim’s naked body and Alonso, machete in hand, standing over him, police say.
The victim, whose name is not yet public, is believed to have met the alleged killer on Grindr.
A police spokesperson said that officials “are investigating whether there was a dispute over not liking certain sex activities and it escalated”.
Alonso has been hospitalised for a psychiatric evaluation, according to reports.
Building superintendent John Gonzalez told the New York Daily News the victim was “cut up” and left “on the floor in pieces”.
He added: “I asked [Alonso] what happened when they were putting him in the squad car.
“He said he was trying to defend himself. He said he was in the bed sleeping — and when he woke up, there was someone was on top of him trying to rape him… he was out of it.”
Gonzalez added: “He was a good guy. I always talked to him. He always was calm. He didn’t look like the type of guy who would do something like that.”
Lesbian, gay and bisexual people are significantly more likely to get migraines than straight people, and scientists believe the stress of bigotry could be one reason why.
A survey of 10,000 Americans aged 31-42 by San Francisco’s University of California found that almost a third of LGB people experienced migraines, a figure 58 per cent higher than in heterosexual participants.
And although the researchers were unable to pinpoint the exact reason behind the painful and disabling headaches, we can only assume that the constant strain of dealing with cis straight nonsense is a contributing factor.
“There might be a higher rate of migraines in LGB people because of discrimination, stigma or prejudice, which may lead to stress and trigger a migraine,” the study’s lead author Dr Jason Nagata told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
“Physicians should be aware that migraines are quite common in LGB individuals and assess for migraine symptoms.”
Migraines can be accompanied by sensitivity to light and sound as well as blurred vision, nausea and vomiting. The throbbing headaches are the most common reason for emergency room visits in the US, and while there are many different triggers, the cause is still unclear.
The study found that the increased risk of migraines was seen even in those who identified as “mostly heterosexual but with some same-sex attractions”.
It’s possible that the prevalence in the queer population is connected to the rise in hate crimes, which have reached the highest levels in a decade in the US. LGBT+ people are among the most frequently targeted groups, alongside Jews and Black people.
Dr Nagata also considered that another reason LGB people may be more likely to get migraines could be the barriers of receiving healthcare.
Other studies have shown that women are much more likely to experience migraines than men, and up to 85 per cent of American migraine sufferers are female.
Migraines also appear to be more common among Black Americans and Americans with lower socioeconomic status, according to the National Headache Foundation.
A Republican has urged other conservatives to back Amy Coney Barrett as the new Supreme Court justice so that LGBT+ rights “will no longer see the light of day”.
Brian Brown, head of the anti-gay National Organisation for Marriage, told his followers that it is “absolutely imperative” that Barrett be appointed to the Supreme Court in an email.×
Brown, who once compared himself to Jesus and has fought to reverse progress on LGBT+ rights, told followers that they must launch an “unprecedented effort to ensure that this justice confirmed without delay”.
“I’m asking you to make a sacrificial financial gift to [National Organisation for Marriage] right now so that we can immediately deploy a comprehensive pressure campaign aimed at holding Republican Senate votes to confirm president Trump’s pick to the Supreme Court,” Brown wrote, according to an email published by JMG.
“This is a moment that could pay decades of dividends for all the issues we care about,” he added.ADVERTISING
“We’ve never had a bigger opportunity to advance our cause. Will you be with us at this historic moment?”
Republican Brian Brown wants Amy Coney Barrett appointed to the Supreme Court so they can roll back LGBT+ rights.
Brown went on to claim that the left “has gone absolutely berserk” since Trump announced the staunchly anti-LGBT+ Roman Catholic as his nominee to the Supreme Court, following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“This is the Supreme Court nomination that could finally bring us a reversal of Roe v Wade and usher in a pro-life majority on the court,” he added.
“It could pave the way for the restoration of marriage to our laws and scrapping the illegitimate, anti-constitutional imposition of same-sex ‘marriage’ on the nation.
“It will mean that religious liberty will be restored to its rightful place as a foundational constitutional right, and that the fake ‘rights’ that are constantly demanded by the left – including special rules for homosexuals and the so-called transgendered – will no longer see the light of day.”
Brown said “LGBT extremists” will do “everything in their power to block” Barrett’s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.
“It’s imperative that we be on the front lines fighting for control of the Supreme Court by demanding that Republicans support president Trump’s nominee.”
The Roman Catholic Supreme Court nominee has expressed her opposition to same-sex marriage in the past.
Trump officially announced Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court on Saturday (26 September).https://lockerdome.com/lad/13296932562903654?pubid=ld-5883-3439&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinknews.co.uk&rid=www.pinknews.co.uk&width=572
LGBT+ organisations and advocates have expressed concern over the nomination because of Barrett’s anti-gay beliefs, as well as her membership of a religious group that declares that husbands are the leaders of their wives.
In 2015, Barrett signed a letter to the Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, declaring support for “the Church’s teachings… on the meaning of human sexuality, the significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women; on openness to life… and on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman”.
In 2017, Barrett was grilled by Democratic senators during her confirmation hearing to become a United States circuit judge on whether her staunch Catholic beliefs would affect her judgement on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion.
Senator Dianne Feinstein told Barrett: “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”
At the time, 27 LGBT+ rights groups opposed Barrett’s confirmation in an open letter, expressing concern that “her religiously-infused moral beliefs would inform her judicial decision-making”.
A federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration in litigation challenging the transgender military ban, ordering the Defense Department to turn over documents it had previously on the policy withheld on the basis they were predecisional and deliberative before the restriction went into effect.
U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman in Washington State, a Clinton appointee, issued an order Friday requiring the Trump administration to hand over documents requested as part of the discovery process for the lawsuit by October 5.
“This matter comes before the court upon defendants’ recent submission of documents for in camera review, filed in response to the court’s recent orders on defendants’ assertion of the deliberative process privilege,” Pechman writes. “After careful examination of each document submitted for in camera review, the court finds that the documents do not fall within the proper scope of the deliberative process privilege and orders defendants to produce the documents by October 5.”
The lawsuit, Karnowski v. Trump, was filed in 2017 by the LGBTQ group Lambda Legal and the group now known as the Modern Military Association of America on behalf of various plaintiffs, including transgender military service members and the Human Rights Campaign, against the ban.
Peter Perkowski, legal and policy director for the Modern Military Association of America, said via email to the Washington Blade the order is a victory in the ongoing lawsuit.
“The Trump-Pence administration has once again lost to legal scrutiny and can no longer hide critical documents related to Trump’s unconstitutional transgender military ban,” Perkowski said. “From the moment Trump recklessly tweeted his ban to the day the Department of Defense implemented it, it has always been crystal clear that this transgender military ban is based on nothing more than blatant discrimination.”
The lawsuit before Pechman in Washington State was filed after President Trump tweeted in 2017 he’d ban transgender people from the military “in any capacity,” but before the Pentagon under former Defense Secretary James Mattis completed his six-month policy and implemented restrictions based on his recommendations.
The case has been percolating through the Ninth Circuit for years. Although Pechman initially issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the transgender military ban, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that order, allowing the policy to go into effect as litigation proceeds.
At issue in the order Pechman granted Friday are documents related to the discovery process in the lawsuit, which compels the U.S. government to produce material relevant to the transgender military ban. Those documents are expected to demonstrate whether the Defense Department implemented policy against transgender people as result of Trump’s tweet, or whether the military determined it needed to exclude them as result of an independent review former Defense Secretary James Mattis was conducting at the time.
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020 leaves a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court and enormous uncertainty over the court’s future role in the protection of fundamental human rights. A nominee for Justice Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court should be evaluated in terms of their likely impact on access to justice for critical human rights guarantees, including the rights to life, due process, free expression, privacy, health, freedom from arbitrary detention, and freedom from discrimination.
The following areas of Supreme Court decision-making–voting rights, the right to health, the right to reproductive freedom, and the interaction between religious freedom and other rights–are only some of the domains in which Justice Ginsburg’s replacement could either help to protect or weaken basic rights, with particularly significant impacts on people of color, women and girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The stakes of the decision before US elected officials are tremendous. We urge senators to thoroughly review any nominee’s record on these and other issues and to question a nominee closely about key rights protections that hinge on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.
Voting Rights
The 15th and 19th Amendments to the US Constitution recognize the rights of all citizens to vote without discrimination. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a party, provides that “every citizen shall have the right and opportunity” without discrimination or “unreasonable restrictions” to “vote and be elected at genuine periodic elections … guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.”
Over Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, the Supreme Court has already eviscerated federal oversight under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, enabling states to impose discriminatory restrictions on the right to vote. The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated these problems and the Supreme Court has already ruled to restrict voting rights, including by rejecting attempts by states in several cases to adapt voting procedures to the pandemic. With new legislation to restore federal oversight over voting pending in Congress, a new justice could play a pivotal role in either erecting new barriers or upholding the right to vote without discrimination.
Right to Health
The right to health under international human rights law does not guarantee a right to be healthy, but obligates governments to enact policies promoting available and affordable basic health services without discrimination. Governments should take particular care to ensure access to those most likely to face obstacles–people living in poverty, racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, women, and children, among others.
As the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicaid, and reproductive health care rights continue to be the subject of litigation in both federal and state courts, the Supreme Court is likely to act as the final arbiter on the constitutionality and permissibility of these programs. These decisions will have profound and far-reaching rights impact, at a time when the number of uninsured is already increasing. They will potentially determine whether millions of people in the United States will have access to health care during the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond.
Rights to Reproductive Freedom
Everyone should be able to exercise their reproductive rights and maintain their health, privacy, and dignity. In a series of cases over the last five decades, the Supreme Court has taken important steps to protect women’s health and human rights, including their freedom to access contraceptive care and abortion services. Recently, though, the court has shown it is willing to curtail those rights. Justice Ginsburg’s replacement will be poised to protect or undo jurisprudence ensuring women’s access to abortion.
A new justice could eliminate constitutional protections for women’s right to access abortion by upholding excessive regulation of abortion providers or by abandoning the Roe v. Wadeline of precedent and instead leaving it to individual states to determine access to legal abortion. If that happens, many states might criminalize abortion. At least four states already have “trigger laws” on the books that automatically outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned, and dozens of others have laws that put access to abortion at high risk.
Even without fully overturning Roe, a decision that narrows the court’s understanding of what kinds of restrictions or regulations present an undue burden on a person seeking an abortion, or one that redefines the test for analyzing the constitutionality of abortion regulations, could severely curtail reproductive rights in the United States.
LGBT Rights
Sexual orientation and gender identity are integral aspects of our being and should never lead to discrimination or abuse. International human rights law protects the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) to privacy, nondiscrimination, and equal protection of the law. While a recent 6-3 Supreme Court ruling banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity should remain settled law, other issues that are likely to come before the court will also be highly consequential for LGBT people. The court is likely to be confronted with efforts to limit the scope of or reverse landmark decisions protecting the rights of LGBT people, such as Obergefell v. Hodges,which established that same-sex couples enjoy the same marriage rights as different-sex couples. Even if this decision were not overturned altogether, a new justice may be considering challenges aimed at allowing states to discriminate against same-sex married couples.
Ensuring Religious Freedom Without Undermining Other Rights
Freedom of religion is protected under international human rights law as well as the US Constitution. While a government can craft accommodations for religious objectors, they should ensure that these are carefully constructed so that they do not come at the expense of the equality or dignity of others.
The next justice will most likely weigh in on whether an employer’s religious liberty permits them to refuse contraceptive coverage to their employees. Under the Affordable Care Act, Congress delegated the authority to define the scope of reproductive health services to Department of Health and Human Services experts. A 2011 recommendation included all Federal Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, sterilization, and education and counselling as part of preventive health services.
But in a line of cases, including Hobby Lobby v. Burwell (2014) and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania(2020), the court has permitted employers to raise conscience-based objections to the contraceptive mandate. In Ginsburg’s dissent to the 2020 Little Sisters ruling, she stated, “Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.” Continued litigation on this issue is expected, as the question whether the expansion of the refusal exemption is reasonable has been returned to lower courts.
The new justice will also be central to deciding cases involving efforts to seek religious exemptionsfrom laws that protect the rights of LGBT people and reproductive rights. International human rights law recognizes the importance of the rights to freedom of conscience and religion, but also elaborates their limits, particularly where their exercise threatens to negatively impact the fundamental rights of others.
In recent years, litigants have sought to use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the US Constitution’s free exercise of religion clause to challenge laws requiring government officials to register the marriages of same-sex couples and laws prohibiting discrimination in education, employment, housing, health care, and public accommodations. In 2018, the Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, sidestepping the larger questions. The court is set to consider the issue this fall in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case involving a religious foster care agency that argues that it has a right to receive state contracts and support even if it will not comply with the city’s nondiscrimination requirements.
During her Sept. 18 appearance on pastor Todd Coconato’s “Bombshell” podcast , right-wing former Rep. Michele Bachmann frantically warned that if Joe Biden is elected president, he will make it a priority to pass the Equality Act and strip Christian conservatives of their rights.
If passed, the Equality Act would expand federal civil rights laws to include protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. However, Bachmann warned that not allowing Christians to discriminate on such grounds would amount to unconstitutional discrimination against Christians.
“Joe Biden has said the very first thing he would do as president of the United States is to put in place the Equality Act,” Bachmann said. “It’s really the Inequality Act, because the Equality Act would add the words ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ’65. And that would completely upend the Civil Rights Act, which was meant to give equality to Blacks in all areas of life in the United States, which was a good thing. This actually, in my perspective, harms all people because it really is about punishing. It gives special rights to certain people who practice certain behaviors. It’s about giving rights to feelings, not to immutable physical characteristics.”
“Even worse,” she added, “we’re all going to lose rights. Those who believe in a biblical standard, we will be punished. We will no longer be able to verbally or practice life in the way that we used to practice life because we’ll be punished for what the Bible says. If we speak what the Bible says, we’ll be punished.”