Connect with us

National

HRC president responds to Choi protest

Solmonese notes ‘frustration at the pace of progress’

Published

on

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, jumped into the debate triggered this week by gay Army Lt. Dan Choi over whether LGBT leaders and organizations are doing enough to advance LGBT equality, saying there should be a place for different tactics and strategies, including civil disobedience.

In response to questions from DC Agenda, Solmonese disputed Choi’s assertion that a deep “schism” exists in the LGBT movement over tactics and strategy.

Here are Solmonese’s responses to our questions:

DC Agenda: Dan Choi told Newsweek that groups like HRC “do not represent us if all you are looking for is a ladder to elite society.” He also said there’s a “deep schism” in the gay movement over strategy and tactics. What’s HRC’s response to this?

Joe Solmonese: Any healthy and diverse social movement will have a diversity of voices and opinions. Individuals and groups will take different approaches based on their ideology, life experience and other sincerely and deeply held beliefs about the political process. This is not indicative of a schism, but rather a sign of vibrant engagement.

Differences over tactics are nothing new; they have been a part of the LGBT rights movement since its inception. While there are some differences over strategy and tactics, there is a wide and deep consensus about movement priorities — LGBT non-discrimination laws (ENDA, DADT repeal, education, housing, credit, etc…), hate crimes protections and relationship recognition (marriage, DOMA repeal, domestic partnership benefits, adoption). Again, some in the community dissent from one or more of these goals, but these objectives enjoy significant support across the LGBT community.

Quick facts on our work:

• Our recent efforts across the country, with particular emphasis on 103 priority congressional districts, have resulted in over 190,000 phone calls and e-mails to members of Congress.

• 2,500 veterans recently said in a survey they’re willing to take action to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

• Our members submitted over 1,300 letters to editors in papers in priority media markets.

• Earlier this month, HRC sent 275 of our members to lobby on the Hill in support of ENDA, DADT and other key legislation.

• Beyond the Beltway, our members conducted over 250 in-district lobby visits.

• In 41 cities, we held events that highlighted veterans who are opposed to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Over the next several months, we will conduct at least 20 more of these events.

• In May, we will send an even larger number of veterans to the Hill to lobby for repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

DC Agenda: What’s HRC’s view on how, or whether, non-violent civil disobedience action — as Dan Choi and Robin McGehee of the new national group GetEqual.org are now calling for — fits into the overall efforts to advance LGBT rights that HRC is working for?

Solmonese: The beauty of our movement is that we have a dedicated community that is constantly searching for new and innovative ways to effect change in Washington and at home. Whether it be the actions last week or meeting with a senator in a district office, these are ways that our community continues to advocate for LGBT equality. Activism by Dan Choi and others has one common intent in mind that we also share: to advance equality in the fastest way possible. As we said last week, this is the nature of social change and everyone has a role to play.

DC Agenda: Members of GetEqual.org, as you know, were arrested in the Washington and San Francisco offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a protest over what they say is Pelosi and Congress’s failure to hold a vote this year on ENDA. HRC has not included ENDA on its list of LGBT-related bills it expects Congress to vote on this year. What is HRC’s understanding of why ENDA hasn’t been scheduled for a mark up in the House and Senate and may not be voted on in the Senate this year?

Solmonese: The Human Rights Campaign and the entire LGBT community have worked hard over the last two years to build support in Congress to pass a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). In recent weeks, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the lead sponsor of ENDA, has publicly stated on a number of occasions that he believes that the House should move ENDA in the coming weeks and that we can pass an inclusive bill. We agree. We also agree with Speaker Pelosi that ensuring we will win that vote and protect the bill from harmful amendments is a critical factor in timing of floor action.

DC Agenda: Dan Choi and others have suggested that mainstream LGBT groups like HRC are too accommodating to the White House and congressional Democratic leaders on issues like ENDA and DADT. What is HRC’s current count of U.S. senators on an up or down vote on ENDA right now? Can you release a list of which of the 17 Democratic senators who are not ENDA co-sponsors will vote for or against ENDA?

Solmonese: There has been understandable frustration in the community at the pace of progress at advancing some of the pieces of key legislation that are important to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. We continue to press the president and Congress to live up to the promises they made to advance real, substantive equality for LGBT Americans. It is critical that everyone in the LGBT community and our allies engage in this effort.

All senators (or House members) who are not co-sponsors of ENDA, DADT or other LGBT bills are pursued as key votes needed in order to pass pro-equality legislation.

DC Agenda: If you choose not to release this list, please explain why you feel it should not be released at this time. Many activists feel they could better direct their lobbying or ‘direct action’ if they know which way their senators stand on ENDA. As far as I can see, HRC’s lengthy and detailed web site page on ENDA makes no mention at all of which lawmakers are for or against ENDA.

Solmonese: Members’ positions on ENDA are determined by their co-sponsorship of the legislation, a clear public statement or their vote. Ensuring we will win that vote and protect the bill from harmful amendments is a critical factor for determining floor action and timing. There are 17 Democratic senators and 39 Republican senators who are not cosponsors of ENDA. We must win 14 of these votes to get to 60 votes to overcome a potential filibuster. Unless a member of Congress makes a clear public statement, we do not assume we have their vote.

Direct action toward a member of Congress should be done after a careful analysis of that member’s position on the issue and, if they are not publicly supportive, after determining why are they not publicly supportive. This involves significantly more research than checking a web site. HRC works every day with individual activists and organizations in those states and districts that require the most intensive grassroots work. Every LGBT person who cares about these issues should lobby their House member and two senators. Even cosponsors must be asked to do more to bring these bills to successful votes.

DC Agenda: Robin McGehee of GetEqual.org says her group wants a vote on ENDA, even if there aren’t enough votes to pass it. What is HRC’s view on this? What are the pros and cons of having a vote on an important bill if you know in advance there aren’t enough votes to pass it?

Solmonese: An unsuccessful vote can be very harmful to an issue and prevent successful action for many years. In some cases, having the vote can be a useful marker. Particularly in regard to ENDA, bringing the bill to the Senate floor without very careful consideration could result in some incredibly harmful amendments, some related to ENDA and other anti-LGBT-related amendments. Harmful congressional votes can spill over into fights over state legislation and into state and federal court cases. In addition, it is unusual for congressional leaders to schedule votes that are expected to fail.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

HHS to retire 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth

Trevor Project warns the move will ‘put their lives at risk’

Published

on

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. appears on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" in April 2024. (Screen capture via YouTube)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is planning to retire the national 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth on Oct. 1, according to a preliminary budget document obtained by the Washington Post.

Introduced during the Biden-Harris administration in 2022, the hotline connects callers with counselors who are trained to work with this population, who are four times likelier to attempt suicide than their cisgender or heterosexual counterparts.

“Suicide prevention is about risk, not identity,” said Jaymes Black, CEO of the Trevor Project, which provides emergency crisis support for LGBTQ youth and has contracted with HHS to take calls routed through 988.

“Ending the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ youth specialized services will not just strip away access from millions of LGBTQ+ kids and teens — it will put their lives at risk,” they said in a statement. “These programs were implemented to address a proven, unprecedented, and ongoing mental health crisis among our nation’s young people with strong bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Trump himself.”

“I want to be clear to all LGBTQ+ young people: This news, while upsetting, is not final,” Black said. “And regardless of federal funding shifts, the Trevor Project remains available 24/7 for anyone who needs us, just as we always have.”

The service for LGBTQ youth has received 1.3 million calls, texts, or chats since its debut, with an average of 2,100 contacts per day in February.

“I worry deeply that we will see more LGBTQ young people reach a crisis state and not have anyone there to help them through that,” said Janson Wu, director of advocacy and government affairs at the Trevor Project. “I worry that LGBTQ young people will reach out to 988 and not receive a compassionate and welcoming voice on the other end — and that will only deepen their crisis.”

Under Trump’s HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the agency’s departments and divisions have experienced drastic cuts, with a planned reduction in force of 20,000 full-time employees. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has been sunset and mental health services consolidated into the newly formed Administration for a Healthy America.

The budget document reveals, per Mother Jones, “further sweeping cuts to HHS, including a 40 percent budget cut to the National Institutes of Health; elimination of funding for Head Start, the early childhood education program for low-income families; and a 44 percent funding cut to the Centers for Disease Control, including all the agency’s chronic disease programs.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court hears oral arguments in LGBTQ education case

Mahmoud v. Taylor plaintiffs argue for right to opt-out of LGBTQ inclusive lessons

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case about whether Montgomery County, Md., public schools violated the First Amendment rights of parents by not providing them an opportunity to opt their children out of reading storybooks that were part of an LGBTQ-inclusive literacy curriculum.

The school district voted in early 2022 to allow books featuring LGBTQ characters in elementary school language arts classes. When the county announced that parents would not be able to excuse their kids from these lessons, they sued on the grounds that their freedom to exercise the teachings of their Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faiths had been infringed.

The lower federal courts declined to compel the district to temporarily provide advance notice and an opportunity to opt-out of the LGBTQ inclusive curricula, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the parents had not shown that exposure to the storybooks compelled them to violate their religion.

“LGBTQ+ stories matter,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a statement Tuesday. “They matter so students can see themselves and their families in the books they read — so they can know they’re not alone. And they matter for all students who need to learn about the world around them and understand that while we may all be different, we all deserve to be valued and loved.”

She added, “All students lose when we limit what they can learn, what they can read, and what their teachers can say. The Supreme Court should reject this attempt to silence our educators and ban our stories.”

GLAD Law, NCLR, Family Equality, and COLAGE submitted a 40-page amicus brief on April 9, which argued the storybooks “fit squarely” within the district’s language arts curriculum, the petitioners challenging the materials incorrectly characterized them as “specialized curriculum,” and that their request for a “mandated notice-and-opt-out requirement” threatens “to sweep far more broadly.”

Lambda Legal, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, PFLAG, and the National Women’s Law Center announced their submission of a 31-page amicus brief in a press release on April 11.

“All students benefit from a school climate that promotes acceptance and respect,” said Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal.  “Ensuring that students can see themselves in the curriculum and learn about students who are different is critical for creating a positive school environment. This is particularly crucial for LGBTQ+ students and students with LGBTQ+ family members who already face unique challenges.”

The organizations’ brief cited extensive social science research pointing to the benefits of LGBTQ-inclusive instruction like “age-appropriate storybooks featuring diverse families and identities” benefits all students regardless of their identities.

Also weighing in with amici briefs on behalf of Montgomery County Public Schools were the National Education Association, the ACLU, and the American Psychological Association.

Those writing in support of the parents challenging the district’s policy included the Center for American Liberty, the Manhattan Institute, Parents Defending Education, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Trump-Vance administration’s U.S. Department of Justice, and a coalition of Republican members of Congress.

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

LGBTQ groups: SCOTUS case threatens coverage of preventative services beyond PrEP

Kennedy v. Braidwood oral arguments heard Monday

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Following Monday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., LGBTQ groups issued statements warning the case could imperil coverage for a broad swath of preventative services and medications beyond PrEP, which is used to reduce the risk of transmitting HIV through sex.

Plaintiffs brought the case to challenge a requirement that insurers and group health plans cover the drug regimen, arguing that the mandate “encourage[s] homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”

The case has been broadened, however, such that cancer screenings, heart disease medications, medications for infants, and several other preventive care services are in jeopardy, according to a press release that GLAAD, Lambda Legal, PrEP4All, Harvard Law’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI), and the Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP) released on Monday.

The Trump-Vance administration has argued the independent task force responsible for recommending which preventative services must be covered with no cost-sharing for patients is constitutional because the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services can exercise veto power and fire members of the volunteer panel of national experts in disease prevention and evidence-based medicine.

While HHS secretaries have not exercised these powers since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, Braidwood could mean Trump’s health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., takes a leading role in determining which services are included in the coverage mandate.

Roll Call notes the Supreme Court case comes as the administration has suspended grants to organizations that provide care for and research HIV while the ongoing restructuring of HHS has raised questions about whether the “Ending the HIV Epidemic” begun under Trump’s first term will be continued.

“Today’s Supreme Court hearing in the Braidwood case is a pivotal moment for the health and rights of all Americans,” said GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis. “This case, rooted in discriminatory objections to medical necessities like PrEP, can undermine efforts to end the HIV epidemic and also jeopardize access to essential services like cancer screenings and heart disease medications, disproportionately affecting LGBTQ people and communities of color.”

She added, “Religious exemptions should not be weaponized to erode healthcare protections and restrict medically necessary, life-saving preventative healthcare for every American.”

Lambda Legal HIV Project Director Jose Abrigo said, “The Braidwood case is about whether science or politics will guide our nation’s public health policy. Allowing ideological or religious objections to override scientific consensus would set a dangerous precedent. Although this case began with an attack on PrEP coverage, a critical HIV prevention tool, it would be a serious mistake to think this only affects LGBTQ people.”

“The real target is one of the pillars of the Affordable Care Act: The preventive services protections,” Abrigo said. “That includes cancer screenings, heart disease prevention, diabetes testing, and more. If the plaintiffs succeed, the consequences will be felt across every community in this country, by anyone who relies on preventive care to stay healthy.”

He continued, “What’s at stake is whether we will uphold the promise of affordable and accessible health care for all or allow a small group of ideologues to dismantle it for everyone. We as a country are only as healthy as our neighbors and an attack on one group’s rights is an attack on all.”

PrEP4All Executive Director Jeremiah Johnson said, “We are hopeful that the justices will maintain ACA protections for PrEP and other preventive services, however, advocates are poised to fight for access no matter the outcome.”

He continued, “Implementing cost-sharing  would have an enormous impact on all Americans, including LGBTQ+ individuals. Over 150 million people could suddenly find themselves having to dig deep into already strained household budgets to pay for care that they had previously received for free. Even small amounts of cost sharing lead to drops in access to preventive services.”

“For PrEP, just a $10 increase in the cost of medication doubled PrEP abandonment rates in a 2024 modeling study,” Johnson said. “Loss of PrEP access would be devastating with so much recent progress in reining in new HIV infections in the U.S. This would also be a particularly disappointing time to lose comprehensive coverage for PrEP with a once every six month injectable version set to be approved this summer.”

“Today’s oral arguments in the Braidwood case underscore what is at stake for the health and well-being of millions of Americans,” said CHLPI Clinical Fellow Anu Dairkee. “This case is not just about legal technicalities — it is about whether people across the country will continue to have access to the preventive health services they need, without cost sharing, regardless of who they are or where they come from.”

She continued, “Since the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provision took effect in 2010, Americans have benefited from a dramatic increase in the use of services that detect disease early, promote healthy living, and reduce long-term health costs. These benefits are rooted in the work of leading scientists and public health experts, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose recommendations are based on rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence.”

“Any shift away from cost-free access to preventive care could have wide-ranging implications, potentially limiting access for those who are already navigating economic hardship and health disparities,” Dairkee said. “If Braidwood prevails, the consequences will be felt nationwide. We risk losing access to lifesaving screenings and preventive treatments that have become standard care over the past decade.”

“This case should serve as a wake-up call: Science, not politics, must guide our health care system,” she said. “The health of our nation depends on it.”

“We are grateful for the Justices who steadfastly centered constitutionality and didn’t allow a deadly political agenda to deter them from their job at hand,” said CHLP Staff Attorney Kae Greenberg. “While we won’t know the final decision until June, what we do know now is not having access to a full range of preventative healthcare is deadly for all of us, especially those who live at the intersections of racial, gender and economic injustice.”

“We are crystal clear how the efforts to undermine the ACA, of which this is a very clear attempt, fit part and parcel into an overall agenda to rollback so much of the ways our communities access dignity and justice,” he said. “Although the plaintiffs’ arguments today were cloaked in esoteric legal language, at it’s heart, this case revolves around the Christian Right’s objection to ‘supporting’ those who they do not agree with, and is simply going to result in people dying who would otherwise have lived long lives.”

“This is why CHLP is invested and continues in advocacy with our partners, many of whom are included here,” Greenberg said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular