If federal lawmakers want to show they care about children and families, there’s perhaps no better opportunity in the near term than by passing the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act (CWPIA). Pending in the House as H.R. 1881 (introduced by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.)), and in the Senate as S. 811 (introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.)), CWPIA would ensure that the maximum number of adoption providers remain in the marketplace and are able to serve America’s overloaded and burdened foster-care systems.
As FRC’s Travis Weber recently pointed out in an analysis of the topic, CWPIA is a win-win solution to our current foster-care dynamic. Protecting the freedom of providers to operate according to their beliefs ensures the maximum number of providers remain open for business and able to serve the ever-present waiting list of children looking for families to take them in. It also ensures the maximum number of potential adoptive families looking for children.
Charitable organizations, as Travis observes, make massive financial contributions to our nation’s public welfare — often without recognition or credit. These organizations include adoption providers. Yet these same providers are facing threats to their existence. They have already been forced out of Massachusetts, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco due to their beliefs, and some were just suspended in Philadelphia. As they seek to follow their beliefs while continuing to serve the public good, the threat to them has continued to metastasize in other states, with lawsuits and public pressure opposing their freedom to operate according to their beliefs.
This bill prohibits the federal government, and any state or local government that receives federal funding for any program that provides child welfare services under part B (Child and Family Services) or part E (Foster Care and Adoption Assistance) of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSAct), from discriminating or taking an adverse action against a child welfare service provider that declines to provide, facilitate, or refer for a child welfare service that conflicts with the provider’s sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.
The Department of Health and Human Services must withhold 15% of the federal funds that a state or local government receives for such programs if the state or local government violates this bill. An aggrieved child welfare service provider may assert such an adverse action violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and to obtain all appropriate relief (including declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs).
In a striking shift from recent years, major legislation curtailing LGBT rights has been completely stymied in state capitols around the country this year amid anxiety by Republican leaders over igniting economic backlash if they are depicted as discriminatory.
In the thick of this year’s legislative sessions, LGBT activists were tracking about 120 proposed bills that they viewed as threats to their civil rights. Not one of them has been enacted as many sessions now wind down; only two remain under serious consideration.
A key factor in the shift: In the Republican-led states where these types of bills surface, moderate GOP lawmakers and business leaders are increasingly wary of losing conventions, sporting events and corporate headquarters.
North Carolina, Indiana and Arizona were among the states that faced similar backlash in recent years over such legislation.
“Being anti-equality is not considered good politics anymore,” said legislative specialist Cathryn Oakley of the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT rights organization.
Just two years ago, it seemed that the state-level bills might proliferate. North Carolina passed a bill restricting transgender people’s bathroom access and Mississippi enacted a sweeping law allowing state employees and private businesses to deny services to LGBT people based on religious objections. Seven states have passed laws allowing faith-based adoption agencies some degree of protection if they refuse to place children with same-sex couples.
To the extent that the tide has turned, it’s due partly to the fallout over the North Carolina bill in 2016. The NCAA and NBA pulled games from the state; there were projections before lawmakers rolled back the restrictions that the law would cost the state several billion dollars in lost business.
The change in momentum at the state level comes at a time when conservatives have a strong ally in President Donald Trump on the issue. His administration is seeking to exclude transgender people from military service and promoting exemptions that could enable businesses, health care providers and others to refuse to accommodate LGBT people based on their religious beliefs.
Later this year, perhaps in June, a potentially momentous ruling is expected from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether businesses that serve the public can cite religious objections to refuse service to LGBT people, even in states that protect them in their nondiscrimination laws. The case involves a Colorado baker who did not want to make a cake for a same-sex couple to celebrate their wedding.
Some conservatives suggest legislative leaders are treading softly on these issues now for fear of provoking big corporations and pro sports leagues that support LGBT rights.
“The left is leveraging the cultural and economic power of big businesses like Amazon and Apple to force smaller businesses and nonprofits that hold traditional views on marriage to shut down,” contends attorney Emilie Kao, a religious freedom expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“A lot of people feel they’re being bullied into silence, and the big businesses are all on the side of this new sexual orthodoxy,” Kao added. “For social conservatives, it feels very much like David and Goliath.”
This year, certainly, conservatives have struggled to gain much traction at the state level on LGBT-related issues. Among the many bills that failed:
—A Tennessee measure that would have required the state to defend schools in court if they were sued for limiting transgender students’ access to bathrooms.
—A South Dakota bill that would have required signs on some public restroom doors notifying users that a person of the opposite sex might be inside.
—A “religious liberties” bill in Georgia that would have given legal protection to faith-based adoption agencies that decline to place children with same-sex couples.
An ever-growing number of states — at least a dozen — have passed bills banning the practice of “gay conversion therapy” on minors. And voters in Anchorage, Alaska, rejected a ballot measure that would have restricted transgender people’s access to public restrooms.
The two remaining bills being tracked by LGBT groups — in Kansas and Oklahoma — are similar to Georgia’s adoption bill. Supporters say they are needed to ensure that faith-based agencies which oppose same-sex marriage can still help accommodate the rising number of children entering foster care due to the opioid crisis.
Without the bills, Kao says faith-based agencies face potential lawsuits by LGBT-rights groups “because they follow their beliefs that every child deserves both a mother and a father.”
The changing dynamics across the U.S. reflect the growing political clout of LGBT groups.
Megadonor Tim Gill has become one of the nation’s leading philanthropists for LGBT causes, spending tens of millions of dollars from his fortune accrued from a software company he started. One of his priorities now is to move beyond “the easy states” and build new alliances in Republican-controlled states that could pave the way for non-discrimination laws.
His Denver-based foundation is helping bankroll a national campaign being launched this week by the Ad Council, known for iconic public service ad campaigns including Smokey Bear and “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk.” Called “Beyond I Do,” it makes the point that while same-sex marriage is now legal nationwide, LGBT people still face legal discrimination in a majority of states — including getting evicted, fired or denied services.
Only 19 states — mostly Democratic strongholds — offer comprehensive nondiscrimination protections for gays, lesbians and transgender people.
The new ad campaign is projected to get at least $15 million in donated media support — including TV and radio time, and billboard space. Among the people featured in more than 20 stories and video spots are a Michigan couple who said a pediatrician refused to treat their newborn daughter because of objections to their same-sex marriage, and an Ohio woman who says she was fired as a teacher because she is a lesbian.
“We have to make new and different friends,” Gill said. “Ultimately a federal solution is better, but it always comes after the states have demonstrated the need.”
A couple’s newborn baby faced discrimination because of their sexual orientation. The discrimination is 100 percent legal.
Michigan residents, Jami and Krista Contreras, took their newborn baby to the doctor, and their daughter was denied care.
Is our doctor coming in? She said no-I’m going to be your doctor, your doctor prayed on it and decided she won’t see you all today,” Krista said in an interview with ABC 7.
The couple is speaking out in the new ‘Beyond I do’ campaign that aims to raise awareness about the issues the LGBTQ community experiences.
The couple was surprised to learn that the discrimination is legal, and hopes to educate their friends and peers about the law.
“We spoke to other people and they would say well they can’t do that… that’s not legal and we looked into it and it was legal,” Jami said.
Even though the couple has faced discrimination in the past because of their LGBTQ lifestyle they never imagined it would impact their baby girl.
“It was horrifying and humiliating and we just kept thinking god she’s 6 days old and she’s already experiencing discrimination,” Krista said.
To coincide with this, a protest will take place on 19 April at 1pm in front of Marlborough House, London.
37 countries still have a gay sex ban
‘It’s outrageous that in 2018 Commonwealth leaders are still refusing to even discuss LGBT human rights,’ Peter Tatchell, whose foundation helped to launch the petition, told Gay Star News.
‘It’s never been on their agenda in six decades. Millions of LGBT people live in countries where being gay is a crime. That’s a violation of the Commonwealth charter and international law.
‘The fact the Commonwealth colludes with homophobic, biphobic and transphobic discrimination is truly appalling.
‘This petition is to tell the Commonwealth leaders that time’s up on blocking the debate and refusing to remedy the gross persecution of LGBT people in 37 member states.’
Phyll Opoku-Gyimah, co-founder of UK Black Pride, told GSN it’s important to question why these sodomy laws exist.
‘This is about colonialism,’ she said.
‘For me rejecting an MBE was not down to “I didn’t care”, I rejected it because LGBT people in Commonwealth countries are still tortured, persecuted, criminalized, imprisoned – they lose everything.
‘How could I possibly elevate an award over people I set out to serve?’
‘Britain should apologize’
S Chelvan, the International Rights Officer for UK Black Pride, was born in Sri Lanka.
For the past 16 years, he has worked with many people from Commonwealth countries who have fled persecution on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity.
‘Britain should apologize,’ he told GSN, adding it should avoid ‘neo-colonialism’.
‘[The government should] ask the activists how they want to address the inequalities in their countries,’ he added.
‘Listen to the activists, create the safe spaces, and take their directions on what they want us to do. We want to provide solidarity.’
Demands for Commonwealth’s 37 countries that ban homosexuality
These are the four demands of the petition to the leaders of all Commonwealth nations:
Decriminalize same-sex relations
Prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity
Enforce laws against threats and violence, to protect LGBT+ people from hate crimes
Consult and dialogue with national LGBT+ organizations
The petition is supported by: The Commonwealth Equality Network, Kaleidoscope Trust, Peter Tatchell Foundation, UK Black Pride, African Equality Foundation, Equality Network, African Rainbow Family, Movement for Justice, House of Rainbow, Out & Proud African LGBTI, Micro Rainbow, Africa Advocacy Foundation, Rainbow Across Borders, African Eye Trust. Manchester Migrant Solidarity and Care2.
An anti-LGBT lobbying group is fighting to keep details of its discussions with the Trump administration private – after a subpoena directed activists to turn over documents relating to the transgender troop ban.
Donald Trump announced on Twitter in July 2017 that all transgender servicepeople would be purged from the US armed forces, claiming they were a “burden” on the military.
Despite a string of lawsuits, the White House issued a formal policy document last month that backed the stance by citing transgender people’s “high rates of mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders” and “extremely high rates of suicidal ideation and other comorbidities.” The document also claimed that “transition-related treatment is proving to be disproportionately costly.”
Leading and military experts came forward to deride the claims, with the American Medical Association stressing that there is “no medically valid reason to exclude transgender individuals from service.” Two former Surgeons General also rubbished the Trump administration’s report.
It has since been alleged that Vice President Mike Pence played a leading role in the creation of that report alongside anti-LGBT lobbyists from the Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council, working over the head of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
The Family Research Council now says it has been served with a subpoena to disclose its documents relating to the policy.
Tony Perkins of FRC told supporters: “[LGBT activists] have resorted to one of their favourite avenues to impose their fringe agenda: the court system.
“They have issued subpoenas, demanding that we produce all communications on the topic between senior leaders at Family Research Council and the administration.
“We’ve had to hire a law firm to represent us in the case, and our lawyers have objected to this demand, asserting our First Amendment religious freedom and speech rights. The LGBT activist groups have now filed a motion seeking a court order compelling us to turn over the privileged documents.
“Let me be clear, the purpose of these subpoenas is not to resolve any constitutional questions. Their intent is clear – to intimidate FRC and our supporters from standing up for our military service members.
“They also know that it takes significant time and resources to respond to subpoenas, scarce time and resources that we should be focusing on advancing faith, family, and freedom.”
Perkins added: “As a trusted friend of FRC, I wanted to make you aware of this developing situation and ask for your prayers.”
Tony Perkins, President of the Family Researcil Council, stand for the Pledge of Allegiance on the fourth day of the Republican National Convention (Win McNamee/Getty)
There are a string of lawsuits in progress connected to the transgender ban, and district court judges have already issued injunctions blocking the policy from coming into effect.
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) are behind Doe v. Trump, the first of four cases filed against the ban.
Of the administration’s recently-outlined plans, Jennifer Levi of GLAD said: “This Trump-Pence plan categorically bans transgender people from service, with no legitimate basis. It requires the discharge of trained, skilled troops who have served honourably for decades. It’s a gross mischaracterisation of transgender people, and it’s bad for our military.”
Shannon Minter of NCLR added: “This is exactly the discriminatory, categorical ban that four federal courts have already barred from going forward.
“This is just the sort of baseless attack on dedicated service members we have come to expect from this administration, and we will continue to fight this shameful ban vigorously in federal court.”
Former U.S. Surgeons General M. Joycelyn Elders and David Satcher previously warned against the ban.
They said: “We are troubled that the Defense Department’s report on transgender military service has mischaracterised the robust body of peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of transgender medical care as demonstrating ‘considerable scientific uncertainty.’
“In fact, there is a global medical consensus that such care is reliable, safe and effective. An expectation of certainty is an unrealistic and counterproductive standard of evidence for health policy—whether civilian or military—because even the most well-established medical treatments could not satisfy that standard. Indeed, setting certainty as a standard suggests an inability to refute the research.
“A wide body of reputable, peer-reviewed research has demonstrated to psychological and health experts that treatments for gender dysphoria are effective.
“Research on the effectiveness of medical care for gender dysphoria was the basis of the American Medical Association’s 2015 resolution that ‘there is no medically valid reason to exclude transgender individuals from service in the U.S. military,’ and we expressed our support for the resolution at the time of its passage.
“In light of [the] announcement concerning military policy for transgender service members, we underscore that transgender troops are as medically fit as their non-transgender peers and that there is no medically valid reason—including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria—to exclude them from military service or to limit their access to medically necessary care.”
The American Psychological Association also condemned the Trump administration’s stance.
It said: “The American Psychological Association is alarmed by the administration’s misuse of psychological science to stigmatise transgender Americans and justify limiting their ability to serve in uniform and access medically necessary health care.
“Substantial psychological research shows that gender dysphoria is a treatable condition, and does not, by itself, limit the ability of individuals to function well and excel in their work, including in military service. The science is clear that individuals who are adequately treated for gender dysphoria should not be considered mentally unstable. Additionally, the incidence of gender dysphoria is extremely low.
“No scientific evidence has shown that allowing transgender people to serve in the armed forces has an adverse impact on readiness or unit cohesion. What research does show is that discrimination and stigma undermine morale and readiness by creating a significant source of stress for sexual minorities that can harm their health and well-being.”
A hairdresser has been handed a life sentence with a minimum term of 12 years at Brighton crown court after deliberately trying to infect 10 men with HIV.
Daryll Rowe, 27, from Brighton, showed no emotion as he was sentenced for five charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and five of attempting to do so.
After being diagnosed in April 2015 in his home city of Edinburgh, Rowe met men on gay dating app Grindr and had sex with eight of them in Brighton, East Sussex, between October that year and February 2016, before fleeing to the north-east where he went on the run from police, targeting two more men.
His six-week trial heard he embarked on a cynical and deliberate campaign to infect men with HIV, refusing treatment and ignoring advice from doctors.
He insisted on having unprotected sex with men, claiming he was “clean”. When they refused, he tampered with condoms, tricking them into thinking he was practising safe sex.
Afterwards Rowe would become aggressive and taunted some of the men in text messages. He repeatedly lied to authorities and would use aliases with his victims.
Judge Christine Henson QC, sentencing, referred to his crimes as a “determined hateful campaign of sly violence”.
“You are the first individual to be sentenced for section 18 offences in the context of infecting others with HIV,” she said.
“With the full knowledge of the risk you posed to others and the legal implications of engaging in risky sexual practices, you embarked on a deliberate campaign to infect other men with the HIV virus.
“Unfortunately for five of the men you met your campaign was successful.”
The judge added: “They describe living with a life sentence as a result of your cruel and senseless acts. Many of those men were young men in their 20s at the time they had the misfortune to meet you.
“Given the facts of this case and your permissive predatory behaviour I cannot see when you would no longer be a danger to gay men.
“In my judgment the offences, taken together, are so serious, that a life sentence is justified. You will potentially remain a danger to others for the rest of your life.”
Three LGBT luminaries have been won prizes for their literary and journalistic feats in this year’s Pulitzer Prize.
The 2018 Pulitzer Prize winners in 14 journalism and seven letters, drama and music categories were announced on Monday.
Journalist Ronan Farrow, novelist Andrew Sean Greer and poet Frank Bidart have had their work honoured this year by the highly coveted prize-givers, as well as The Washington Post for its work exposing anti-LGBT senator and alleged sexual predator Roy Moore.
Farrow, who revealed this month that he is a “member of the LGBT” community, has received a public service award for his work in The New Yorker exposing allegations of sexual misconduct against movie producer Harvey Weinstein.
The publication shared the prize with The New York Times for their joint coverage of the Weinstein scandal.
The Washington Post received the body’s investigative prize for their work in exposing the alleged sexually misconduct of Moore, the Republican candidate for last October’s special senate election in Alabama.
Andrew Sean Greer, who identifies as gay, won the Pulitzer prize for fition with his novel Less, which has been described by judges as “a generous book, musical in its prose and expansive in its structure and range, about growing older and the essential nature of love.”
Meanwhile, Farrow said last week that “being part of the LGBT community” supported and “elevated” his reporting on the Weinstein saga.
“Being a part of the LGBT community, which recognised that reporting I was doing early on and elevated it, and has been such a stalwart source of support through the sexual assault reporting I did involving survivors who felt equally invisible — that has been an incredible source of strength for me,” said Farrow.
“LGBT people are some of the bravest and most potent change agents and leaders I have encountered, and the most forceful defenders of the vulnerable and voiceless, because they know what it’s like to be there.”
Poet Bidart, who is also gay, was honoured for his poetry. Half-light: Collected Poems 1965-2016 has been described by judges as “a volume of unyielding ambition and remarkable scope that mixes long dramatic poems with short elliptical lyrics, building on classical mythology and reinventing forms of desires that defy societal norms.”
Kendrick Lamar also scooped the music prize for album DAMN., making him the first artist to win the prestigious accolade who is not part of the jazz or classical genre.
Prime Minister Theresa May said on Tuesday she regretted Britain’s role in anti-gay legislation across its former colonies, seeking to address criticism of the Commonwealth at its gathering in London.
May is looking to reinvigorate the Commonwealth, a 53-country network of mostly former colonies, as Britain seeks new post-Brexit ways to project its influence in the world and establish a role as a leader of free trade.
Speaking on the second day of a week-long meeting in London, May addressed a wide range of humanitarian and environmental issues, including laws which outlaw same-sex activity in 37 of its 53 member nations.
“I am all too aware that these laws were often put in place by my own country. They were wrong then and they are wrong now,” May said.
“As the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister I deeply regret both the fact that such laws were introduced and the legacy of discrimination, violence and even death that persists today.”
London’s hosting of the summit has also been clouded by an official admission that the British government had treated migrants who arrived from Caribbean countries more than 50 years ago in an “appalling” way by incorrectly identifying them as illegal immigrants.
Speaking alongside May, Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness drew loud cheers from the audience as he urged May to speedily respond to the issue.
“It is only fair,” he said. “It will lead to security, certainly for those who have been affected, and it is the kind of inclusive prosperity for which we stand as Commonwealth peoples.”
May herself apologised over the harsh treatment of the so-called “Windrush generation,” whose parents were invited to Britain to plug labour shortfalls after World War Two, later to be caught up in a tightening of immigration rules overseen by May in 2012 when she was interior minister.
Even though you still hear about schools barring same-sex couples from dances, did you know that doing so is likely to be against the law?
As long ago as 1980, a federal court upheld high-school senior Aaron Fricke’s right to bring his male date to the prom.
The court also ruled that how other students might react to Aaron and his date did not justify banning them.
Supreme Court and federal court cases since then affirm that policies or actions that block same-sex couples from proms and dances—and policies created to make such discrimination possible—violates students’ rights to free expression and association, which are guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
A federal court upheld this fundamental right to equal treatment in 2008. The court ordered Scottsboro High School in Alabama to let two female students attend the prom together and defeated the school board’s efforts to block them.
If you’re planning to attend a prom or dance with a same-sex date, you have a right to have fun, and the school must ensure your safety as it does of all students. If you want more information on how to prepare or respond to any challenges you might encounter, click here.
At dances and beyond, limits on public displays of affection in schools must apply to everyone, not just LGBTQ students. Expressions of sexual orientation and gender identity generally fall under First Amendment protections.
If you’re an educator and want more information about how to make sure all students enjoy proms and dances, click here.
China’s Sina Weibo’s on Monday reversed a decision to remove gay content after outcry among gay Chinese who say the company had smeared homosexuality by lumping it with pornography as it tried to meet government censorship directives.
China’s Twitter-equivalent Weibo said on Friday it would remove pornographic, violent or gay videos and cartoons in a three-month campaign, singling out a genre of manga animations and comics that often depict raunchy gay male relationships.
In response, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) advocates poured online to criticise the decision using hashtags, open letters and even calls to dump Sina shares.
On Monday, Sina said the clean-up would no longer target gay content.
The outcry reflects a fear that growing censorship tends to ban all gay content as “dirty”, a setback for efforts to carve out an online space of tolerance for homosexuality in China’s traditionally Confucian society, LGBT advocates say.
It was unclear whether Sina’s measure was a direct result of a censorship directive from the government or an initiative taken by the company itself. Sina did not respond to a request for comment.
The official People’s Daily newspaper of the ruling Communist Party on Sunday encouraged tolerance towards gay people, but added that “vulgar” content must be removed regardless of sexual orientation.
Chinese LGBT advocates hope to promote gay rights by educating society about sexual preferences and pushing back against traditional pressures to marry and have children.
RECLAIMING “BATTLE GROUND” FOR ADVOCACY
Social media is a key “battle ground” where LGBT advocates take on conservative celebrities who dish out popular dating advice, such as saying that the best couples marry early, produce sons and are straight, according to Xiao Tie, head of the Beijing LGBT Centre.
“The problem with the policy is that it equates LGBT content with porn,” Xiao said on Sunday, adding that she believes the government is not actively anti-LGBT. Just that it has no clear idea how to deal with the issue.
“But the bigger problem is the culture of strict censorship,” she added. “Social media used to be an open space, but in the last year things have started to change.”
Sina said the campaign is to ensure that the company is in line with online content regulations released in June last year that lump homosexuality in with sexual abuse and violence as constituting “abnormal sexual relationships”.
The fight against Sina’s decision saw LGBT groups, advocates and gay Chinese speaking out through letters and hashtags.
The tag “I am gay” was viewed nearly 300 million times on Weibo before being censored on Saturday.
Beijing-based advocacy group PFLAG China on Sunday called on Sina’s shareholders to punish the “evil” acts of the NASDAQ-listed company by “voting with their feet” and selling shares.
Other gay Chinese are wrote their own stories in letters to the CEO of Sina, Charles Chao.
Hao Kegui, one such writer, came out as a lesbian in an open letter published on social media last year where she describes how she had felt pressured into marrying a man to please her parents.
“The main concern for me is that, because China is very big, and places outside big cities are quite conservative, there are lots of gay people who only learn about their sexuality online,” Hao told Reuters.
“I worry the censorship will cause more people to just live in the closet and never come out.” (Additional reporting by Cate Cadell and Pei Li; Editing by Nick Macfie)
