National
U.S. commission considers ways to stop anti-gay Uganda bill
U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
Greater involvement from first lady Michelle Obama was one option discussed during a recent congressional hearing as a way for the U.S. to help derail a harshly anti-gay bill in Uganda from becoming law.
Cary Alan Johnson, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, was among the people who testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission on Thursday that Obama’s work against the international HIV/AIDS epidemic would make her a strong voice against the bill.
Johnson said the women’s caucus in the Ugandan parliament is supporting the legislation and opposition from the first lady — as well as President Obama — could influence women’s groups in Uganda to drop their support.
“I’m wondering if there is women leaders within the U.S. Congress — and perhaps the first lady herself — might be able to play some role in having discussions about the potential impact of this bill — not just on human rights, but on HIV prevention within the country,” Johnson said.
Julius Kaggwa, a leader of the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights & Constitutional Law who came from Uganda to testify on the legislation, also said greater involvement from President Obama and Michelle Obama would be helpful in efforts to stop the bill.
“If President Obama and the first lady of the United States can engage more with our first family — especially in the area of HIV/AIDS, which is of great concern to us as sexual minorities — and the issue of human rights generally, I think that would be very, very helpful,” he said.
A stronger voice from the first lady and President Obama was one among several options considered to stop the anti-gay legislation that’s been pending the Uganda parliament since October.
Homosexual acts are already illegal in Uganda, but the bill would, among other things, institute the death penalty for repeat offenders of the homosexual acts ban and for those who have homosexual sex while HIV positive. The harsh penalties for LGBT people in the legislation have inspired growing outrage and concern around the world, including LGBT activists in the U.S.
Karl Wycoff, deputy assistant secretary of state for East African Affairs (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
Karl Wycoff, deputy assistant secretary of state for East African Affairs, testified that the State Department has been working to prevent the bill from being enacted into law even as the U.S. considers the country an ally.
“The introduction of this anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda characterizes just such a moment — one where we must say to our friends who’s friendship we value that together we must stand against injustice, and in this case, injustice against the LGBT community,” he said.
Wycoff noted how the White House in January issued a statement in opposition to the legislation and said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has expressed concerns about the bill with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni in addition to publicly opposing the legislation in two speeches.
“Our embassy … has been very active on this subject with representatives of the Ugandan government, with civil society, with local gay and lesbian groups and with others who press for this bill to be dropped,” Wycoff said.
Last month, DC Agenda first reported State Department officials had received assurances from Museveni that he would work to block the legislation from becoming law and would veto the bill should it come to his desk. But during the hearing, Wycoff declined to characterize publicly the discussions the State Department had with the president.
Witnesses also discussed efforts of activists within Uganda working to prevent the bill from becoming law. Kaggwa said local groups have been trying to stop the measure, but noted that persuading lawmakers to oppose the bill is difficult because of the country’s deep cultural beliefs against homosexuality.
Kaggwa said one of the best points for opponents to bring up about the legislation is how it would require Ugandan citizens to report on those believed to be homosexual.
“The element of setting a mother against a daughter, the element of setting a sister against a brother, is something that we all can identify with,” Kaggwa said. “These are the arguments that we are using. We should make this bill really draconian, that instead of bringing together families, instead of preserving family, as purported by people who are pushing the bill, it’s [separating] families.”
Following the testimony, lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who chaired the hearing, told reporters that bolstering the local effort in Uganda against the legislation would be one means for the United States to step up efforts against the bill.
“I do think it is important for us to listen and receive guidance from people on the ground in Uganda — not just thinking from afar what to do,” she said. “I think there’s probably additional ways where we can empower local activists, local voices in Uganda at the same time as we speak crystal clear our dedication to human rights for all [people] across the globe.”
Another option lawmakers are considering is revoking Uganda’s beneficiary trade status should the bill become law. Baldwin noted during the hearing that earlier this month, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) sent a letter to Clinton saying Uganda’s trade relationship with the United States would be revoked if the country’s parliament enacts the legislation.
While a number of strategies were put forth as ways to prevent the legislation from becoming law, one option witnesses denied as being an appropriate response was restriction of funds under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. The program, also known as PEPFAR, is a multi-billion dollar initiative started by former President George W. Bush that provides treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS in developing countries.
Christine Lubinski, executive director of the HIV Medicine Association, said the $1.3 billion that the U.S. spends in aid to Uganda is “too much of a day-to-day lifeline for too many people.”
“It seems like there’s significant other avenues to pursue; the HIV money would not be good one,” she said.
But Johnson said there could be other avenues to pursue with AIDS relief money if Uganda passes the legislation. He said PEPFAR money could be “channeled differently” to non-governmental organizations that would implement HIV/AIDS relief programs in the country.
Another concern raised during the hearing was whether international efforts would have an adverse effect on stopping the anti-gay legislation because of the country’s history under colonial rule.
Wycoff said attention from the international community has actually contributed to some efforts in Uganda calling for the passage of the legislation.
“Ironically, foreign criticism of the bill has in some ways bolstered internal support for the legislation as many Ugandans interpret foreign condemnation as interference in their internal affairs,” he said.
But Kaggwa said international concern about the legislation is helpful, so long as local opposition against the bill is heard just as strongly.
Julius Kaggwa, a leader of the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights & Constitutional Law (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
“It is important that these local, indigenous voices are heard as heavily or as loudly as the international voices,” he said. “We believe that if that voice supplements our own voices, then we will be productive. But if the foreign voices are louder than ours, then I’m afraid that might have a counter-productive effect.”
Johnson said people opposed to the legislation are working to make sure both local and regional voices are heard against the bill, and that Obama could make the local voices stronger.
“I think that could be an aspect in which the administration could be more proactive in terms of talking to other African nations, and talking to the African Union, about making its voice heard on the legislation,” he said.
A number of Democratic U.S. House members spoke out against the bill during the hearing. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), co-chairman of the commission, said the bill “is steeped in religious bigotry and homophobia.”
“I want to make it clear that there are many members in this Congress — both Democrat and Republican — who have deep, deep concerns about what’s happening in Uganda and are outraged by this draft legislation,” he said.
Baldwin called the legislation “an extreme and hateful attempt to make people criminals not because of anything they do, but because of who they are and who they love.”
She noted that 90 other U.S. House members joined her in signing a letter to presidents Obama and Museveni, requesting their strong opposition to the legislation.
“I hope that all Ugandans, and particularly those who are [LGBT], will hear the voice of this Congress state very clearly that we will not tolerate these types of human rights violations,” she said.
No Republican member of the commission attended the hearing. A Republican staffer for the commission didn’t immediately respond to DC Agenda’s request to comment on why GOP members were absent.
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
Risking it all for love during World War II
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
