Amid the national horror following the police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota, LGBTQ and civil rights groups have issued a joint statement declaring anti-racism and an end to white supremacy must be “integral to the objective of full equality for LGBTQ people.”
Anger over the death of Floyd, a black man who appears on video to have been choked to death at the hands of white police officers as he pled to breathe, sparked riots in Minnesota and prompted the governor to call in the National Guard. Tensions were increased after police arrested CNN reporter Omar Jimenez and his crew on air as he was reporting on the riots.
“Many of our organizations have made progress in adopting intersectionality as a core value and have committed to be more diverse, equitable, and inclusive,” the statement says. “But this moment requires that we go further — that we make explicit commitments to embrace anti racism and end white supremacy, not as necessary corollaries to our mission, but as integral to the objective of full equality for LGBTQ people.”
The statement, which was spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign, was signed by 75 groups, issues the call “Black Lives Matter” and enumerates the names of several black people who have been victims of racism and violence in the past year alone.
Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso David, who’s black, echoed in a statement words by Archbishop Desmond Tutu 30 years ago: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
“The racist violence that has filled our television, computer and phone screens this spring is a stark reminder of how far we still must go to ensure that the promise of America is not dependent on the color of one’s skin,”David said. “When we see injustice, we must speak out as strongly as we can. Otherwise, we are complicit in oppression.”
Among the incidents cited are Floyd’s death as well as the killing of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia; the death of Breonna Taylor in a shooting with police in Louisville; a white woman in New York City calling the police on Christian Cooper a black gay man who told her to obey the rules in Central Park and leash her dog; and the killings of at least 12 transgender people so far in this year alone.
“All of these incidents are stark reminders of why we must speak out when hate, violence, and systemic racism claim — too often with impunity — Black Lives,” the statement says.
As onlookers recoil from the images of riots in Minnesota, the letter invoked the Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York City, which is considered the birth of the modern LGBTQ movement.
“The LGBTQ community knows about the work of resisting police brutality and violence,” the statement says. “We celebrate June as Pride Month, because it commemorates, in part, our resisting police harassment and brutality at Stonewall in New York City, and earlier in California, when such violence was common and expected. We remember it as a breakthrough moment when we refused to accept humiliation and fear as the price of living fully, freely, and authentically.”
Signers of the letter include the American Civil Liberties Union, the Trevor Project as well as state LGBTQ groups, such as Equality Arizona, Equality California and Equality Florida.
Amid concerns the coronavirus pandemic could endanger voters seeking to cast their ballots in the 2020 election, LGBTQ members of Congress have launched an initiative with the Human Rights Campaign to call on states to expand access to voting by mail, early voting and absentee ballots.
The project — called “Vote Equal, Vote Safe” — is part of a larger endeavor within the Human Rights Campaign to identify the estimated 57 million “equality voters” in the United States — LGBTQ people or voters who prioritize LGBTQ rights — and ensure they’re taking part in the election.
Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that early business openings in Georgia and court decisions requiring voters to head to the polls in Wisconsin — both criticized for exposing people to the coronavirus — illustrate why alternative voting is necessary.
“As our nation continues to battle COVID-19, it is clear this pandemic will affect how millions of Americans will vote this fall,” David said. “From Wisconsin to Georgia, partisan politicians have put their own political interests ahead of the health and safety of voters. We will not stand for this and will not be silent. Our community has been subjected to voter suppression before and we will not be passive in the face of efforts to disenfranchise us again.”
Among the leaders of the initiative are Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the most senior openly gay member of Congress, and Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.). Both are co-chairs of the Congressional LGBTQ Equality Caucus.
“During this pandemic, we should be doing everything we can to protect people’s health and their access to the ballot box — expanding vote by mail is critical to ensuring that,” Takano said in a statement. “I’m grateful for the work HRC is doing to make sure that the voices of our community are being heard, while their safety is prioritized. As someone who votes by mail, I encourage everyone to register to vote, to request a mail ballot, and to exercise their right to vote safely from their home.”
Enumerated as goals in a statement on the launch of “Vote Equal, Vote Safe” is online voter registration, same-day voter registration, allowing no excuse absentee voting for everyone, allowing no witness requirement for absentee voting and allowing community organizations to help collect and deliver voted, sealed ballots.
If ballots must be cast in person, the initiative calls for extending early voting times and dates, increasing the number of in-person early voting places and Election Day polling locations and following CDC safety guidance at all in-person voting locations.
As Democrats have pushed for greater access to voting by mail and absentee voting, President Trump and Republicans have resisted those calls. Trump has claimed voting by mail could lead to voter fraud, which critics have denounced as baseless.
Michael Ahrens, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, expressed skepticism about the Human Rights Campaign initiative.
“Republicans want people to vote,” Ahrens said. “We actually register more than the DNC does. Democrats and their allies are currently suing several states to remove existing safeguards like ballot signature verification and a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day, safeguards that over 80 percent of voters support. They are also trying to legalize ballot harvesting nationwide, where unaccountable paid activists go door-to-door to collect thousands of ballots, a practice that jeopardizes people’s health as well as the security of their ballot. Americans deserve to have confidence in their elections, but many of the Democrats’ proposals would actually undermine it.”
Also participating in the “Vote Equal, Vote Safe” are Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the first out lesbian elected to the Senate, and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).
Voting by mail proved crucial in 2018 for the election of Sinema, now the only out bisexual in Congress. Although returns initially showed her opponent, then-candidate Martha McSally, in the lead, Sinema was declared the victor days later after ballots cast by mail were counted.
“Arizonans have voted by mail safely and securely for years, and it’s time the rest of the country follow Arizona’s lead,” Sinema said in a statement. “The Human Rights Campaign’s ‘Vote Equal, Vote Safe’ Initiative will help ensure everyday Americans can exercise our constitutional rights while staying safe during this public health crisis.”
The priority states the Human Rights Campaign has identified in the 2020 election: Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. Three of these states — Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania — have changed election laws since the 2018 election to allow for expanded access to the ballot box, according to the organization.
According to HRC, many individuals in minority or underrepresented communities distrust voting by absentee vote or mail voting. As part of the “Vote Equal, Vote Safe” project, the organization says it will work with partners to boost the percentage of voters who vote by mail or absentee.
Joining the Human Rights Campaign and LGBTQ lawmakers in the effort are Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn), both of whom have been cited as possible running mates for Joseph Biden.
Harris cited the anti-LGBTQ policy decisions from the Trump administration as reasons to ensure “equality voters” should have a range of options to cast their ballot in November.
“As President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence continue attacks on the LGBTQ community, the stakes couldn’t be higher this election for Equality Voters,” Harris said. “This is why we must ensure that everyone can safely make their voice heard and have their votes counted as the nation continues to grapple with the coronavirus pandemic. This election year, we have the opportunity to send a powerful message at the ballot box: That anti-equality voices won’t win.”
As part of this effort, volunteers with the Human Rights Campaign each week on Tuesday have been holding virtual phone bank sessions in which they call potential voters, seek to identify them as “equality voters” and ask them to vote by mail or absentee.
Lucas Acosta, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, said the phone-banking efforts have been underway for 12 weeks, but declined to comment on the number of voters contacted.
Not enumerated in the announcement on the launch of “Vote Equal, Vote Safe” are state voter ID laws, which critics say are intended to restrict votes from minorities, youth, the elderly and transgender people whose gender identity may not match the gender marker on their IDs.
Acosta, however, said the project will “definitely” cover voter ID laws and build on efforts to overturn them.
“We will continue to oppose unnecessary, overly stringent voter ID laws and work to undo them in states across the country,” Acosta said.
In a surprise order on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant the state of Idaho’s request to block gender reassignment surgery for a transgender inmate, which lower courts affirmed is her right to obtain under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The one-page order indicates the state’s request was submitted to U.S. Associate Justice Elena Kagan, who referred the matter to the entire court. The application for a stay, however, was denied.
It would have taken a majority vote of at least five justices to have granted the stay, but the vote isn’t recorded. According to the order, U.S. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito “would grant the application” to halt the procedure.
The request was filed in the case of Edmo v. Idaho Department of Correction, which was filed by Adree Edmo, a Native American transgender woman who’s been the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction since April 2012.
Previously, U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill in Idaho ruled in December 2018 requiring the Idaho Department of Correction and its medical provider Corizon to the surgery to Edmo with six months, although that surgery has yet to take place as that litigation has continued.
Although the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision, it had placed a stay on the injunction requiring the surgery under its mandate was handed down. That occurred in February, which led Idaho to seek a stay from the Supreme Court to halt the procedure.
The litigation on behalf of Edmo was filed by National Center for Lesbian Rights along with Rifkin Law Office, Hadsell Stormer and Renick LLP, and Ferguson Durham, PLLC.
Lori Rifkin, lead attorney for Edmo, said in a statement the Supreme Court “appropriately declined the state’s request for a stay that would have prevented Ms. Edmo from getting the care she needs.”
“Because the lower court decisions applied settled Eighth Amendment precedent to the facts of this case, there is no basis for further review of those careful and detailed decisions,” Rifkin said.
Amy Whelan, senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a statement Edmo will now “get medically necessary surgery that she has needed for years.”
“The lower courts found, based on extensive evidence and proof, that the Idaho Department of Corrections and Corizon Health are violating Ms. Edmo’s constitutional rights by withholding this critical medical care,” Whelan said. “Today’s decision means that the state can no longer delay in providing care that is essential to Ms. Edmo’s health, safety, and well-being.”
“As every court to consider this case has found, the balance of hardships swings heavily in one direction: each day applicants withhold necessary medical treatment, Adree Edmo suffers irreparable harm,” the brief says. “After two attempts at self-castration — including one in which Ms. Edmo ‘was able to open her testicle sac with a razor blade and remove one testicle’ before ‘abandon[ing] her attempt…when there was too much blood to continue,’…Edmo is finally scheduled to receive the surgery she needs in July 2020.”
Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, on the same day the order was handed down, filed a brief before the Supreme Court urging justices to grant the stay, calling arguments from Edmo’s attorneys “a facade of cherry-picked statements, mischaracterized facts and misread cases.”
“Respondent cites to the possibility of self-harm, as well as daily distress until receiving surgery,” Wasden said. “But, it remains undisputed that staying the surgery will not foreclose respondent from undergoing the surgery in the near future if this court affirms the injunction or, alternatively, upon her release from prison next year. A delay in implementation of the injunction does not constitute irreparable harm.”
A Wasden spokesperson declined to comment on the Supreme Court order that was issued against the state.
Although the Supreme Court denying Idaho’s request for a stay, the state’s petition to review the case remains pending before justices. It’s hard to see the basis for which the litigation could continue if Edmo receives gender reassignment surgery now that the stay against the order is lifted.
The Supreme Court declined to block transgender surgery as the issue over whether the procedure is constitutionally required for inmates who request it remains continues to percolate. It seems likely the Supreme Court will soon take up a vehicle to decide the issue once-and-for all at a national level.
The Ninth Circuit is not the only circuit to have affirmed denying gender reassignment surgery to prisoners is contrary to the Eighth Amendment. However, First, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have ruled the other way and determined prison systems can deny the procedure to inmates. (A three-judge panel on the First Circuit initially ruled in favor of granting transgender surgeries to inmates, but that was overturned December 2014 in an “en banc” decision.)
It’s not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has acted on gender reassignment surgery for transgender inmates, although previously it went the other way. In May 2015, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Michelle Kosilek, a transgender inmate who was denied surgery by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections.
The U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to grant religious schools an expanded ministerial exemption in employment decisions based on oral arguments Monday in litigation that could have significant bearing on LGBTQ teachers at these institutions.
The cases, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, Agnes and St. James School v. Darryl Biel, were brought by Catholic schools seeking immunity under the law to conduct employment practices for non-ministerial jobs — such as the hiring and firing of teachers — consistent with their religious beliefs under the exemption granted by the First Amendment.
The schools raised the claims in response to a lawsuit from teachers alleging wrongful termination. One alleges she was terminated based on age discrimination, the other based on disability after having to request time off to treat cancer. The schools have maintained the termination was the result the teachers not fulfilling their ministerial roles at the schools.
Predictably, the five conservative justices on the bench seemed amenable to the idea of an expanded ministerial exemption, while the four liberal justices were against it.
U.S. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was blunt in her questioning about the possible implications of a ruling in favor of Catholic schools, calling it “staggering.”
“Suppose a teacher who does everything the two teachers in these cases do as a faith leader also reports a student’s complaint of sexual harassment by a priest and is terminated,” Ginsburg said. “She has no remedy?”
U.S. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, appeared to justify a decision for the Catholic schools by indicating the work of teachers there would be considered a violation of the Establishment Clause at a public schools.
“It’s my understanding they actually let them from time to time in prayer or took them to service, things like that,” Thomas said.
The cases have broad implications for workers at religious schools, including LGBTQ teachers. The ruling could impact whether gay teachers have a legal right to sue a Catholic school if they’re terminated for entering into a same-sex marriage, or transgender teachers if they’re fired for undergoing a gender transition.
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said based on the arguments the court seems ready to grant Catholic schools the considerable leeway they’re requesting.
“It seems likely there are enough votes to broaden the scope of the so-called ‘ministerial exception’ for religious employers, which would give religious schools and other religious employers more leeway to fire workers without regard for anti-discrimination laws, including those that protect LGBTQ people,” Minter said.
Jeffrey Fisher, an attorney with the Menlo Park, Calif.-based law firm O’Melveny & Myers LLP, represented the teachers who were terminated and estimated hundreds of thousands of lay teachers across the country may be affected.
“The schools’ argument would strip more than 300,000 lay teachers in religious schools across the country of basic employment law protections — and necessarily included in this number are teachers who teach so-called secular classes,” Fisher said.
The Trump administration backed the arguments from the religious schools during oral arguments by sending — completely on a voluntary basis because the U.S. government isn’t a party in the litigation — a high-level attorney to argue in favor of an expansive ministerial exemption.
Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General Morgan Ratner maintained a ruling in favor of an expanded ministerial exemption would be consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
“Under Hosanna Tabor, those teachers are ministering to their students by teaching them how and why to be Catholic, so this should fall within the ministerial exemption regardless of what the school calls them,” Ratner said.
Much of the argument in favor of the expanded ministerial exemption rested on the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC, the 2012 ruling that determined federal discrimination laws don’t apply to religious organizations’ selection of ministerial leaders. However, that decision didn’t specify which employees are considered ministers and which aren’t.
Eric Rassbach, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty who represented the Catholic schools before the court, said the court’s decision in Hosanna Tabor compels to rule in favor of an expanded ministerial exemption.
“Eight years ago in Hosanna Tabor — the pretext inquiry, the notice requirements, the idea that freedom of association makes freedom of religion entirely unnecessary — all were raised in Hosanna Tabor and rejected unanimously,” Rassbach said. “Eight years later, respond to arguments are not any more convincing. In short, there’s no reason for government to get into business of teaching religion.”
U.S. Associate Justice Elena Kagan sought to clarify the implication of what Rassbach was seeking by peppering with questions on hypothetical jobs for which he thinks the ministerial exemption should apply.
A math teacher who is told to teach something about Judaism for 10 minutes a week? “Probably not.” A press or communications staffer who prepares press release for a religious institution? “That should fall within it.” An employee at a soup kitchen who distributes religious literature and leads grace before meals? “My guess is that that would be de minimius.” A church organist who provides musical accompaniment and selects hymns for religious services? “I think that would fall within it because that’s an important religious function.”
A nurse at a Catholic hospitals who prays with sick patients and is told otherwise to tend to their religious needs? “I think a nurse doing that kind of counseling and care may well fall within the exception.”
Fisher seized on Rassbach’s admission nurses at Catholic hospitals would have no recourse under non-discrimination law with an expanded ministerial exemption as evidence of the breadth of such a decision.
“If you write an opinion that says all important religious functions trigger the ministerial exception, I don’t think there’s any way to escape — you’re going to have the cases with the nurses, you’re going to have the cases with the football coaches, you’re going to have the cases with the summer counselors,” Fisher said. “The only thing the other side says to that in our brief is, ‘Well, those cases haven’t been brought so much,’ but my answer to that is that just shows how revolutionary their case would be, because there’s no good answer to those cases and Mr. Rassbach himself said nurses would be covered.”
U.S. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor also expressed fear about the potential ruling for an expansive ministerial exemption because the two teachers in the cases “are not claiming that they were fired because the school thought they were teaching religion wrong.”
“You’re asking for an exception to the Family & Medical Leave Act, to wage and hourly laws to all sorts of laws, including breach of contract, because at least one of the schools here, contract with the teacher says they won’t discriminate because of the teachers age or disability,” Sotomayor said.
The conservative justices, nonetheless, devised scenarios in their questioning that appeared to justify having an expanded ministerial exemption for employment at religious schools.
U.S. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch raised the possibility of a religious school with limited funds that hires a full-time teacher, but asks the teacher to act as a religious leader part-time, or a religion that believes all its members are leaders of the faith.
“You said we shouldn’t focus on their sincerely held religious beliefs, but that is what we do elsewhere in First Amendment jurisprudence,” Gorsuch said. “We don’t second guess those sincerely held religious beliefs. Why would we do it here?”
Although the issue of titles was brought up as a way to distinguish between ministerial and non-ministerial positions, U.S. Associate Justice Samuel Alito said that would be insufficient because titles don’t always give a clear indication of role.
“How does it even help to understand the person’s role?” Alito said. “Suppose you have two people who do exactly the same thing in two different religiously affiliated schools but one has a title and the other one doesn’t have a title, other than the title of the teacher. Why should the presence or absence of this title make any difference?”
It’s true LGBTQ people, as of now, have extremely limited explicit non-discrimination protections under federal law, but the Supreme Court will soon issue a ruling on the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that will determine whether the law covers LGBTQ people. A ruling for Catholic schools in these cases would undercut an LGBTQ-inclusive in the Title VII litigation.
Further, a ruling in favor of an expanded ministerial exemption would undermine the laws in 21 states and D.C. that bar anti-LGBTQ discrimination in the workforce. Not just LGBTQ people would be affected. A ruling for Catholic schools would also allow them to discriminate based on race, national origin, disability or any other category in non-ministerial jobs.
U.S. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer noted various categories of people with histories of discrimination against which a religious institution could lawfully terminate if the ruling came out in favor of the Catholic schools.
“This case has to do with a religious organization might dismiss someone on the basis of race or religion or national origin…where that isn’t related to the carrying on of the religious activity, for example, a person who’s handicapped,” Breyer said.
Minter echoed that concern in his assessment of the oral arguments based on the way judges appeared to lean in favor of an expanded ministerial exemption.
“If the schools win today’s cases, religious schools would be able to fire many more LGBTQ teachers based purely on anti-LGBTQ animus or for any other reason, regardless of whether they have a religious reason for doing so,” Minter said.
A decision in the case is expected before next month at the end of the term for the Supreme Court.
For the first time, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention is including data on transgender people in its reports on HIV infections — and the results show a gradual increase in new cases of the disease over the past several years.
Compared to previous reports that placed transgender people in the same category as “male” and “female,” the latest iteration of total diagnoses of HIV Infection in the United States made public Thursday contains an entire section devoted to transgender people.
The inclusion of the transgender data is part of the CDC’s first-ever inclusion of national-level data by gender in the report. Additionally, CDC has for the first time released estimates of HIV incidence for Puerto Rico and at the county level for high-incidence jurisdictions as the Trump administration’s plan to focus on these areas to beat the HIV epidemic by 2030.
But the news for transgender people isn’t good. According to Diagnoses of HIV Infection in the United States and Dependent Areas, the number of diagnoses of HIV infection for transgender adults and adolescents increased.
Overall, the number of reported new infections increased from 553 in 2014, 589 in 2015, 638 in 2016, 584 in 2017 to 601 in 2018. The diagnoses accounted for about 2 percent of new HIV infections in the United States, according to CDC.
In terms of race and ethnicity, the number of diagnoses of HIV infection for Hispanic/Latino transgender adults and adolescents increased, while the number of diagnoses of HIV infection for black/African American, white and multi-racial transgender adults remained stable. It should be noted the numbers of HIV infection among black and Latino transgender people are higher than other groups.
Overwhelmingly, new HIV infections are higher for transgender women than for transgender men across multiple races. The largest percentage of new infections for transgender women as opposed to transgender men was persons of multiple races at 96 percent, followed by Hispanics/Latinos at 94 percent and blacks/African-Americans at 93 percent. For the white demographics, transgender women made up 76 percent of new diagnoses compared to transgender men at 24 percent.
In terms of region, the number of diagnoses of HIV infection among transgender adults and adolescents in the Northeast and West increased, but they remained stable in the Midwest and South.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute, told the Blade he’s “pleased that the CDC is finally recognizing the transgender community, instead of lumping them in as either ‘male’ or ‘female,’ when reporting HIV data.”
“It is something that the HIV and transgender communities have been asking for decades,” Schmid said. “With this recognition and improved data, local communities will be able to develop better HIV prevention messages and programs.”
Harper Jean Tobin, director of policy for the National Center for Transgender Equality, was critical of CDC for the length of time it took publish data on the transgender population.
“It has taken far too long for the CDC to begin reporting this critical data with this kind of depth,” Tobin said. “This data confirms past research and speaks to the high rates of discrimination, violence, poverty, unemployment, homelessness, incarceration, and barriers to health care among transgender people, and especially transgender women of color.”
Although Tobin acknowledged the rate of HIV infection is rising among transgender people across the board, she pointed out it isn’t clear “how much this reflects an increase in data quality (i.e., trans people were less likely to be recorded as trans in prior years) or actual increases in incidence.” Either way, Tobin said the data demonstrates the need for action.
“To combat these disparities, we must take action against the discrimination and stigma that drive them and invest in economic opportunity and equal access to health care for this vulnerable population,” Tobin said.
The Washington Blade has placed a request with the CDC seeking comment on reasoning behind the addition of transgender data in the HIV reports.
A bicameral group of congressional lawmakers led by Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) and Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) are calling on the Trump administration to ensure international efforts to assist with the COVID-19 pandemic overseas include relief for LGBTQ people.
In a letter dated May 7 obtained exclusively by the Washington Blade, the 47 members of Congress — all Democrats — make the case the U.S. response to the coronavirus overseas “will be seen as a test of our country’s commitment to the protection of human rights and American values of fairness and equality.”
The lawmakers urge the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development to protect LGBTQ human rights overseas during the coronavirus crisis in three ways:
First, the letter calls on the Trump administration to “intervene at senior levels with governments that are using the COVID-19 crisis to persecute or discriminate against LGBTQI and other marginalized communities.”
Also, the lawmakers seek the inclusion of LGBTQ people in both short- and long-term response and recovery programs in addition to calling on partner countries to adopt the same approach.
“Restrictions aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19 have placed a large burden on those in the informal economy, cutting off income streams and preventing them from obtaining food or secure shelter,” the letter says. “As a result, the pandemic has heightened the vulnerability of LGBTQI and other marginalized populations to poverty, food insecurity and homelessness.”
Finally, the lawmakers call for access to health services the United States provides overseas, such as “treatment for HIV and other COVID-exacerbating conditions, as well as other necessary healthcare services, including sexual and reproductive health.”
“LGBTQI people and other vulnerable populations face stigma and discrimination in obtaining healthcare services, especially in countries where same- sex sexual conduct or non-normative gender expression is criminalized,” the letter says. “This hinders access to lifesaving healthcare services and puts their lives at even greater risk during this pandemic.”
The State Department declined to comment on the letter, citing a general practice of no comment on congressional correspondence. USAID didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment.
Joseph Biden has obtained the official support from a leading transgender rights group, which has endorsed him in his bid to unseat President Trump from the White House.
The National Center for Transgender Equality Action Fund signaled on Tuesday its support for Biden in an announcement first reported by The Advocate.
“Joe Biden is the advocate and president we need at this consequential moment,”Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality Action Fund, said in a statement.
“He has the temperament, the experience and wisdom to lead our country,” Keisling added. “Throughout his career in public service, work as a private citizen through the Biden Foundation, and now his campaign to lead our nation, Biden has demonstrated his commitment to transgender people and the LGBTQ community.”
It’s the first presidential endorsement decision from the National Center for Transgender Equality Action Fund, which was established in 2017 as a political arm for the 501(c)(3) transgender policy group known similarly as the National Center for Transgender Equality.
Reggie Greer, LGBTQ+ vote director for Biden for President, said in a statement the campaign is “deeply honored” to have the support from the National Center for Transgender Equality Action Fund.
“NCTE Action Fund has done trailblazing work to change the landscape of America, educate and lobby elected leaders, and empower and mobilize transgender people to ensure their voices are heard at the ballot box,” Greer said. “That record, and network to countless voters on the ground, is especially crucial in this time of uncertainty and upheaval.”
Biden, who built a significant record on LGBTQ rights as vice president, has also made himself known as an ally to the transgender community. The former vice president has repeatedly said transgender rights are “the civil rights issue of our time.”
In contrast, the Trump administration has rolled back protections for transgender people in employment, health care and education in addition to enacting a ban barring transgender people from the U.S. military.
“The Trump administration is really the discrimination administration,” Keisling said. “President Trump has attacked transgender health care, put transgender students unnecessarily at risk and led a consistent and unrelenting effort to rollback protections for LGBTQ Americans. Joe Biden is the clear choice for president of the United States, and the NCTE Action Fund is proud to endorse him.”
Endorsements for Biden continue to pile up, but one LGBTQ organization that has yet to declared its official support is the Human Rights Campaign. The nation’s leading LGBTQ group stayed out the Democratic primary and has yet to Biden, even though he’s now the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The Washington Blade has repeatedly sought an update from HRC on the endorsement decision, but no receive no information.
With the economy frozen amid the coronavirus crisis, small businesses across the country are feeling the pinch and LGBTQ-owned companies — some of which have dramatically altered their business models to stay afloat in trying times — are no exception.
Faced with their traditional sources of revenue being cut off amid government-imposed shutdowns aimed at containing COVID-19, LGBTQ business owners who spoke to the Blade said they’ve had to improvise by facilitating different services than they did in their roles prior to the epidemic.
Amy Tiller, a lesbian and co-owner of the Portland, Ore.-based Inspired Results, said her company immediately pivoted from brand management in print and apparel for client businesses to sending supplies of PPE to hospitals in regions hardest hit by the coronavirus.
“We did a couple of large volume orders for hand sanitizer and gloves and things like that, and then people just started you know started referring us to other health care companies,” Tiller said. “It just became this thing in a matter of weeks that we were securing for traditional hospitals and clinics as well as senior living communities, as well as also we do a lot with our local retail grocery stores.”
The clientele base for Inspired Results, Tiller said, was around 70 percent in health care related industries, so pivoting to PPE was a natural shift, and the business that followed “just kind of blossomed.”
“We will quite literally send out millions of pieces of PPE between gloves, sanitizer, face masks and gowns — primarily those four are huge — and kind of with no end in sight,” Tiller said.
Typically, Tiller said a day for Inspired Results consists of sending emails at 3 a.m. to China, where the supply chain starts, to ensure the PPE is available for clients, which she said has built off the company’s mission to supply those in need without price gouging.
“I think that that has really resonated: The combination of speed, agility and access to the supply, combined with the fact that we’re not going to charge you $10 for a gown,” Tiller said. “We just won’t deal with suppliers that are doing that.”
Among her clients across the country, Tiller said, is a large health system in the United States as well as other highly regulated industries in health care, logistics companies and telecom.
The shift, Tiller said, has made her clients take a second look at the company and realize it has more to offer beyond its initial focus on brand management.
“It’s felt really good to be able to be there for them in their time of need and I think that they see us differently as well,” Tiller said. “Like, one you could do so much more than maybe what I thought your capabilities were before because like big organizations are using us for one or two things, right? Now, it’s kind of opened up this world now.”
The change in business model for Inspired Results is just one many for LGBTQ-owned businesses throughout the country, many of which are coordinating with the National LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce for assistance.
Jonathan Lovitz, senior vice president for the National LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce, said his organization has been coordinating with the U.S. Small Business Administration to ensure they get that help.
“As the business voice of the LGBT community, the NGLCC is uniquely positioned to connect public and private sector resources to our network of affiliate chambers and partner organizations who urgently need the economic relief and emotional connection our community can always be counted on to provide,” Lovitz said.
Prior to enactment of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce sent letters to members of Congress demanding the inclusion of LGBTQ entrepreneurs as well as support for non-profit, micro businesses and independent contractors.
Justin Nelson, president of the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce, said via email the CARES Act and initial call with SBA were “positive first steps to ensure our community is financially protected during this crisis,” but more is needed.
“Many were left out and more will certainly be needed, especially as many of our business owners faced difficulty in applying for these essential funds,” Nelson said. “This is why NGLCC, in collaboration with the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC), U.S. Black Chamber of Commerce (USBC), and the Asian/Pacific Islander American Chamber of Commerce (ACE) and over 100 of our collective affiliate chambers will continue advocating for expanded funding for small business relief in upcoming rounds of relief, the inclusion of 501(c)(6) organizations in relief for nonprofit organizations, and the eligibility of— and increased assistance for — diverse small and micro businesses.”
Other businesses are finding other ways to cope during the COVID-19 epidemic, even at the expenses of profit margins if it means keeping workers on payroll.
Nathan Perry, who’s gay and co-owner of the Brooklyn-based Cutting Edge Elite, said his company — a staffing agency for New York residents seeking to moonlight as hospitality workers at events — has shifted to find them work without any profit.
“Recently, with everything that’s happened, obviously, events wiped out completely,” Perry said. “So sales, 100 percent gone, and nobody should be having a party right now, frankly, but it was our mission to our staff, so now it’s just our mission to get them work without any profit.”
Among the staff at Cutting Edge Elite are New York performers in the gig economy, some of which are doing theater work. As a result, Perry said many of these workers don’t qualify for unemployment benefits.
Perry said he created a relief division, priced it at cost to cover their staff wages and employer tax insurance and then moved to “getting them out there to good work.”
“I think from a mental health perspective this is hard on so many levels,” Perry said. “And one of them is just not having work during this tragedy, which leaves you stuck at home watching CNN way too many hours, and our staff are among the most financially vulnerable.”
Lucas Mendieta, who’s gay and also a co-owner of Cutting Edge Elite, said among the new clients for staffers includes the New York Department of Aging. And the tasks have changed as well.
“We’ve had some staff that are helping out in-house with getting meals ready and then other ones … just to get food out to a lot of older people who just aren’t able to leave their homes,” Mendieta said.
Although $350 billion was made available for small businesses under the third installment of the CARES ACT, many companies have yet to see that relief.
Perry said Cutting Edge Elite applied for relief under the Paycheck Protection Program, but as of last week had yet to hear any news.
“We know we can last about eight weeks with zero business and everyone at this level,” Perry said. “We put in for that PPP application, as well as the SBA disaster relief as well as the NYC continuity fund. Haven’t heard a peep from our bank.”
With the money depleted for the Paycheck Protection Program, the Senate after negotiations approved this week on a bipartisan basis an additional $480 billion for the initiative. The measure is now pending before the House, which is expected to approve the measure this week.
LGBTQ businesses are adjusting to new realities under the coronavirus as debate rages on — with passionate advocates on both sides — over when is the right time to reopen the economy.
Medical experts are saying testing in the United States must be ramped up two or threefold before that can happen safely, while many throughout the country agitate over getting back to normal and fume over travel restrictions.
Tiller said Inspired Results last week held an all-hands meeting on when things would go back and concluded “there is no going back.”
“We’ve probably created a new business line within our company out of this,” Tiller said. “What does that mean? How do we keep engaged and keep that momentum, but then also we have to prepare for when we do go back will the marketing be there. Will those traditional spends that we normally see be there?”
Even though she’s a business owner and would stand to gain from restarting the economy, Tiller said she “has a fear” about the economy opening up quickly.
“I can’t exactly put my finger on it, but my fear first and foremost is more people will die right?” Tiller said. “If we do it too soon, it’ll just compromise more of our citizens, No. 1. And as we reopen the country and the economy, doing so in a layered approach — obviously there’s no light switch, it’s not going to go from one way to the other — I would be very much afraid to not follow the data and not follow the science.”
Perry said a number of factors are playing into his views on opening up the economy and the prospects for Cutting Edge Elite, including the possibility of a coronavirus resurgence in the fall — which he said could be devastating.
“If our business does survive this hit, which I’m 90 percent confident we will, a second one — we would have to lay people off immediately,” Perry said. “We’d already be in high debt — even nice cheap debt from the government — we’d already be in a high debt position. So, we can’t have any bumps in the restart or that could be kind of the killing blow.”
A new study on LGBTQ issues made public Tuesday has found a modest — but noticeable and sustained — drop over time in opposition to business owners being allowed to refuse services to LGBTQ people.
The study, conducted by the non-profit research organization PRRI, found 56 percent majority of Americans oppose allowing a small business owner in their state to refuse to provide products or services to LGBTQ people, if doing so violates the owner’s religious beliefs. Meanwhile, 37 percent of Americans support such denials of service to LGBTQ people.
Although a majority of Americans have opposed religious-based refusal of services for some time, the strength of that opposition — based on previous iterations of the survey — has fluctuated in the last five years.
Opposition rose slightly between 2015, when it was at 59 percent, and 2016, when it was at 61 percent, but that has since dropped each year and was 60 percent in 2017, 57 percent in 2018 and — as the most recent study found — 56 percent in 2019.
Further, the study found this decline is most pronounced among groups that have been the most opposed to refusing service to LGBTQ people historically.
For liberal Democrats, opposition decreased from 85 percent in 2016 to 78 percent in 2019; for liberal Republicans, 63 percent in 2016 to 51 percent in 2019; for younger adults under the age of 30, 70 percent in 2016 to 62 percent in 2019; and for white Democrats without a college degree, 76 percent in 2016 to 68 percent in 2019.
At the same time, the study found support for LGBTQ non-discrimination protections remains strong.
According to the study, 72 percent of Americans favor laws that would protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in employment, public accommodations and housing, while 75 percent are opposed.
Support for non-discrimination protections includes majorities of both political parties, religious groups, and nearly every major demographic group, the study found.
“Support for LGBT rights continues to be strong and expansive in all 50 states. Issues that in the recent past demarcated major political and religious fault lines now find broad agreement,” PRRI CEO and Founder Robert Jones said in a statement. “However, this landmark survey also finds some erosion in opposition to allowing business owners to refuse to serve gay and lesbian people based on their religious beliefs.”
The study was conducted in both English and Spanish between Mar. 26, 2019 and Dec. 29, 2019 among a random sample of 40,357 U.S. adults ages 18 and up. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 0.6 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence, according to PRRI.
The timeframe for when the survey was conducted is the same time the U.S. Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
The court determined the Colorado Civil Rights Commission harbored anti-religious bias in adjudicating the case against Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and vacated the decision against him.
Anti-LGBTQ groups, most notable Alliance Defending Freedom, are continuing to make the case the First Amendment grants business owners to right to refuse wedding-related services to LGBTQ people.
A petition from Arlene’s Flowers, whose owner Baronelle Stutzman refused to provide custom-made floral arrangements for a same-sex marriage, is pending before the Supreme Court. Justices had declined to hear the case before, but have yet to act on the current petition before the court.
Despite the increase in opposition to religious-based refusal of services to LGBTQ people, the PRRI study had also promising findings for LGBTQ rights, including an upward trajectory in support for same-sex marriage.
One such finding: A majority of seniors in the United States for the first time ever in the United States are now in favor of same-sex marriage. A bare majority of Americans age 65 and older — 51 percent — now support marriage rights for same-sex couples, compared to 41 percent who oppose them, the study found.
The findings also confirmed majorities in all racial groups in the United States, including 58 percent of black Americans, support same-sex marriage, as well as most major religious groups. The exception is white evangelical Protestants, 41 percent of whom support same-sex marriage.
But views on same-sex marriage still vary along party lines, the study finds. Seven in ten Democrats and two-thirds of independents support same-sex marriage, compared to 47 percent of Republicans.
A new clinical trial is underway in Spain that will assess whether Truvada, a drug commonly used as PrEP for HIV prevention, can stave off COVID-19 infection among medical practitioners seeking to treat patients amid the pandemic.
If successful, the trial may have broader implications for the general public and not just health workers. But the next step would be awaiting the result of the trials before the drug is determined to be effective.
The study, which began April 1 and is expected to run through the summer, is being conducted at Ramón y Cajal University Hospital in Madrid and sponsored by the Spanish National AIDS Plan, an arm of the Spanish government.
An estimated 4,000 participants will participate in the study, each of whom are medical workers age 18 to 65 working in areas of Spain heavily afflicted with the coronavirus.
Dr. Jose Arribas, research director of HIV and infectious diseases at La Paz Hospital in Madrid, said in Spanish via email to the Washington Blade one underlying basis for testing Truvada against COVID-19 is his findings that relatively few HIV-positive people have the disease.
“We are seeing few cases of HIV-positive people with severe COVID-19,” Arribas said. “This is surprising because the immune system of an HIV-positive person has similarities to that of older people who do have severe cases of COVID-19. Furthermore, there is evidence from in vitro studies support that Truvada can have an immunomodulatory effect.”
Asked whether Truvada could be used for everyone, not just health care workers, if shown to have a positive impact in the study, Arribas replied, “You have to wait for the results of the study before we can answer this question.”
The National Institutes of Health in the United States posted a notice Monday about the test on the agency’s website, which lists ongoing or upcoming clinical trials across the globe.
According to the abstract, the study will seek to assess whether the components of Truvada — as well as hydroxychloroquine, a drug with well publicized potential use against COVID-19 — are effective in preventing coronavirus infection among medical practitioners because “healthcare workers are particularly at risk of SARS-CoV-2.”
“In the absence of a vaccine, other strategies aiming to reduce the development of COVID-19 in the population, more specifically in healthcare workers is being sought,” the abstract says. “Administration of effective drugs to people at risk of developing an infectious disease is well accepted and is part of clinical practice.”
The choice of Truvada for the study, according to the abstract, is the result of anecdotal evidence the medicine may be effective against COVID-19.
“Existing recent and scarce literature shows that RNA synthesis nucleos(t)ide analogue inhibitors, acting as viral RNA chain terminators, like TDF, abacavir or lamivudine, amongst others, could have an effect against SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the abstract says.
Over the course of the 12-week study, administrators will provide daily doses of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Emtricitabine, the components of Truvada, Hydroxychloroquine and placebos to study participants.
One group will receive a daily dose of Truvada and a hydroxychloroquine placebo; another will receive hydroxychloroquine and a Truvada placebo; another will receive both drugs; and another will receive a placebo of both drugs.
The trial will assess confirmed infections of COVID-19 as a primary outcome measure, then the severity of disease, including its duration, among confirmed infected participants as a secondary outcome measure.
The initial results of the study are expected to be compiled by June 30, but the study won’t be completed until July 31, the abstract says.
Overseeing the test will be Dr. Rosa Polo of the Spanish National AIDS Plan and Miguel Hernan, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, according to the abstract.
Ramón y Cajal University Hospital in Madrid and the Spanish National AIDS Plan didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Truvada has been brought up as a potential drug to test against COVID-19 among many other medications being assessed for use against the epidemic. Also in the mix is Remdesivir, an antiviral drug the medical experts have said may hold the best chance against COVID-19.
Dr. Sarah Henn, chief health officer of the D.C-based Whitman-Walker Health, welcomed news of the trial in an email responding to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on the study.
“We are happy to see trials focusing on both prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infections and look forward to learning from these results,” Henn said.
Dr. David Hardy, adjunct professor of medicine for the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, on expressed skepticism about study because it makes “a big jump” on the use of Truvada for HIV prevention to its use for COVID-19 prevention.
“Truvada for PrEP was created as a new option for trying to prevent those who aren’t infected with HIV,” Hardy said. “If we can use that analogy with COVID-19, we don’t have a treatment that we can easily extrapolate into prevention yet.”
Based on that, Hardy said he’d be more supportive of a study that strictly tested hydroxychloroquine as a means to prevent COVID-19, and not the combination of the drug with Truvada.
“That’s simply because of the fact that we list up some laboratory information that says that hydroxychloroquine does in fact have some anti SARS-CoV-2 antiviral activity,” Hardy said. “We know that it works against the virus, at least in a test tube.”
The Spain study appears strictly to be a project of the Spanish government; U.S. government health officials aren’t involved even though NIH posted an abstract of the study online.
Kathy Stover, a spokesperson for the National Institutes of Health, told the Washington Blade NIH doesn’t have any involvement in the study.
“The study you highlighted is actually not being funded or conducted by the NIH,” Stover said. “It’s being led by the Plan Nacional sobre el Sida (PNS) in Spain.”