An enraged conservative threw a bigoted temper tantrum after he saw some LEGO store staff wearing rainbow pins, and now he’s getting roasted online.
The tirade began when John K Amanchukwu Sr, who describes himself as a contributor to far-right organisation Turning Point USA, went into a LEGO store and saw employees wearing kaleidoscopic Pride pins on their uniforms.
He then pulled out his camera, started arguing with them and posted the result on his social media channels.
Amanchukwu asked one worker if the “LEGO group supports” LGBTQ+ people, to which the employee called over another worker before replying, “Yes.”
“But the question is, why are you all in here with those pins on?” Amanchukwu asked. “Do you think children care about what man sucks d**k at home? What girl eats vaginas at home?”
The employees then asked Amanchukwu to leave, but he doubled down and insisted he wanted a response.
“I don’t think they think about that, personally,” the employee responded.
“Right, they think about it when they see your pin,” Amanchukwu said.
The employee insisted kids don’t think about that before telling Amanchukwu to leave again, and Amanchukwu weakly threatened to tell security that the workers were “in here wearing Pride flags”.
Security soon arrived, but Amanchukwu continued to rant about “grooming” before equating wearing LGBTQ+ Pride pins to “borderline pedophilia” and “child abuse”.
The security guard told Amanchukwu to leave the store, and he vowed not to spend any more money on LEGO – truly a terrifying threat to a billion-dollar company that has thrown its support behind the LGBTQ+ community before.
The clip has been widely viewed – and lambasted – on Twitter after it was shared by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. Kirk has promoted numerous conspiracy theories and “demonised the transgender community”, as noted by the Anti-Defamation League.
Amanchukwu didn’t win any sympathy points online, and people on Twitter came out in force to slam his video.
Social media users pointed out that the LEGO staffers were literally just doing their job while Amanchukwu – who was ranting about sexual acts and “grooming” – was the one actually being inappropriate in a toy store surrounded by children.
Twitter has quietly removed a policy against the “targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals,” raising concerns that the Elon Musk-owned platform is becoming less safe for marginalized groups.
Twitter enacted the policy against deadnaming, or using a transgender person’s name before they transitioned, as well as purposefully using the wrong gender for someone as a form of harassment, in 2018.
On Monday, Twitter also said it will only put warning labels on some tweets that are “potentially” in violation of its rules against hateful conduct. Previously, the tweets were removed.
It was in this policy update that Twitter appears to have deleted the line against deadnaming from its rules.
“Twitter’s decision to covertly roll back its longtime policy is the latest example of just how unsafe the company is for users and advertisers alike,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and CEO of the advocacy group GLAAD. “This decision to roll back LGBTQ safety pulls Twitter even more out of step with TikTok, Pinterest, and Meta, which all maintain similar policies to protect their transgender users at a time when anti-transgender rhetoric online is leading to real world discrimination and violence.”
Twitter did not immediately respond to a message for comment Tuesday.
Ugandan lawmakers have passed extreme legislation, that includes the death penalty for repeat offenders, requires people to report anyone suspected of being gay or lesbian to the authorities, and could send activists to jail for 20 years. President Yoweri Museveni has 30 days to sign the bill for it to become law.
This is an apt moment to recall Pope Francis’s recent statements that laws criminalizing homosexuality are “unjust,” and that the Catholic Church can and should oppose them. Recognizing that certain Catholic bishops support such laws, the Pope remarked on the need for change within the Church and emphasized the importance of recognizing the dignity of all human beings. Anglican and Presbyterian church leaders joined the Pope in condemning criminal penalties for same-sex conduct.
Yet, religious leaders in Uganda, including the Anglican Archbishop, Rt. Rev. Stephen Samuel Kaziimba, had been urging the passage of this insidious bill. The Ugandan bill expands the existing criminalization of same-sex conduct to create a legal framework for systematic persecution and social exclusion based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Ugandan Catholic clergy used the occasion of Ash Wednesday, a Christian ritual of repentance, to condemn homosexuality in the strongest terms, adding to a chorus of denunciation by public figures that has stoked a moral panic in Uganda.
Bishop Sanctus Lino Wanok, depicted homosexuality as “not human” and akin to “death”, while Fr. Agabito Arinaitwe, a curate in the important parish of the Uganda Martyrs Catholic Shrine, which commemorates the execution of early Catholic converts who refused the sexual advances of Mwanga II, the 19th century Buganda king, said, with reference to homosexuality: “It’s time we turn away from our evil deeds and turn back to the Lord.”
Since the passage of the bill, Catholic leaders have undertaken to discuss the content of the bill and announce ‘the position of the Catholic Church in Uganda.
“Being homosexual isn’t a crime,” Pope Francis said. “We are all children of God, and God loves us as we are and for the strength that each of us fights for our dignity.” He subsequently added that “Criminalizing people with homosexual tendencies is an injustice.” And that “Criminalization is a serious problem.” These are welcome statements from Pope Francis, renewing emphasis on existing Catholic Church doctrine that condemns violence, criminal penalties, and unjust discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Similarly, 10 years ago, South African Anglican Archbishop Thabo Makgoba called on everyone to “Respect the gift of difference,” adding, “I cannot allow people to be discriminated, and I cannot allow people to meet violence, just on the basis of their sexual orientation”.
For nearly a decade, Human Rights Watch has called on the Vatican to condemn government practices that condone violence and unjust discrimination, including the criminalization of same-sex conduct.
As we wrote to the Pope in 2014, while human rights principles and Church teaching are not always aligned when it comes to issues of gender and sexuality, we can agree that “respect for human dignity requires concrete actions to create an environment in which people in sexual and gender minorities can live peacefully as full members of society.”
As we have repeatedly documented, laws criminalizing homosexuality are not only unjust, they foment violence and abuse against LGBT people, as examples in Jamaica, Cameroon, Uganda, and Uzbekistan vividly testify.
Sadly, as the Pope acknowledges, Catholic leaders have often failed to condemn anti-LGBT laws, at times explicitly or implicitly endorsing them. In Zambia, for example, Catholic bishops recently reiterated that “[p]racticing homosexuality constitutes a criminal offence . . . and the law has to be respected.” Singapore’s archbishop initially opposed the recent repeal of a colonial-era anti-sodomy law, and only after the law was repealed stated the local church did not “seek to criminalise the LGBT [but to prevent so-called] reverse discrimination [against Catholics].” Some 67 countries still criminalize same-sex sexual activity, and a number of them can or do impose the death penalty.
Yet despite the reticence of local leaders, there is an opportunity for change. In October of this year, Catholic leaders will converge in the Vatican for a meeting of the Synod of Bishops. This meeting marks the culmination of a two-year consultation process with Catholic clergy and laity from around the world. Encouragingly, the Vatican’s working document for the Synod acknowledges the need for “a more meaningful dialogue and a more welcoming space” for those marginalized by the Church, including LGBT people.
Religious leaders should speak out unequivocally against a bill that metes out lengthy jail terms, or even death, for consensual same-sex relations, curtails any advocacy on the rights of LGBT people, and requires people to report anyone thought to be gay or lesbian to the police. Pope Francis himself could fall foul of this odious law.
A 10-year study has found that Australia could become one of the first countries to “virtually eliminate” HIV transmissions, with new infections decreasing dramatically.
The findings, published inLancet HIV, showed that HIV infections decreased by 66 per cent between 2010 and 2019 in New South Wales and Victoria, while there was a 27 per cent rise in people accessing effective HIV treatment.
Increased access to HIV treatment and PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) – the medication that prevents a person from contracting HIV – was cited as a key reason for decreased transmissions.
The journal also endorsed the public health strategy “treatment as prevention” or TasP, explaining that HIV treatment “results in virally suppressing the HIV virus”, which reduces a person’s risk of transmitting HIV to another person to zero.
“We examined 10 years of clinical data from over 100,000 gay and bisexual men in New South Wales and Victoria,” Dr Denton Callander, who led the research at UNSW’s Kirby Institute, told the University of New South Wales.
“We found that over time, as viral suppression increased, HIV incidence decreased. Indeed, every percentage point increase in successfully treated HIV saw a fivefold decrease in new infections, thus establishing treatment as prevention as a powerful public health strategy.”
Dr Callander also underlined the importance of access to HIV testing, as well as the “widespread availability” of PrEP.
Professor Mark Stoové from the Burnet Institute, co-senior author on the paper, added that the success of Australian measures such as education on HIV and reduced patient treatment costs could see the country “virtually eliminate” new HIV transmissions.
“Australia is on track to become one of the first countries globally to virtually eliminate the transmission of HIV,” Professor Stoové said.
“The results of this research show that further investment in HIV treatment – especially alongside PrEP – is a crucial component of HIV elimination.”
HIV experts have explained how medical breakthroughs have transformed the treatment and prevention of the virus.
In fact, U=U means that if a HIV-positive person has been taking effective HIV treatment, and their viral load has been undetectable for six months or more, they cannot pass the virus on through sex.
In the UK, former health secretary Matt Hancock committed to ending new HIV transmissions by 2030, however, charities and activists have expressed doubt that the country will be able to meet its target.
Richard Angell, campaigns director at the Terrence Higgins Trust, told PinkNews that it’s now “possible but not probable” that the UK will reach the 2030 goal.
Some “huge successes” were praised in terms of UK HIV prevention, but experts explained that inequality and stigma, as well as a lack of resources, were still hurdles to overcome in order to meet Hancock’s aim.
Missouri’s attorney general announced new restrictions Thursday on gender-affirming care for adults in addition to minors in a move that is believed to be a first nationally and has advocacy groups threatening to sue.
Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced plans to restrict health care for transgender people weeks ago, when protesters rallied at the Capitol to urge lawmakers to pass a law banning puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries for children. But the discussion was focused on minors, not adults.
Missouri Attorney General spokeswoman Madeline Sieren clarified in a statement later in the day that adults also would be covered.
“We have serious concerns about how children are being treated throughout the state, but we believe everyone is entitled to evidence-based medicine and adequate mental health care,” Sieren said.
The rule, which incudes a required 18 months of therapy before receiving gender-affirming health care, is set to take effect April 27 and expire next February.
The ACLU and Lambda Legal said in a joint statement that they would “take any necessary legal action” and urged those affected to call.
“The Attorney General’s so-called emergency rule is based on distorted, misleading, and debunked claims and ignores the overwhelming body of scientific and medical evidence supporting this care,” the statement said.
Robert Fischer, the spokesman for the LGBTQ rights groups PROMO, said he was not aware of similar restrictions elsewhere.
“He’s essentially attacking the entire trans community at this point,” Fischer said of Bailey. “It’s no longer just about children.”
The National Center for Transgender Equality called the order “deeply wrong” in a tweet, adding that “trans people of all ages across the state of Missouri deserve access to health care.”
The restrictions are in response to a former employee’s allegations of mistreatment at a transgender youth clinic in St. Louis run by Washington University. Bailey is investigating the center.
“My office is stepping up to protect children throughout the state while we investigate the allegations and how they are harming children,” Bailey said in a statement.
University spokespeople didn’t immediately respond to phone or email messages from The Associated Press seeking comment.
Moving forward, doctors who provide gender-affirming health care must first provide them a lengthy list of potential negative side effects and information warning against those treatments, according to a copy of the rule released Thursday.
Health care providers will need to ensure “any psychiatric symptoms from existing mental health comorbidities of the patient have been treated and resolved” before providing gender-affirming treatments under the new rule. Physicians also must screen patients for social media addiction, autism and signs of “social contagion with respect to the patient’s gender identity.”
The FDA approved puberty blockers 30 years ago to treat children with precocious puberty — a condition that causes sexual development to begin much earlier than usual. Sex hormones — synthetic forms of estrogen and testosterone — were approved decades ago to treat hormone disorders or as birth control pills.
The FDA has not approved the medications specifically to treat gender-questioning youth, but they have been used for many years for that purpose “off label,” a common and accepted practice for many medical conditions. Doctors who treat transgender patients say those decades of use are proof the treatments are not experimental.
Critics have raise concerns about children changing their minds. Yet the evidence suggests detransitioning is not as common as opponents of transgender medical treatment for youth contend, though few studies exist and they have their weaknesses.
Bailey’s rule was released the same day Missouri’s Republican-led House voted to ban access to transgender-related health care for minors.
The House voted 103-52 along mostly party lines in favor of the ban, although the bill’s passage seems uncertain in the Senate.
The House proposal is stricter than what was passed by the GOP-led Senate, where Democrats have more influence through the use of stall tactics.
Senators compromised to exempt care for minors whose treatment is already underway. The Senate bill also would expire after four years.
The House version includes no exceptions for current treatments and would remain in effect indefinitely.
Republican Senate leaders said it’s unlikely that the House version will make it through the Senate.
“We’ve already passed legislation on this issue out of the Senate,” Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden said. “We would expect the House to appreciate how hard and difficult it was and to take up our bill and pass it.”
Both the House and Senate proposals would ban inmates and prisoners from accessing gender-affirming surgeries and would end coverage of any gender-affirming treatments for Missouri patients on Medicaid, the federal health insurance program.
The Human Rights Campaign condemned the legislation in a statement, describing gender-affirming care as medically necessary.
At least 13 states have now enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota and West Virginia. Bills are awaiting action from governors in Kansas, Montana and North Dakota. Federal judges have blocked enforcement of laws in Alabama and Arkansas, and nearly two dozen states are considering bills this year to restrict or ban care.
House debate on the bill became emotional as some Democrats argued the ban on health care will hurt transgender children.
“You are erasing my grandchild,” said St. Louis Democratic Rep. Barbara Phifer, whose grandson is transgender.
Republican sponsor Rep. Brad Hudson, of Cape Fair, criticized Democrats for threatening to end political partnerships and friendships with Republicans over the bill.
Hudson said his bill “seeks to protect kids” and that it’s unfair that Democrats are describing it as hateful towards transgender children.
“A yes vote is a vote to protect kids from sex-change drugs and surgeries,” Hudson said.
The high-stakes legal battle over a widely used abortion pill has left some blue states busily stockpiling the medication, in anticipation of a time when it could no longer be easily accessible.
The big picture: At least two states say they are creating reserves of mifepristone to continue enabling access to the two-pill regimen for medication abortion that’s at the center of the legal battle. Two others are focusing on the other pill, whose availability isn’t threatened, to offer an alternative.
Misoprostol can be used on its own to terminate a pregnancy, but the method is slightly less effective. The combination regimen is considered the gold standard by health providers.
Driving the news: Last week, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked lower court rulings that put restrictions on the use of mifepristone that the Food and Drug Administration had lifted over the years, including a ban on teleprescribing.
Mifepristone is still available without those limitationsuntil at least Wednesday while anti-abortion groups respond.
But courts have yet to settle anti-abortion groups challenge to the FDA’s overall authorization, and the case could well wind up at the high court again.
What’s happening: The states that have said are stockpiling abortion pills have laws protecting abortion access.
In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said the state “secured an emergency stockpile” of up to 2 million doses of misoprostol.
MassachusettsGov. Maura Healey (D) requested the University of Massachusetts purchase around 15,000 doses of mifepristone and has directed individual health providers to do so as well, which the state says will “ensure sufficient coverage … for more than a year.”
The state will financially support any provider by paying for the doses.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) stockpiled 150,000 doses of misoprostol, a projected five-year supply, “to meet anticipated needs.”
In Washington state, Gov. Jay Inslee (D) purchased a three-year supply of mifepristone through the state’s Department of Corrections, which has a pharmacy license.
Dispensing mifepristone in Washington at the moment is also protected by a separate federal ruling that prohibits the FDA from rolling back access to the drug.
State of play: The Supreme Court could reinstate the restrictions or even scrap the FDA’s approval of the drug, which could cut off access in Massachusetts and Washington state.
If the FDA’s authorization is revoked, it’s possible that providing mifepristone would violate the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act “because that would cause the introduction of an unapproved drug into interstate commerce,” said Delia Deschaine, an attorney at Epstein Becker Green specializing in FDA regulatory matters.
However, the Justice Department is responsible for enforcing federal law and has argued that mifepristone is safe and effective. That makes it unlikely that the federal government would enforce the law against providers or pharmacies that are prescribing or dispensing mifepristone, even if it’s technically unapproved, Deschaine added.
Yes, but: States would still be subject to the restrictions if they take effect after Wednesday, particularly the in-person prescribing and dispensing requirement.
The first openly gay person to lead the American Medical Association takes the reins at a fractious time for U.S. health care.
Transgender patients and those seeking abortion care face restrictions in many places. The medical judgment of physicians is being overridden by state laws. Disinformation is rampant. And the nation isn’t finished with Covid-19.
In the two decades since Dr. Jesse Ehrenfeld first got involved with the AMA as young medical resident, the nation’s largest physicians’ group has tried to shed its image as a conservative self-interested trade association. While physician pocketbook issues remain a big focus, the AMA is also a powerful lobbying force for a range of public health issues.
Two years ago, the AMA won widespread praise for announcing a plan to dismantle structural racism within its ranks and the U.S. medical establishment. It has adopted policies that stress health equity and inclusiveness — moves that inspired critics to accuse it of “wokeness.”
At 44, Ehrenfeld will be among the AMA’s youngest presidents when he begins his one-year term on June 13. An anesthesiologist, Navy combat veteran and father of two young children, he spoke recently to The Associated Press about his background and new job.
The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
Q. Why is your being part of the LGBTQ community a big deal at this moment and how will it inform your role as AMA president?
A: I didn’t run as a gay man. That’s not my platform, but it’s a part of my identity. And people know that.
Representation and visibility is so important. I can’t tell you the number of emails, letters, phone calls, text messages that I got when I was elected into this role from people around the world that saw this as an important moment, an important recognition of what inclusivity and equality can be to help advance health equity for everyone.
Q: How will your experience as part of the LGBTQ community inform and influence your new role?
A: I’ve experienced the health care system as a gay person, as a gay parent, as in many ways wonderful positive experiences and other ways, some deeply harmful experiences. And I know that we can do better as a nation. We can do better as a system that can lift up health. And I expect that there’ll be opportunities to shine a light on that during my year as president.
Q: What are examples of those experiences?
A: There’s so many times where our health care system just does not accommodate people who aren’t in the majority. As a gay parent and a gay dad, I can’t tell you how many forms I filled out where there’s a place for the mom and a place for the dad. It’s a small thing. But it’s a signal that we’re different and maybe we’re not welcome or accepted.
When you have those small, subtle irritations that add up day after day after day, whether you’re an LGBT person or from a minority group, that causes stress. These friction points … are so pronounced for so many who are in underserved communities, so many in the LGBT community, and particularly for transgender individuals. And I know we can do better.
I’ve been fortunate to have two beautiful boys brought into this world with the support of an incredible group of physicians. But there were definitely lots of moments along the way where it was clear that we were a little bit different than everybody else in a way that didn’t need to be.
Q: This seems like an unprecedented time for political interference in medicine.
A: I’m deeply concerned about government intrusion into decision-making for patients. The Supreme Court ruling around abortion has had profound implications for reproductive rights. And fundamentally, patients have a right to access evidence-based health care services. That includes comprehensive reproductive health care. It includes care for transgender people.
States that ban abortion, that ban health care for transgender youth are placing the government right into the patient-physician relationship. And we know that this leads to devastating health consequences and can jeopardize lives. The AMA continues to speak out against these kinds of actions.
Q: What power does the AMA really have to protect those rights?
A: I don’t think we’re powerless at all. The AMA was deeply involved in helping the Biden Administration put out guidance to help physicians and patients understand that you don’t have to disclose private medical information to third parties. And we’ll continue to call for things like unrestricted access to (the abortion drug) mifepristone.
Q: Are you discouraged by the number of states that seem to be jumping on this bandwagon?
A: I’m an optimist. There are particular political divisions that are different right now. The attack on science, the attack on following the evidence to deliver care is new. Globally, it has accelerated during the pandemic, but the rampant misinformation, disinformation — all of those challenges are things I know we can overcome. It requires the AMA to lift up our voices and to not give up.
Q: Will addressing the nation’s mental health crisis be part of your role?
A: We need Congress to take action. There have been 15 years now of repeated failures by health care companies to comply with what was a landmark law in 2008 around mental health parity and substance use disorder.
That law passed by Congress has never been enforced. Those violations continue to be more serious than they were a decade ago.
It affects patients with autism. It affects patients with eating disorders, substance use disorders. It delays care. It’s harming patients.
And we are likely causing deaths to happen that are avoidable. We know that there are federal actions that could be taken to help with this, including enabling patients to recover losses associated with an improper denial of care.
The other aspect around mental health access that is really important is permanently expanding access to telehealth.
Q: Critics have long said the AMA is primarily a self-interested trade group. How is that a misconception?
A: We have a pretty simple message, and it’s to elevate the art and science of medicine for the betterment of human health. And that’s why we care about things like climate change and things like health equity.
We have to make sure that there is joy in the practice of medicine. We have to make sure that our health care systems reward and support and allow practices to thrive.
And you look at boneheaded decisions like the fact that physicians got a 2% pay cut from Medicare this past January as opposed to an inflation update. Those are things that are important. They’re financial.
But without advocacy in those realms, practices will close. Medicare patients won’t have a doctor to see. And we just we can’t allow that to happen.
A transgender woman in Montana received a judgement for over $66,500 in damages due to being denied gender-affirming healthcare from a government-provided insurance plan while employed by a county government. An administrative judge ruled in August 2020 that doing so violated the Montana Human Rights Act as well as the state and federal Constitutions, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Affordable Care Act.
Eleanor Andersen Maloney was a Senior Deputy County Attorney for the Yellowstone County Attorney’s Office beginning in February 2017, when the county explicitly recruited her. She had previously been with the state’s Attorney General’s Office. Maloney began transitioning and was subsequently diagnosed with gender dysphoria in August. When medical bills started to come in, the health plan providers began requesting their payments back for the services because they were “made in error.”
In April 2018, when she began to explore surgical gender-affirming care, she was told explicitly by the health plan that such services were to be categorically denied. Maloney notified the County and her superior of these “possibly discriminatory” practices. She even met with the County Commissioners to implore them to address the issue, but afterwards she never heard from then again.
Meanwhile, the plan providers began denying any bills related to her transition, including therapy services. So in May, she issued a resignation letter to the County.
“The only factor that led to the decision to seek employment elsewhere was the specific exclusion in the County’s health care plan as administered by [the health plan’s administrator] prohibiting coverage for ‘services or supplies related to sexual reassignment.’ It remains my position that this provision is contrary to the current status of the law, and is facially discriminatory,” she wrote. The judges would ultimately agree with her.
By leaving her job, Maloney not only lost out on a job she liked so much that she said, “absent the healthcare coverage, I’d go back in a heartbeat,” but she lost out on an expected pay increase of “the greater of 4,000.00 or 4.00% annually.” She had to move out of the city of Billings following the lost of income and the difficulty to find a job within town that didn’t explicitly reject gender-affirming healthcare — but since she had already started therapy and began receiving other care within Billings, she had to make trips that were about 480 miles round-trip on a regular basis.
According to the judgement, the hearing officer found that it was unlawful for both the health plans offered by the county to explicitly state “services or supplies related to sexual reassignment and reversal of such procedures” were to be denied.
While the sum she received is near two-thirds of $100,000, Maloney claimed that from “lost compensation and unpaid moving and medical vehicle expenses,” the discrimination cost her $131,879.96 — which doesn’t even include the moving and medical expenses she already paid, some of which she didn’t submit for as part of damages.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Montana, which represented her in the lawsuit, announced that Montana has become the latest state — in addition to “Twenty states, in addition to the District of Columbia, [that] have also issued guidance confirming that such exclusions are discriminatory and unlawful.” They also note the federal government no longer works with health plans with similar exclusions.
“Eleanor’s victory should send a message to policymakers and employers around the country that denying health care to transgender people is costly. Multiple ACLU clients who have sued over the denial of gender-affirming care have received compensation for the discrimination they faced,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney with the ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project — which assisted the ACLU of Montana in the case.
Picasso further stated, “No employee should have to tolerate being denied insurance coverage for their medically necessary health care solely because they are transgender. A person shouldn’t be forced to ask a court just to receive medically necessary health care, but this victory reaffirms that when trans people fight back, we win.”
Yellowstone County issued a statement saying they appreciate the ruling “clarifying” the issue for them.
Activist Zooey Zephyr, a trans woman now running for the Montana House of Representatives, said to NBC Montana, “Yes, we won this case, our community was validated and told, ‘You are protected from discrimination.’ But we need to make sure that those rights don’t get chipped away bit by bit by a legislature.”
Maloney declined further comment to media following the judgement, but said in the ACLU’s statement, “I’m grateful that the rights of LGBTQIA+ Montanans are vindicated today.”
According to the ruling, she has worked as an Assistant Public Defender at the Montana Public Defender’s Office (OPD) in Butte, Montana since March 2020.
Gay, lesbian and bisexual youths are at far greater risk of sleep problems than their straight counterparts, according to a new study published in the journal LGBT Health.
Researchers analyzed data on more than 8,500 young people ages 10 to 14, a critical time for mental and physical development. They found that 35.1% of those who identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual reported trouble falling or staying asleep in the previous two weeks, compared to 13.5% of straight-identifying adolescents.
In addition, 30.8% of questioning youths — those who answered “maybe” to being gay, lesbian or bisexual — reported problems with getting a full night’s rest.
“Sleep is incredibly important for a teenager’s health,” said lead author Jason M. Nagata, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. “There’s growth spurts and hormonal changes that help you develop normally.”
Most kids don’t get quality sleep to begin with, Nagata said, but LGBTQ youths can face bullying and discrimination at school or conflicts at home that contribute to mental health issues.
Those problems can keep them from falling or staying asleep.
“It’s likely that one feeds off the other — poor sleep worsening mental health issues and mental health issues worsening sleep,” said Dr. Matthew Hirschtritt, a psychiatrist and researcher with Kaiser Permanente who did not work on the study.
Adolescents who get insufficient sleep may also have difficulty completing schoolwork and facing other academic challenges, Hirschtritt said, “which can exacerbate some of the school-based problems that LGBT youth already face.”
Nagata’s team used data from 2018 to 2020 from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which included questions for both the subjects and their parents about their sleep habits.
Existing research already points to increased sleep issues among sexual minorities, but Nagata said he believes this is the first time gay, lesbian and bisexual youths have been the focus.
“This is such a volatile period, both physically and mentally,” he said. “Teens are particularly vulnerable to the opinions of their peers, so it’s a high-risk group for mental health problems and suicide.”
Further research could illuminate other factors fueling sleep disorders among queer youths, he said.
“LGB kids experience more substance use than their peers, for example, which can alter sleep cycles and impair sleep,” he said.
Overstimulation and stress can also affect sleep. Separate researchNagata has worked on indicates gay youths use screens an average of nearly four hours a day more than straight kids.
He recommends teenagers establish consistent sleep schedules, make sure their sleeping environments are comfortable and limit their exposure to electronic devices and social media before bed.
Co-author Kyle T. Ganson, a professor at the University of Toronto’s Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, said parents can also help by being actively involved in their children’s lives and supportive of their identities and any feelings they may be exploring.
“Adolescent development is a challenging time for many given the social pressures and physical, psychological and emotional changes that occur,” Ganson said in a statement. “Understanding this process and being present to support it is crucial for positive health outcomes.”
A new study from Rutgers University found a significant increase in the frequency of intimate partner violence (IPV) in same-sex relationships with a history of IPV following the recent pandemic and global shutdown.
The study entitled “Sociodemographic characteristics, depressive symptoms, and increased frequency of intimate partner violence among LGBTQ people in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic: A brief report” will appear in the April 2023 edition of the Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services but was published early online.
The study reported over one in eleven LGBTQ+ people in a same-sex relationship suffered from IPV, and 18 percent of those folks reported incidents of IPV increased following the pandemic and lockdown. Those living in the southern U.S. or associated with more severe symptoms of depression experienced IPV at a higher frequency. The study’s authors noted the lack of research on incidents of IPV in a same-sex relationship and said their current study highlighted a need in the LGBTQ+ community.
“To date, most programs on intimate partner violence focus on opposite sex and heterosexual couples,” Perry N. Halkitis, dean of the Rutgers School of Public Health and the study’s senior study, said in a statement. “However, same-sex couples are different in terms of partner dynamics, and thus interventions need to address these differences.”
The study used an anonymous online survey of 1,090 LGBTQ+ individuals. Of those surveyed, 98 said they were victims of IPV in their current relationship, and 18 percent of those individuals reported an increase in incidents of IPV after the start of the pandemic and lockdown.
According to other recent research, members of the LGBTQ+ community experience IPV at a similar or higher frequency than those in heterosexual relationships. One study found 61.1 percent of bisexual women, 43.8 percent of lesbian women, 37.3 percent of bisexual men, and 26 percent of homosexual men experienced IPV at least once over their life, compared to 35 percent of heterosexual women and 29 percent of heterosexual men. In cases of severe violence, the numbers were even higher for those in same-sex relationships: 49.3 percent of bisexual women, 29.4 percent of lesbian women, and 16.4 percent of homosexual men compared to 23.6 percent of heterosexual women and 13.9 percent of heterosexual men. The same study also found over 50 percent of gay men and almost 75 percent of lesbians said they suffered from psychological abuse from an intimate partner. Another study found bisexual folks and bisexual women in particular were the most likely to suffer from all forms of intimate partner abuse, followed by lesbians, heterosexual women, gay men, and heterosexual men.
“Intimate partner violence interventions need to address that LGBTQ people are not monolithic in terms of many factors, including environments in which they live,” Halkitas concluded. “Now more than ever given the attacks on LGBTQ people by politicians, the work we are doing at our research center CHIBPS is as important as ever,” Halkitis said.
The study’s other authors include Christopher B. Stults, Kristen D. Krause, Richard J. Martino, Marybec Griffin, Caleb E. LoSchiavo, Savannah G. Lynn, Stephan A. Brandt, David Tana, Nicolas Hornea, Gabin Lee and Jessie Wong.
If you are experiencing domestic violence you can reach out to the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1.800.799.SAFE (7233) for help. You can also call 988 for the National Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.