The U.S. Senate confirmed William Barr on Thursday as President Trump’s next U.S. attorney general — a move that has made LGBT rights supporters wary amid indications he’d continue anti-LGBT policy at the U.S. Justice Department.
The Senate confirmed Barr on a largely party-line 54-45 vote, although Sens. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) broke with Democrats to vote for the nominee and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) broke with Republican to vote against him. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) didn’t vote.
Each of the 2020 presidential candidates or potential hopefuls in the Senate — Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) — voted against Barr.
Many Democrats expressed concern about Barr over a 2018 memo he wrote asserting a more limited authority for Special Counsel Robert Mueller as well as the nominee’s refusal to make public Mueller’s upcoming report on the Russia investigation.
LGBT rights supporters, however, had different reasons to oppose his confirmation.
Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of GLAAD, was among the LGBT rights supporters who expressed concern over Barr’s anti-LGBT record.
“There’s little doubt that William Barr will carry on this administration’s ongoing efforts at rolling back the progress LGBTQ Americans have made in recent years,” Ellis said. “This confirmation today reminds us once again that the Trump administration is no friend to us.”
During his confirmation hearing, Barr hinted he’d continue the anti-LGBT policies of Jeff Sessions, who resigned on the behest of Trump following the mid-term elections after he recused himself from the Russia investigation.
Barr’s answers suggested he’d continue to uphold the Justice Department’s view that LGBT people aren’t protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, which bars sex discrimination in the workforce. Additionally, Barr suggested he’d uphold religious freedom even at the expense of anti-LGBT discrimination.
But Barr also said during his confirmation he’d have “zero tolerance” for hate crimes, including those committed against LGBT people, and make investigating and prosecuting them a “priority” as attorney general.
Sharon McGowan, chief strategy officer for the LGBT group Lambda Legal, said in a statement must uphold civil rights as attorney general.
“As attorney general, William Barr will be responsible for defending the civil rights of all people, not just the wealthy and the powerful,” McGowan said. “From his first day on the job, he must make clear that, unlike his predecessor, he will not use the Department of Justice as a weapon of discrimination and bigotry. He must bring new leadership to the Department of Justice, and get it back in the business of defending civil rights and equal justice under law for all people.”
But Barr, who also served as attorney general 30 years ago during the administration of George H.W. Bush, also has a record troubling to LGBT rights supporters.
The Trump appointee once made anti-gay comments expressing concerns about greater tolerance for the “homosexual movement” in the United States than the religious community in a 1995 article for “The Catholic Lawyer,” a conservative Catholic publication for St. John’s University School of Law,
“It is no accident that the homosexual movement, at one or two percent of the population, gets treated with such solicitude while the Catholic population, which is over a quarter of the country, is given the back of the hand,” Barr once wrote. “How has that come to be?”
During his tenure at the Justice Department under Bush, Barr also acted to keep in place an administrative ban on people with HIV from entering the United States. Barr implemented a policy using the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to detain people with HIV from entering the United States, including Haitians seeking asylum in the country.
Despite this record, one longtime gay friend of Barr’s, former Time Warner general counsel Paul Cappuccio, has come to his defense. Upon Barr’s nomination, Cappuccio told the Blade, “He’s not going to ever let people be discriminated against, OK?”
David Stacy, government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement Barr’s confirmation spells trouble for LGBT people.
“William Barr has made clear that as attorney general he would not defend and uphold civil rights laws for all Americans — including LGBTQ people,” Stacy said. From his deeply disturbing opposition to nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people to his record of undermining HIV and AIDS prevention, treatment and awareness — Barr would perpetuate Jeff Sessions’ work to license discrimination and double down on the Trump-Pence administration’s harmful attacks on the LGBTQ community.”
As legislative sessions continue across the country, South Dakota is leading the way with anti-LGBT bills through its recent advancement of a ‘Don’t Say Trans’ bill — but at least 78 anti-LGBT measures have been introduced in other states.
The South Dakota House of Representatives on Monday approved House Bill 1108 by a vote of 39-30. The legislation bars public school teachers in grades K-7 from instructing students about gender dysphoria, or the experience of being transgender.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said in a statement the bill is “a harmful effort to harm transgender youth that will have ramifications for every South Dakotan.”
“The people of South Dakota know their state cannot stay true to South Dakotan values with a bill like this one on the books,” Keisling said. “If passed, the legislature will have delivered a self-inflicted wound against the entire state.”
The bill now heads to the South Dakota Senate. If the legislation is approved there, it will head to the desk of Gov. Kristi Noem. The Washington Blade has placed a request with Noem’s office seeking comment on whether she’d sign or veto the bill.
But the “Don’t Say Trans” legislation is one of three anti-transgender bills pending in South Dakota, according to the Equality Federation.
Ian Palmquist, senior director of programs for the Equality Federation, said Tuesday in a conference call with reporters South Dakota is a place for central concern in 2019 for LGBT advocates keeping an eye on anti-LGBT bills.
In addition to the “Don’t Say Trans” bill, another bill allows parental refusal for transition-related care for children, and another limits transgender participation in school sports.
In total, Palmquist counted 78 bills pending in state legislatures across the country seeking to undermine LGBT rights. That number is actually down from the 2016 session, when more than 200 such bills were introduced in state legislatures.
“So we’re not near that at this point, although, of course, bill introductions really aren’t finished in state legislatures all over the country yet,” Palmquist said.
Of the 78 state anti-LGBT bills, Palmquist said there are 18 bills in 10 states that are specifically anti-transgender. Those bills, Palmquist said, range from limiting access to transition-related health care and defining gender to what was assigned at birth.
Two of those bills seek to deny transgender people access to the restroom consistent with their gender identity, which is a reduction from years past. Palmquist attributes that to the massive backlash over House Bill 2 in North Carolina and the defeat of anti-trans efforts in Massachusetts.
Another category of legislation is “religious freedom” bills seen to enable anti-LGBT discrimination. Palmquist identified 18 bills in this category.
In this category are bills in Colorado, Kentucky and Tennessee that would allow taxpayer-funded religiously affiliated adoption agencies to refuse child placement with a family inconsistent with their religious beliefs, such as LGBT homes. (Three states have enacted these laws just last year.)
“That kind of legislation really puts young people at risk, leaving them in the system, keeping them from loving and caring families that could be taking care of them,” Palmquist said.
With Republicans in control of the Tennessee Legislature and the governor’s mansion, LGBT rights advocates have expressed particular concern about the anti-LGBT adoption bills pending before that state.
There are two anti-LGBT adoption bills before Tennessee: HB0836 would allow adoption agencies to deny placement in an LGBT home and SB0848 would bar state and local governments from penalizing such agencies.
“These measures represent state-sanctioned licenses to discriminate,” GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said in a statement. “This effort in Tennessee is part of a coordinated campaign across the country to turn back the progress LGBTQ people have made, and the fair-minded people of Tennessee will see right through this charade, which harms families and children by hiding behind the false guise of protecting religion.”
In seven states, Palmquist said “religious freedom” bills have been introduced along the lines of the law Mike Pence signed as Indiana governor in 2015 allowing refusal of service to LGBT people. However, Palmquist said they’re fewer in number than in years past.
“We’re seeing fewer religious exemption bills that would cover broad areas of the law and seeing more bills introduced that are focused narrowly on very specific areas of government work,” Palmquist said.
Rebecca Isaacs, executive director of the Equality Federation, identified as a source for these anti-LGBT bills “Project Blitz,” a 148-page plan promoted by the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation that provides the model for the legislation.
“In 2018 alone, more than 70 of these Project Blitz-related bills — including anti-LGBTQ bills, bills that would undermine reproductive health care, attempting to inject religion into public schools — these were bills that were introduced in state legislatures across the country, so it’s really something to look out for,” Isaacs said.
But despite these efforts, Isaacs said on the conference call “people are really looking to the states” to advance LGBT rights in the face of a hostile Trump administration and uncertain Supreme Court.
As examples of victories, Isaacs cited Massachusetts voters’ decision to reject at the ballot last year a referendum seeking to undermine the state’s transgender non-discrimination law in addition to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signing into law bans on conversion therapy for youth and anti-transgender discrimination.
“In 2019, we expect we’ll be educating people more about the harms of conversion therapy, more education about why we need non-discrimination protections in employment and public accommodations, and again why it’s important to continue working on HIV and ending discriminatory laws against people living with HIV,” Isaacs said.
As of right now, 30 states have no laws or incomplete laws against anti-LGBT discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation, but 45 bills have been introduced in 18 states seeking to enact those protections, according to the Equality Federation.
In the wake of New York approving its transgender discrimination law, Issacs said eyes are on Virginia to determine whether it’ll pass a law against anti-LGBT discrimination. Palmquist admitted efforts are complicated in Virginia by high-profile scandals engulfing each of the three top public officials in that state.
Palmquist said efforts are also underway to enact pro-LGBT bills seeking to ban conversion therapy. Bills along those lines are moving in Colorado and Minnesota, which are set to have committee hearings this week, Palmquist said.
Additionally, Palmquist said legislation is moving forward to seeking to bar “gay panic” as a legal defense against those accused of violent crimes. Nine states have introduced bills that prohibit the use of this kind of defense in their courts.
“This is obviously a ridiculous justification for committing a violent act, but we have seen it used in defenses around the country,” Palmquist said.
Palmquist said lawmakers have also introduced pro-trans bills in six states — Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico and New York — for legal documents, such as birth certificates and driver’s licenses.
These bills allow individuals to select a non-binary gender and to ease the requirement with which they can change their gender marker, which Palmquist said is “critically important for trans people.”
Five states, Palmquist said, are considering legislation permitting the teaching of LGBT history in schools. Other states, Palmquist said, are considering “equal-pay-for-equal-work” bills intended for women workers that would also include protections for LGBT people.
HIV-related bills are also present in state legislatures. Although some states, Palmquist said, are considering measures to decriminalize HIV and increase access to treatment and prevention, 10 states are also considering bills to further decriminalize HIV.
“These bills are based on flawed science, increased stigma and discourage people from getting tested — and they treat HIV differently from other communicable diseases,” Palmquist said.
Three LGB members of Congress led an effort on Wednesday in opposition to a Trump administration waiver allowing South Carolina adoption agencies to refuse child placement into LGBT homes.
In a letter dated Feb. 13, Reps. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Angie Craig (D-Minn.) — the only openly gay members of the U.S. House who are parents — and bisexual Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.) led 95 House Democrats in denouncing the waiver, which allows the Greenville-based Miracle Hill Ministries to decline to place children with families contrary to its religious beliefs.
“We are writing to express our strong condemnation of this waiver because it will deny children the safe, loving and happy families they deserve and turn away qualified potential parents,” the letter says. “We strongly urge you to stop this despicable taxpayer-funded discrimination and uphold the essential non-discrimination protections that ensure that every child has a loving home.”
Last month, the Department of Health & Human Services announced it had granted South Carolina a request for a waiver from an Obama-era rule prohibiting adoption agencies that receive federal funds from discriminating on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. That decision brought an outcry from supporters of LGBT families.
The letter from 95 House Democrats to Secretary of Health & Human Services Alex Azar notes how the waiver could impact LGBT children in South Carolina seeking a home as well as the potential implications for LGBT kids in foster care nationwide.
“Permitting these agencies to use a litmus test to turn away qualified adoptive and foster parents reduces the number of loving families available to the over 4,000 children in South Carolina’s foster care system and the more than 400,000 children in foster care nationwide,” the letter says.
Stan Sloan, CEO of the pro-LGBT Family Equality Council, commended lawmakers for writing the letter in a statement.
“We are grateful to members of Congress for standing with the faith, child welfare, and LGBTQ communities to say ‘no’ to discrimination in foster care and adoption, thus ensuring that America’s 440,000 foster children are not needlessly denied the loving, supportive families they deserve,” Sloan said.
More action may come on this front from the Trump administration. At the National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump declared support for religiously affiliated adoption agencies seeking to place children into homes consistent with their religious beliefs.
“My administration is working to ensure that faith-based adoption agencies are able to help vulnerable children find their forever families while following their deeply held beliefs,” Trump said.
The Washington Blade has placed a request with HHS seeking comment on the letter and an inquiry on whether any more requests for waivers from the adoption regulation are pending before the department.
A new poll has found a whopping 70 percent of the American public believe transgender people should be able to serve in the U.S. military despite policy from President Trump seeking to bar them from enlisting.
The Qunnipiac University Poll was published Tuesday in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court green lighting Trump’s transgender military ban.
Republicans were the only listed group in the poll opposed to transgender people in the military. They oppose transgender service 50-40 percent. Comparatively, Democrats backed transgender service 94-3 and independent voters support it 75-16.
Among racial groups, the greatest support for transgender service came from black Americans, who back it 90-8. White voters support transgender service 66-26 and Hispanics support it 72-13 (although a significant portion of Hispanics, 15 percent, are undecided.)
Ashley Broadway-Mack, president of the American Military Partner Association said in a statement the poll demonstrates Trump anti-trans policy isn’t consistent with American values.
“It’s crystal clear that the far majority of Americans reject Donald Trump’s reckless, discriminatory attack on our nation’s brave transgender service members,” Broadway-Mack said. “Instead of singling out transgender troops for discrimination, Donald Trump should reverse course and honor them for the heroes they are. Transgender service members have proven time and again that what matters is their ability to accomplish the mission — not their gender identity.”
The poll found support overall is similar to where it stood in August 2017, when 68 percent of voters backed transgender service and 27 percent opposed it. That was months after Trump announced on Twitter ban transgender people from the military “in any capacity.”
The poll surveyed U.S. voters on a wide range of issues, finding Trump has a negative 38-57 percent job approval rating — a dip in approval compared to his 41–55 percent earlier in the month.
Quinnipiac also sought input from voters on other transgender issues. For example, the poll found 56 percent of voters think the United States is somewhat accepting of transgender people, compared to 23 percent who say the U.S. is not so accepting, 9 percent who say it is very accepting and 8 percent who say it is not accepting at all.
Asked whether transgender acceptance would be a good thing or bad thing for the country, voters were split 42-42 on saying it would be a good thing or make not much difference, compared to 12 percent who say it would be a bad thing.
The poll was conducted from Jan. 25 to 28 and surveyed 1,004 voters nationwide, according to Qunnipiac University.
Transgender service member Air Force Staff Sgt. Logan Ireland is set to attend President Trump’s upcoming State of the Union address on Tuesday as a guest of Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.).
Speier, a champion of transgender military service and now chair of the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee, announced Friday on Twitter she had invited Ireland to attend the State of the Union as a guest in the House chamber.
Ireland, a security forces airman who served in Afghanistan, has been public about being transgender in the military. When the Defense Department sought to implement openly transgender service during the Obama administration, the Air Force consulted Ireland for guidance.
Speier gives Ireland visibility as the Trump administration seeks to change that policy to ban transgender military service. Although courts had blocked the Defense Department from implanting Trump’s reversal, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month issued stays on those decisions, essentially green lighting the ban. (One injunction issued by a federal court against Trump’s policy remains in place for the time being, but the Justice Department is challenging that order.)
After the Defense Department unveiled plans last year to implement Trump’s plan last year, Speier questioned former Defense Secretary James Mattis about the policy during a congressional hearing, holding up a photo Ireland and asking Mattis to explain why Ireland shouldn’t serve. Mattis declined to say, citing ongoing litigation against the transgender ban.
Technically, Ireland would be able to continue to serve in the military under the Mattis policy — on its face anyway — because it has a grandfather provision for openly transgender people currently in the armed forces. However, openly transgender people wouldn’t be able to enlist in the military unless they’re willing to serve in their biological sex, and individuals who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria or seek transition-related care after enlisting would be kicked out.
The parents of transgender children met on Capitol Hill Wednesday to share stories about hardships their families have encountered, including anti-trans policies of the Trump administration.
The parents gathered for a one-hour meeting at the Cannon House Office Building for a public meeting hosted by Rep. Joseph Kennedy III (D-Mass.), chair of the Transgender Equality Task Force. The meeting followed a two-day summit of the Parents for Transgender Equality National Council at the Human Rights Campaign building in D.C.
Rachel Gonzales, who lives in the Dallas area and is the mother of three children, told the story of how her transgender daughter “became progressively anxious and depressed and angry” before she transitioned.
“My husband and I were really at odds with how to handle her increasing need to feminize her presence,” Gonzales said. “And, as she became more aware of other people’s perception of her as a boy, she just hit a wall where she expressed to us that she could not go on any longer with anyone thinking she was a boy, that she needed Santa Claus to turn her into a girl.
That changed, Gonzales said, when she allowed her daughter to transition socially by starting to wear girls’ clothing and growing her hair long.
“She became happier and we changed her name and her pronouns, and she started to come back out of that dark cloud,” Gonzales said. “And we really were anxious about living in Texas, what that would be like, telling her classmates in school that her name and pronouns had changed and much to our surprise, her classmates’ responses were almost comical: Of course, she’s wearing a dress? Why wouldn’t she wear a dress?”
Both Gonzalez and her transgender daughter testified before the Texas Legislature two years ago when lawmakers sought to pass an anti-transgender bathroom bill. The legislation ended up being defeated.
Louis Porter II, formerly executive director of the Council for Minnesotans of African Heritage, talked about his experience raising his non-binary gender expansive child named Zeam, saying he was thankful for the support he found from fellow black elders in his Southern Christian tradition.
“I haven’t met a parent yet who doesn’t worry, but when your child is transgender and black, you worry even more so,” Porter said.
Priya Shah, a gender and sexuality studies teacher in Orange County, Calif., recalled crying last year when Kennedy during his response to President Trump’s State of the Union address, mentioned parents raising transgender children.
“Our daughter who was identified male at birth came to me before her seventh birthday, looked me straight in the eye and said, ‘Mom. I’m a girl. This is the situation,’” Shah said. “In a way I think we had known about that for a long time and that it was coming.”
On the first therapy sessions the family had, Shah said her daughter told her, “I’ve known since I was four, but I thought you would hate me, and I thought people wouldn’t love me.”
“She didn’t even know the word transgender, she didn’t know that it was something that you could be, and she was so scared to even tell her family,” Shah said.
At her daughter’s private school in California, Shah said her daughter wasn’t allowed to transition and was forced to wear a male uniform and go by her old name and male pronouns.
“She would come home every after school and rip the uniform,” Shah said. “One day I found a picture of her that was taken at school and she ripped it in half and said I hate myself.”
At that time, Shah said she started teaching her daughter through home schooling and sued the school, which ultimately changed its policies and started training its principals. Shah said her daughter now is a straight A student and in programs for gifted students.
“It’s a constant battle,” Shah said. “We still have parents in Orange County who want to be able to discriminate against transgender children, there’s teachers that ask if they cannot teach our children.”
Keisha Michaels, who’s black and a social worker, became emotional when she recalled the mortality rate for transgender women of color.
“We worry, we know the number, we know the statistics,” Michaels said. “We realize that transgender women of color, black transgender women, are murdered — I’ll just have to say it — at ridiculous rates in this country. And we worry, my husband and I, we worry every day about it.”
A common theme among the parents at the meeting was the need to pass the Equality Act, which would amend federal civil rights law to explicitly include LGBT people and ban anti-trans discrimination in schools.
JR Ford, a D.C.-based cybersecurity expert who lives in D.C., talked about the importance of the legislation to ensure protections for transgender kids.
“The Equality Act would help to provide protections across an entire nation for transgender youth, so they can know that they exist,” Ford said. “We can leverage state-by-state regulations and policies…It’s more beneficial for all children in this country to be protected, and so the Equality Act really is essential for essential human rights.”
Sarah McBride, a transgender advocate and spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said during the meeting the Equality Act would be introduced in the “coming weeks.” Rep, David Cicilline (D-R.I.) has sponsored the legislation in the U.S. House and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) has sponsored the legislation in the Senate.
Another theme was the anti-transgender polices of the Trump administration. When Obama-era guidance requiring schools to allow transgender students to use the restroom consistent with their gender identity was rescinded in 2017, Ford said he approached the White House from the street and shouted at the leaders inside.
Jessica Girven, the mother of a transgender daughter in the U.S. military stationed in Germany, became angry when she recalled the Trump administration rescinding the policy ensuring non-discrimination for transgender kids in school.
“The assistant secretary of defense under Obama issued an inclusive affirming policy at all Department of Defense schools and MWR facilities around the world,” Girven said. “So, for the first time, families didn’t have to worry what happens when we move?…Will my child not be able to go to school? Will we be able to rent a house? We had this beautiful policy for four months. It was one of the first things that was rescinded under this administration.”
One participant in the meeting who shared an unexpected story was Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who talked about her soon-to-be 21-year-old transgender grandson Isaac and his process of transitioning.
“I asked him, I said, ‘Growing up was this an issue for you because our family’s very close, he always seemed very happy. He said, ‘I just never knew it was an option, and, you know, I felt loved and accepted in the family.’”
Schakowsky said her grandson is preparing to have gender reassignment surgery for a double mastectomy and has had eggs frozen to ensure he can be a biological parent in the future.
Other lawmakers in attendance were Reps. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) as well as Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-Va.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.) and Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.).
The White House remains silent on President Trump’s reported meeting with anti-LGBT activist Ginni Thomas, the spouse of conservative U.S. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, despite objections from LGBT rights advocates who say the meeting was inappropriate.
On Monday during the regular news briefing, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders ignored the Washington Blade, which was prepared to ask questions about the discussion. (The White House spokesperson has declined to call on the Blade for more than a year.) No other media outlet asked about the meeting.
The New York Times reported over the weekend that Trump met last week with anti-LGBT activists led by Thomas in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. During the meeting, Trump was reportedly “listening quietly” as members of the group denounced transgender people serving in the U.S. military.
The meeting came the same week the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on court orders barring enforcement of his transgender military ban, essentially allowing the anti-trans policy to go into effect.
In addition to decrying transgender military service, the anti-LGBT activists said women shouldn’t serve in the military “because they had less muscle mass and lung capacity than men.” They also said the Supreme Court ruling for marriage equality is “harming the fabric of the United States” and sexual assault isn’t pervasive in the military, according to the New York Times.
The New York Times reported the White House didn’t respond to a request to comment on the meeting for the article, nor did Thomas.
Jennifer Pizer, law and policy director at Lambda Legal, said the meeting between Thomas and Trump was concerning.
“It is no secret that Justice Thomas’s Supreme Court opinions often embrace the most extreme of far-right-wing perspectives, and routinely work to erode the wall of separation between church and state,” Pizer said. “But while the reactionary nature of his approach is well known, it’s still shocking to hear that his wife is leading a delegation of religious and political extremists in overt, aggressive political lobbying of the president on issues actually pending before the Supreme Court at this very moment.”
It’s not unusual for Trump to meet with anti-LGBT activists. For example, last year, heads of anti-LGBT advocacy groups met with Trump in the White House after he announced his decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Afterwards, those leaders emerged from the White House to thank Trump for anti-LGBT policies, such as the ban on transgender military service and “religious freedom” orders seen to enable anti-LGBT discrimination.
As the Blade has reported, Trump’s meetings with anti-LGBT advocacy groups represent the restored influence of those organizations after they were shut out for eight years during the Obama administration.
Some have criticized the Thomas meeting as inappropriate not just because anti-LGBT policies were discussed, but also because a sitting U.S. president shouldn’t meet with the spouse of a justice on the Supreme Court.
Pizer said the meeting between the spouse of a Supreme Court justice and Trump smacks of a violation of separation of powers.
“One of the most fundamental principles of our constitutional system is that the three branches of government must be independent of each other, with the Supreme Court charged to check and correct unconstitutional actions of the political branches,” Pizer said. “The court is not to be just one more political branch. Although we all know that reality sometimes falls short of that principle, every Supreme Court justice must nonetheless take proper steps to maintain the appearance of impartiality. It is truly appalling to see such a brazen violation of that basic standard.”
Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of the LGBT media watchdog group GLAAD, is calling on the White House to issue “official bookkeeping notes” on the meeting.
“The fact that President Trump is taking counsel from known anti-LGBTQ activists like Ginni Thomas regarding policies that could impact LGBTQ people and families should have Americans gravely concerned about the foundations of our government, and they deserve to see the official notes that came from that meeting,“ Ellis said. “LGBTQ people know President Trump wants to roll back their hard-fought progress, but this clear display of coordination between the executive branch and the wife of a U.S. Supreme Court justice shows Americans the Trump administration will do anything to push an agenda — even if it means shredding the checks and balances system.”
The Washington Blade has submitted several questions to the White House via email on the meeting and will update this story as appropriate.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law on Friday two LGBT bills, one banning widely discredited “ex-gay” conversion therapy for youth, the banning anti-transgender discrimination.
The governor penned his name to the legislation at a signing ceremony at the New York City LGBT Community Center with a U.S. flag, a New York state flag, a rainbow Pride flag and a transgender flag in the background in the same year as the 50th anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City.
The two pieces of legislation became law thanks to new Democratic control the New York State Senate. Democrats took control of the chamber for the first time in a decade in the 2018 “blue” wave election, which allowed the bills to pass that chamber earlier his month for the first time.
The ban on anti-transgender discrimination, known as the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act, or GENDA, amends the New York Human Rights Law to ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment, housing, public spaces and education.
The fight to enact GENDA in New York was a 16-year battle. Previously, GENDA was repeatedly passed in the New York Assembly, but never was approved in the Senate. This year, after the Assembly had approved a total of 11 times, the Democratic-controlled Senate finally passed the transgender protections.
New York becomes the 20th state in the country with explicit statewide protections barring discrimination both on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The state previously had the distinction of being one of two states with a law on the books banning sexual-orientation discrimination, but not gender-identity discrimination. Now that GENDA is law, Wisconsin is the only state left with that distinction. (Wisconsin also has the oldest statewide statute against anti-gay discrimination in the country.)
Masen Davis, CEO of Freedom for All Americans, said in statement the signing of GENDA is a “long-awaited victory [that] sends a strong message that transgender people are worthy of every equal protection under the law.
“As we celebrate today in New York, we are also reminded that we have our work cut out for us: Thirty states nationwide still lack comprehensive and explicit protections for LGBTQ people under state law, and we won’t stop until every LGBTQ American is protected by fully comprehensive laws that cannot be trumped by those seeking to erase us,” Davis said.
The ban on conversion therapy for youth also representative an achievement after years of effort. New York becomes the 15th state to enact such a measure. Other jurisdictions that have enacted similar laws are Connecticut, California, Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington, Maryland, Hawaii and New Hampshire.
Although neither GENDA nor the “ex-gay” therapy ban were laws in New York, Cuomo during his tenure sought to enact the goals of those measures through executive order.
In 2015, Cuomo directed New York’s Division of Human Rights to interpret state law barring sex discrimination to apply to cases of anti-trans discrimination. In 2016, Cuomo banned public and private insurers in New York from covering conversion therapy.
In her first news conference after announcing her 2020 presidential run, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said she takes “full responsibility” for legal briefs as California attorney general seeking to deny gender reassignment surgery for transgender inmates and called for a “better understanding” of needs — medical or otherwise— for transgender people.
Harris made the comments during a news conference Monday at Howard University in D.C. in response to a question from the Washington Blade, asking her about representing the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation in seeking to deny gender reassignment surgery prescribed to two transgender inmates in the California state prison system.
Initially, Harris defended her actions by asserting she was obligated to defend the state agency in her role as California attorney general, implying her personal position was contrary to that of the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation.
“I was, as you are rightly pointing out, the attorney general of California for two terms and I had a host of clients that I was obligated to defend and represent and I couldn’t fire my clients, and there are unfortunately situations that occurred where my clients took positions that were contrary to my beliefs,” Harris said.
Harris also suggested lawyers working for her in her role as California attorney general were taking approaches to these cases without her knowledge.
“And it was an office with a lot of people who would do the work on a daily basis, and do I wish that sometimes they would have personally consulted me before they wrote the things that they wrote?” Harris said. “Yes, I do.”
Ultimately, Harris said she takes responsibility for the litigation approach of her office because she was responsibe as California attorney general.
“But the bottom line is the buck stops with me, and I take full responsibility for what my office did,” Harris said.
Harris indicated she also helped the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation come to an agreement to set up a process where transgender inmates could obtain transition-related care, including gender reassignment surgery. That’s similar to what her office later told the Blade in response to an article about concerns over her legal support for the position of the agency.
“On that issue I will tell you I vehemently disagree and in fact worked behind the scenes to ensure that the Department of Corrections would allow transitioning inmates to receive the medical attention that they required, they needed and deserved,” Harris said.
Transgender advocates have made the case that transgender inmates are entitled to receive the taxpayer-funded procedure because denying them medical treatment amounts to cruel and unusual punishment — a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
But a series of briefs signed by Harris during her tenure as California attorney general made the opposite case. In one brief dated April 10, 2015, Harris and other state attorneys dismiss the importance of gender reassignment surgery in seeking to appeal a court order granting the procedure to transgender inmate Michelle-Lael Norsworthy.
“Norsworthy has been treated for gender dysphoria for over 20 years, and there is no indication that her condition has somehow worsened to the point where she must obtain sex-reassignment surgery now rather than waiting until this case produces a final judgment on the merits,” the brief says.
It should be noted California didn’t come to an agreement to grant transgender inmates gender reassignment surgery until after a court decision ordering Norsworthy be granted the procedure. At least one transgender advocate in California has also said the California Department of Correction has built a reputation for not fulfilling the agreement reached on behalf of transgender inmates.
Asked by the Blade in a follow-up question to clarify whether transgender inmates across the country should have access to gender reassignment surgery, Harris called for a “better understanding” of the medical needs of transgender people.
“I believe that we are at a point where we have got to stop vilifying people based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and we’ve got to understand that when we are talking about a particular transgender community, for too long they have been the subject of bias, and frankly, a lack of understanding about their circumstance and their physical needs in addition to any other needs they have, and it’s about time that we have a better understanding of that,” Harris said.
The response arguably falls short of a recent statement from the presidential campaign of Elizabeth Warren asserting the candidate “supports access to medically necessary services,” including “at the VA, in the military or at correctional facilities.” The statement reversed Warren’s previously articulated opposition in 2012 to gender reassignment surgery for transgender inmates.
Jillian Weiss, a transgender lawyer with a practice in LGBT employment discrimination, said Harris’ response is “a mass of contradictions.”
“She first suggests that she did not know about the 2015 appeal to the Ninth Circuit to stop the surgery ordered for Michele Norsworthy, which is troubling,” Weiss said. “But her response also suggests, contradictorily, that her hands were tied because the California Department of Corrections insisted on appealing over her objections.”
Weiss also said Harris response to the Blade’s question on whether transgender inmates should have access to gender reassignment surgery amounts to “a bland reference to having a ‘better understanding.’”
“These contradictory responses stand in stark contrast to Elizabeth Warren’s clear and unequivocal statement supporting access to medically necessary services, including transition-related surgeries, and including procedures taking place at the VA, in the military or at correctional facilities,” Weiss added.
Other aspects of Harris’ record on LGBT issues in her time as California attorney general include refusing to defend in court California’s ban on same-sex marriage known as Proposition 8 and declining to certify a “Kill the Gays” ballot initiative proposed in California that would have (unconstitutionally) instituted the death penalty for homosexual acts.
Upon election to the U.S. Senate in 2016, Harris co-sponsored the Equality Act, legislation that seeks to bar anti-LGBT discrimination under federal law.
Taking the lead on other issues, Harris has also questioned the Trump administration over refusing to include questions in the U.S. Census allowing residents to identify their sexual orientation and gender identity. The California Democrat was also among three senators demanding answers from Immigration & Custom Enforcement about the death of transgender inmate Roxsana Hernández in immigration detention.
A transcript of the Q&A follows.
Blade: How would you address concerns about seeking to deny surgery for trans inmates as California AG?
Harris: So I was, as you are rightly pointing out, the attorney general of California for two terms and I had a host of clients that I was obligated to defend and represent and I couldn’t fire my clients, and there are unfortunately situations that occurred where my clients took positions that were contrary to my beliefs.
And it was an office with a lot of people who would do the work on a daily basis, and do I wish that sometimes they would have personally consulted me before they wrote the things that they wrote? Yes, I do. But the bottom line is the buck stops with me, and I take full responsibility for what my office did.
But on that issue I will tell you I vehemently disagree and in fact worked behind the scenes to ensure that the Department of Corrections would allow transitioning inmates to receive the medical attention that they required, they needed and deserved.
Blade: Should trans inmates access throughout the country have access to GRS?
Harris: I believe that we are at a point where we have got to stop vilifying people based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and we’ve got to understand that when we are talking about a particular transgender community, for too long they have been the subject of bias, and frankly, a lack of understanding about their circumstance and their physical needs in addition to any other needs they have, and it’s about time that we have a better understanding of that.
William Barr, President Trump’s pick to become the next attorney general, held his cards close to the vest on LGBT issues Tuesday during his confirmation hearing, but hinted upon confirmation he’d pursue the anti-LGBT policies of his predecessor Jeff Sessions.
The answers from Barr suggest he’d continue to uphold the Justice Department’s view that LGBT people aren’t protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, which bars sex discrimination in the workforce. Additionally, Barr suggested he’d uphold religious freedom even at the expense of anti-LGBT discrimination.
In his opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barr recognized the increasing number of hate crimes in the United States, including LGBT people, and pledged to address them under the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
“We can only survive and thrive as a nation if we are mutually tolerant of each other’s differences, whether they be differences based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or political thinking,” Barr said. “And yet, we see some people violently attacking others simply because of their differences. We must have zero tolerance for such crimes, and I will make this a priority as attorney general if confirmed.”
But under questioning on LGBT issues from Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Barr indicated enforcement of the hate crimes law would likely be the extent of his pro-LGBT advocacy at the Justice Department.
Booker initiated the questioning on LGBT issues by referencing a 1995 article Barr wrote for a conservative Catholic publication that laments growing acceptance of the LGBT movement compared to religious communities.
Asserting the 1995 article demonstrated a view being LGBT was immoral, Booker asked Barr whether he still holds those views, Barr replied “no,” but disputed the article conveyed anti-LGBT views.
After Booker insisted he was quoting the actual language, Barr said he’d inform the committee about his views. Barr reflected on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling for same-sex marriage.
“If I had been voting on it at the time — my view is that under the law, under the Constitution, as I originally conceived it before it was decided by the Supreme Court, marriage was to be regulated by the states, and if it was brought to me, I would have favored martial unions, single-sex,” Barr said.
When Booker interjected he was questioning Barr about his views in the 1995 article and whether the LGBT movement is immoral, Barr expressed a need for tolerance.
“In a pluralistic society like ours, there has be to a live-and-let-live attitude, and mutual tolerance, which has to be a two-way street,” Barr said. “My concern, and the rest of the article addresses this, is I am perfectly fine with the law as it is, for example, with gay marriage, perfectly fine, but I want accommodation for religion.”
When the New Jersey Democrat interjected LGBT youth are disproportionately bullied at schools, Barr interrupted to recognize anti-LGBT hate crimes. Booker acknowledged that before adding many LGBT youth report they are missing school because of fear of being bullied and are disproportionately homeless.
Booker asked Barr whether he thinks laws “designed to protect LGBT individuals from discrimination contribute to what you describe as a breakdown for traditional morality.”
Barr replied “no,” but added, “I also believe there has to be accommodation to religious communities.”
Booker acknowledged, “You and I believe in freedom of religion,” but shifted the focus to anti-gay workplace discrimination. Barr replied, “I think’s that wrong.”
When Booker asked whether that means the Justice Department should protect LGBT kids from harassment and hate crimes and pursue efforts to protect the civil rights of LGBT Americans, Barr replied. “I support that.”
Referencing his opening statement, Barr said, “As I said in the beginning, I’m very concerned about the increase in hate crimes.”
But when Booker asked Barr if he sees a role for the Justice Department in banning anti-LGBT discrimination, the nominee had a different take. Barr replied, “If Congress passes such a law.”
Barr then referenced the petitions currently before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking clarification on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex in the workplace, applies to cases of anti-LGBT discrimination.
“I think the litigation going on now on Title VII is what the the 1964 act actually contemplated, but personally, I think —,” Barr said.
Before Barr could finish and venture an opinion on Title VII, Booker interrupted and asked to verify whether lawmakers contemplated including LGBT people in Title VII. Barr rejected that idea, saying “no.”
“I think it was male-female that they were talking about when they said sex in the ’64 act,” Barr added.
Booker then interjected again by conflating anti-LGBT discrimination with sexual harassment: “So protecting someone’s basic rights to be free from discrimination because of sexual harassment is not something the Department of Justice should be protecting?”
Playing with one of the many U.S. Senate coasters before him on the witness stand, Barr insisted the onus is on Congress to make the law.
“I’m saying Congress passes the law, the Justice Department enforces the law,” Barr said. “I think the ’64 act on its face — and this is what is being litigated, what does it cover? I think for like three or four decades, the LGBT community has been trying to amend the law.”
Booker interrupted again before Barr could finish, saying the Obama administration’s Justice Department “was working to protect LGBT kids from discrimination.” (The Justice Department in the Obama years asserted anti-trans discrimination was illegal under Title VII, but took no position with respect to the law on anti-gay discrimination despite pleas from LGBT rights supporters.)
When Booker asked if Barr would pursue the Obama administration practices, Barr replied, “I don’t know what you’re referring to.”
“I’m against discrimination against anyone because of some status, their gender or their sexual orientation or whatever,” Barr continued.
Hirono picked up where Booker left off, asking Barr directly about the Justice Department’s friend-of-the-court brief before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals arguing anti-gay discrimination isn’t covered under Title VII. As Hirono noted, both the Second Circuit and the Seventh Circuit have “rejected the department’s argument” about the law.
The Hawaii Democrat asked Barr if he’d appeal those decisions to the U.S. Supreme Court. In response, Barr seemingly referenced the petitions before justices, noting, “I think it is going up to the Supreme Court.”
When Hirono asked if DOJ will continue to argue Title VII doesn’t bar anti-gay discrimination, Barr initially declined to answer directly.
“It’s pending litigation and I haven’t gotten in to review the department’s litigation position, but the matter will be decided by the Supreme Court,” Barr said.
Hirono responded: “That sounds like a ‘yes’ to me. The department will continue to push the argument that has been rejected.”
At this point, Barr tipped his hand on his view Title VII doesn’t cover anti-gay discrimination.
“It’s not just the department’s argument,” Barr said. “It’s been sort of common understanding for almost 40 years.”
Asked by Hirono if discrimination is OK, Barr replied, “That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying the question is the interpretation of the statute passed in 1964.”
“As I’ve already said, I personally, as a matter of my own personal feelings think there should be laws that prohibit discrimination against gay people,” Hirono said.
When Hirono asked Barr if he’d review the Justice Department’s position, Barr replied, “No. Because there’s a difference between law and policy.”
“I will enforce the laws as passed by Congress,” Barr said. “I’m not going to amend them. I’m not going to undercut them. I’m not going to try to work my way around them and evade them.
Hirono responded: “The DOJ doesn’t have to file an amicus brief either.”
The Hawaii Democrat wasn’t done on LGBT issues, asking Barr about an explosive report in the New York Times asserting the Department of Health & Human Services was preparing a rule to define transgender people out of existence under Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972.
Asked by Hirono if he believes transgender people are protected from discrimination under Title IX, Barr dodged.
“I think that matter’s being litigated in the Supreme Court, too,” Barr said.
When Barr added he doesn’t know the Justice Department’s position on the issue, Hirono said she’d ask him to review the issue.
LGBT groups have raised concerns about Barr’s confirmation as attorney general, asserting he lacks a commitment to protecting civil rights. (One longtime gay friend of Barr’s, however, former Time Warner general counsel Paul Cappuccio, has defended the nominee, telling the Blade, “He’s not going to ever let people be discriminated against, OK?”)
Jon Davidson, chief counsel of Freedom for All Americans, said Barr’s testimony “did little to assuage those concerns” of LGBT rights groups.
“While he testified he is “fine” with “gay marriage,” his comments that there “has to be accommodation to religion” — something not required or even permitted for other people’s marriages — is very disturbing,” Davidson said.
Davidson also raised concerns about Barr’s response on whether Title VII should cover anti-gay discrimination.
“In addition, although he said he thinks firing someone based on their sexual orientation is ‘wrong,’ he refused to disagree with the anti-LGBTQ positions the Justice Department has been taking when it comes to Title VII and he erroneously asserted that Title VII should be limited to what Congress believed it was accomplishing in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Davidson said. “That position has already been rejected several times by the Supreme Court, which has said that what Congress had in mind at the time is not controlling.
Ultimately, Davidson had a dismal forecast for Barr’s stewardship of the Justice Department.
“It appears that he intends to carry forward the positions of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, which have consistently opposed equal rights for LGBTQ people,” Davidson said.
Sharon McGowan, chief strategy officer for Lambda Legal, also said Barr’s testimony didn’t allay her concerns.
“I think he said absolutely nothing to alleviate any of the concerns that we have based on his record, and if anything, his comments only demonstrate that he is exactly what his record suggests that he is, which is someone who will not be a champion for civil rights generally or LGBT equality specifically,” McGowan said.
Barr’s confirmation hearing took place as the Justice Department is defending President Trump’s transgender military ban in court and has called on the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Barr didn’t address the policy, nor did any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee inquire about Barr’s view on the issue.