National
In Congress: Many bills, but no timetable for progress
Pro-LGBT legislation stalls as November elections loom

Congress could be poised to pass several pro-LGBT bills in the months that remain in this yearās legislative calendar, although Capitol Hill observers say the schedule for when the bills would see votes remains unclear.
In the wake of successful votes late last month to repeal āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell,ā Congress could see momentum to pass other major legislation, such as the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said in an interview with the Blade this week that she had renewed optimism about the domestic partner benefits bill, which she sponsors in the House.
āOne issue that got renewed momentum over this Memorial Day recess was my bill to provide domestic partnership and obligations to federal employees and their partners,ā she said.
Baldwin, the only out lesbian in Congress, said the issue received additional attention last week when President Obama enacted limited partner benefits for federal employees through administrative action.
āAt the same time as he signed this presidential memorandum, he called on the Congress to send [my bill] to his desk because he canāt provide some of these very important benefits like health insurance and certain pension benefits without our passing legislation,ā Baldwin said.
In a statement commending Obama for issuing the benefits, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also spoke favorably about the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act as one way to offer additional benefits to federal workers.
āCongresswoman Baldwinās bill will continue to move forward in the House and we look forward to its progress in the Senate,ā Pelosi said.
The domestic partner bill had significant momentum late last year when House and Senate committees reported it to the floor in each chamber. For a time, the legislation had stalled due to cost offset questions, but congressional leaders have said theyāve since received the necessary information.
Baldwin said staffers of the House and Senate leaders on the legislation met Monday to discuss the billās path, and lawmakers in both chambers are ready to move forward.
In a statement to the Blade, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said the bill would be ready for floor consideration āwithin weeks.ā Lieberman noted this estimate was for when the bill would be ready to go to the floor, not when a vote would occur, and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is āresponsible for setting a timetable for consideration of legislation.ā
Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said a vote hasnāt yet been scheduled.
Baldwin said she couldnāt offer a more specific timetable for when she expects the legislation to advance.
āA lot happened over the course of this recess in terms of adding momentum for the legislation,ā she said. āBecause it happened over the recess, and Iāve been in Wisconsin, and not in Washington, and not able to have conversations with my leadership and with the other players in this, I canāt tell you if thereās a timetable yet.ā
Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, also said she doesnāt know when Congress would bring the measure to the floor for consideration.
āAgain, the question is how to move forward and whatās the timeframe for moving it forward, so we continue, as we have been for the past year, advocating to get this bill done,ā she said.
ENDA faces obstacles
LGBT rights supporters have also strongly pushed for Congress to take up ENDA, which would bar employment discrimination against LGBT people in most public and private workplace settings.
The legislation remains pending in House and Senate committees. Capitol Hill observers have said ENDA supporters lack the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.
Still, supporters have expressed optimism about moving forward with the bill in the House. Baldwin said the LGBT Equality Caucus has been ācounting the votesā and asking lawmakers how they would vote on the legislation or a harmful motion to recommit on the measure.
āItās looking strong,ā Baldwin said. āIām hopeful that we can see committee consideration and floor passage very shortly.ā
Rep. Barney Frank, whoās sponsoring the bill in the House, has told media outlets that a vote could take place this month or next.
But a more specific time for when Congress might take up ENDA is unclear. Aaron Albright, a spokesperson for the Education & Labor Committee, said he didnāt have an update or estimate on the schedule for committee action on the legislation.
Baldwin said her ācrystal ball has been very unclearā for ENDA consideration and that she couldnāt offer a more definite timeframe.
āI was hoping it would be some months ago, but we continue to go through the vote counts, try to make sure theyāre as solid as possible,ā she said.
Herwitt was similarly unsure about when ENDA would come to the House floor, although she said HRC was pushing for it to come before lawmakers.
āObviously, HRC wants a committee markup and a floor vote as soon as possible,ā she said. āWe would like to continue the momentum on moving LGBT equality forward and we would like a House vote as soon as possible.ā
One danger for ENDA in the House is a legislative maneuver known as the motion to recommit, which could derail the legislation once it comes to the floor. A successful vote on the maneuver on the floor would enable opponents to send the motion back to committee.
Supporters have said opponents could target the billās gender identity provisions in the motion to recommit, although whatās targeted wouldnāt necessarily be such language.
Baldwin said āthere are a lot of meddlesome thingsā that ENDAās opponents can do through a motion to recommit when the bill comes to the floor.
āSo we have been really trying to ask colleagues how they would vote in a wide variety of scenarios, so that we can feel confident that we have the votes to defeat such a motion to recommit,ā she said.
Herwitt noted thereās āstill some concernā and āvote countingā happening around the motion to recommit.
āWe remain concerned to the extent that we want to continue working with leadership to shore up the votes that we need, so that when the bill comes to the floor, we have the ability to beat back a motion to recommit,ā Herwitt said.
Herwitt said Pelosi has expressed a commitment to move ENDA to the floor, but wants to āmake sure that weāre looking at angles in terms of what the motion to recommit would be, to protect the integrity of the bill.ā
āIf she brings the bill to the floor, she doesnāt want to lose,ā Herwitt said. āSo, sheās an expert vote-counter. She was a whip for many years, and so she knows what it takes to get a bill to the floor. From everything Iāve heard from her people, she wants to get it done, but she wants to get it done right.ā
Another pro-LGBT bill pending before Congress is legislation that would enable same-sex bi-national couples to remain together in the U.S.
Current immigration law prohibits LGBT Americans from sponsoring their foreign partners for residency in the United States. Consequently, some LGBT Americans are faced with losing their partners after visas expire, while others expatriate with their partners to other countries with more favorable immigration laws.
Standalone legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act would rectify this situation. But supporters of the measure see its inclusion as part of upcoming immigration reform as the optimal path for passage.
Heading the legislative effort for comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate is Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). His office didnāt respond to a request to comment on the timing for immigration reform or whether UAFA would be included in the legislation.
Still, Schumer has spoken favorably about the inclusion of UAFA in comprehensive immigration reform, and advocates are expecting him to include the provision in the bill once itās introduced.
According to the news website IrishCentral.com, Schumer said last week at a fundraising event for Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform that he thinks Congress will finish immigration reform by March 2011 ā if not by the end of this year.
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said supporters of the legislation have been assured Schumer wants UAFA as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
āI would even say, at this point, that the expectation is that UAFA will be part of comprehensive reform,ā Ralls said. āI think Immigration Equality and other immigrant advocates fully expect it to be an inclusive bill when itās introduced.ā
Still, when Schumer will introduce the legislation in the Senate remains unclear. Since the Senate Judiciary Committee would handle both immigration reform and U.S. Supreme Court nominations, many Capitol Hill observers believe the Senate will first approve the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court before taking up the immigration issue.
If Schumer includes UAFA as part of comprehensive immigration reform, the larger bill could find opposition from conservative groups that say they wonāt support immigration reform with language benefitting same-sex couples.
Last week, the Liberty Counsel issued a statement signed by other Christian evangelical leaders saying comprehensive immigration reform that includes UAFA would not advance in Congress.
āSame-sex domestic partnerships will doom any effort for bipartisan support of immigration and will cause religious conservatives to withdraw their support,ā said Mat Staver, founder and chair of the Liberty Counsel. āIf same-sex domestic partnerships are included, the immigration bill will have no chance of passing.ā
In response, Ralls said the ācornerstoneā of the U.S. immigration system has been family unification and that LGBT families āshould be part of that noble commitment.ā
āDespite the protests of a few, many people, including many faith communities, continue to support an inclusive immigration reform bill,ā Ralls said. āMethodists, Episcopalians, Jewish organizations, Unitarians and others are holding strong to a belief that a truly pro-family bill must include every family.ā
Other bills on deck
Other pro-LGBT bills also could come up for consideration by the end of this year.
One bill, known as the Student Non-Discrimination Act, would bar schools from discriminating against LGBT students or ignoring harassing behavior against them. Potential penalties for discrimination could include a loss of federal funding or a legal cause of action for victims.
As standalone versions of the legislation remain pending in the House and Senate, supporters have said they envision passage of the bill as part of the upcoming Elementary & Secondary Education Act reauthorization.
Still, itās unclear when Congress will take up this major education budget legislation. A House Democratic leadership aide noted the bill hadnāt yet been introduced, and āwe canāt determine the timeline until that happens.ā
Should Congress begin work on the education bill, Herwitt said HRC would push for the Student Non-Discrimination Actās inclusion as part of the larger legislation.
āIf the ESEA bill moves forward, you will see HRC and other groups like [the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network] working hard on the bill to make every effort to have it be part of the reauthorization bill,ā Herwitt said.
Herwitt said sheās heard conflicting stories on the education reauthorization, though, and was unsure time remains in this yearās legislative calendar to tackle the legislation.
Baldwin said the Student Non-Discrimination Actās ābrightest prospectā is inclusion as part of this larger legislation, but she noted if the process stalls, congressional hearings would help educate members of Congress on the importance of the issue.
āOne of the things I would really hope for is hearings on that legislation to really educate members and the public on what a significant issue this is,ā she said. āI think many are unaware, and I think you could build some real momentum for passage of the legislation if it were highlighted in that way.ā
Also of interest to LGBT rights supporters is passage of the fiscal years 2010 and 2011 foreign affairs reauthorization legislation.
Last year, the House approved a version of the State Department budget legislation that would call for greater U.S. action against LGBT abuses abroad. In the Senate, legislation with identical language has been reported out of committee, but hasnāt yet reached the floor.
The language urges the State Department to task more officers in the Human Rights Bureau to track violence overseas related to sexual orientation and laws criminalizing homosexuality.
Additionally, the provision calls on U.S. embassies to work to reform or repeal laws overseas criminalizing homosexuality and directs the State Department to strengthen its annual human rights report with regard to reporting on abuses against LGBT people.
But whether Congress will manage to pass the reauthorization bill for the State Department remains in question. The last time this legislation made its way to presidentās desk was in 2002, and Manley said nothing has been scheduled for when the bill would come to the Senate floor.
Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, was skeptical that the full Senate would find time soon to take up the measure.
āI havenāt heard anything about them being able to find floor time for it,ā he said. āIt doesnāt seem like thereās any momentum in terms of getting it to the floor in the short term.ā
Herwitt noted that passage of foreign affairs authorization has often been a difficult task for Congress.
āThere have been many years when the State Department authorization bill never made it to the floor just because it becomes a heavy legislative lift ā not because of our issues, but because of the bigger issues that are in the bill,ā she said.
Baldwin said she was nonetheless optimistic about the billās chances this year because both chambers of Congress have moved forward on it.
āI would be hopeful ā given that thereās interest now in both houses of Congress ā that we can see it through,ā she said.
Federal Government
HHS to retire 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth
Trevor Project warns the move will ‘put their lives at risk’

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.
āSuicide 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 Lifelineās LGBTQ+ youth specialized services will not just strip away access from millions of LGBTQ+ kids and teens ā it will put their lives at risk,ā they said in a statement. āThese programs were implemented to address a proven, unprecedented, and ongoing mental health crisis among our nationās young people with strong bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Trump himself.ā
“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.ā
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.
āI worry deeply that we will see more LGBTQ young people reach a crisis state and not have anyone there to help them through that,ā said Janson Wu, director of advocacy and government affairs at the Trevor Project. āI worry that LGBTQ young people will reach out to 988 and not receive a compassionate and welcoming voice on the other end ā and that will only deepen their crisis.ā
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 agencyās chronic disease programs.”
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

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.
āLGBTQ+ stories matter,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a statement Tuesday. āThey matter so students can see themselves and their families in the books they read ā so they can know theyāre 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.ā
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 Womenās Law Center announced their submission of a 31-page amicus brief in a press release on April 11.
āAll students benefit from a school climate that promotes acceptance and respect,ā said Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal. āEnsuring 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.ā
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
LGBTQ groups: SCOTUS case threatens coverage of preventative services beyond PrEP
Kennedy v. Braidwood oral arguments heard Monday

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.ā
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 Lawās 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 āEnding the HIV Epidemicā begun under Trump’s first term will be continued.
āTodayās 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.ā
Lambda Legal HIV Project Director Jose Abrigo said, āThe Braidwood case is about whether science or politics will guide our nationās 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, “Whatās 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 groupās rights is an attack on all.ā
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.ā
āTodayās 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 ā 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 Actās 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.ā
āWe 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 plaintiffsā arguments today were cloaked in esoteric legal language, at itās heart, this case revolves around the Christian Rightās 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.
-
Opinions22 hours ago
David Hoggās arrogant, self-indulgent stunt
-
U.S. Federal Courts5 days ago
Federal judge blocks Trump passport executive order
-
Federal Government20 hours ago
HHS to retire 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth
-
Books5 days ago
āPronoun Troubleā reminds us that punctuation matters