National
Would ENDA have a shot as a ‘jobs bill?’
Some see room for movement, others not so sure
LGBT rights supporters see room for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the U.S. Senate during the upcoming Congress — even as Republican control of the House makes final passage of the legislation highly unlikely.
The 2010 elections left the Senate in Democratic control — although by a reduced margin — providing an opportunity for passage in that chamber if certain conditions are met.
A Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said passage of ENDA in the Senate is “possible” provided that President Obama strongly advocates for its passage.
“You would need the kind of push that you had behind ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” the aide said.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said “in theory” the Senate could pass ENDA because Democrats retained control of the chamber, although the conversations haven’t taken place yet about moving the bill forward.
Keisling added that the Senate is in a different position than it was in the previous Congress because it’s no longer trying to pass legislation that is being sent over by the House. With Republican control of the lower chamber, the Senate would be more inclined to vote on its own legislation.
“I don’t think of any us know what the Senate is going to be like this year,” she said. “The Senate wasn’t moving a lot of stuff regularly last Congress, but now that they have a different Democratic caucus, the Senate is now in a different position than they were before.”
Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said the prospects of ENDA passing in the Senate are “unknown” at this stage, but said his organization will continue to pursue all important pieces of legislation in both chambers of the next Congress.
“We think that it is important whether or not there’s Republican or Democrat control of the House that there would be a factual record that those pieces of legislation have been approved with even more co-sponsors in them,” Sainz said.
As it was introduced in the last Congress, ENDA would bar job discrimination against gay and transgender workers in most situations in the public and private workforce. Gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) introduced the legislation in the House and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the bill in the Senate.
The legislation stalled in the last Congress and saw no movement in either the House or the Senate. In the House, there was speculation that opponents would use a maneuver called the motion to recommit on the floor to target the transgender language and derail the legislation. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wouldn’t bring ENDA up for a vote until legislative action was complete on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Entering the early days of the 112th Congress, activists are uncertain about the timeline for moving forward with ENDA the next time around, such as when the bill would be introduced or when hearings might take place. Julie Edwards, a Merkley spokesperson, said the senator plans to reintroduce the legislation, although she said she doesn’t yet “have a sense of timing.”
Whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would bring up the legislation for a vote remains in question. Regan Lachappelle, a Reid spokesperson, said the majority leader supports ENDA, but said “Republican cooperation” will be necessary “to do anything.”
“It’s still early right now, so we’re still working on the schedule for this Congress, but it is something that he supports,” she said.
A Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the possiblity for action on ENDA in the Senate would become more clear following the week on Jan. 24 when Senate leadership makes it decisions on what the legislative priorities will be.
Even if it were passed in the Senate, most observers agree that the new Republican leadership makes passing ENDA highly difficult — if not impossible. Passage in the Senate could be a symbolic vote that would build momentum in a future Congress.
Keisling said the legislation has “zero chance” of making its way to Obama’s desk because of Republican control, citing a recent Washington Blade interview with Frank in which he said there was no chance of passing any pro-LGBT legislation this Congress.
“I never say never, but I can’t imagine the circumstances in which it’ll be signed into law this Congress,” she said.
The Republican aide said just because a clear path to passage doesn’t exist in the House, advocates shouldn’t give up on moving forward in the Senate.
“You have to approach this as kind of putting bricks in the wall,” the aide said. “With hate crimes, we were lobbing it left and right for years … but that also set us up to deal with passing it rather quickly when everything happened because we were able to say it passed the Senate five times.”
Sainz said emphasizing that ENDA is at its core a “jobs” bill could enable it to pick up support in the Republican House.
“From that sense, it should appeal to members of the House — and the Senate for that matter — because it’s really doing nothing more than putting people to work, and if they can’t work, then they’re reliant on government assistance,” Sainz said. “So it should be fairly intuitive to Republicans that this is really a ‘jobs’ measure.”
At the end of the last Congress, ENDA had 45 co-sponsors in the Senate, although former Sens. Roland Burris, Ted Kaufman, Edward Kennedy and Paul Kirk were listed as co-sponsors even though they were no longer in the Senate at the end of last year. Former co-sponsors Arlen Specter, Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold have since left the Senate.
It remains to be seen whether their successors would support ENDA, although new Democrats Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) would be likely to support the legislation. Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and may also support ENDA. The offices of those senators didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment.
Kate Dickens, a spokesperson for Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), said the senator’s positions would be consistent “with his position on it while serving in the House — where he has been a supporter.”
One lingering question is whether a bill that includes protections on the basis of sexual orientation only — excluding the gender identity and expression provisions — would stand a better chance in the Senate or have a shot at passing in the House. In 2007, the U.S. House under Democratic control passed a non-inclusive ENDA that never saw a vote in the Senate.
The Republican aide said discussion about removing the transgender protections is a moot point because activists wouldn’t permit the removal of the legislation.
“They’re not going to, so I don’t even think it’s worth considering,” the aide said. “It’s just not worth saying ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ If it’s going to pass, it’s going to pass with the transgender in it. That’s all there is to it.”
Keisling said she thinks both a trans-inclusive and non-trans inclusive bill would have the same zero chance of making it through the House.
“There’s this weird notion that somehow Congress is fine with gay people,” she said. “It’s just not true. You saw how they tried to lay down in the road over ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ If Congress was so good with gay people, why are 90 percent of the gay congress people closeted?”
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
