National
Murphy: Obama will ramp up efforts after ‘Don’t Ask’ report
Pa. lawmaker says repeal can happen this year

The champion of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the U.S. House maintains that President Obama will provide the “full spectrum” of engagement in getting the military’s gay ban repealed once the Pentagon completes its report on the issue.
In an interview Tuesday with the Washington Blade, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.)Ā said Obama has been engaged in moving Congress toĀ repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and that this effort willĀ expand once the Pentagon working group report ā due Dec. 1 ā is complete.
“I think there are different levels of engagement and,Ā I think, once the report comes out, I think we’ll see the full spectrum of that engagement,” Murphy said.
The first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress said he expects this “full spectrum of engagement” to come from not only the White House, but also the president’s “own Department of Defense.”
MurphyĀ said he hasn’t seen a draft copy of the report, but noted media reports indicating that the study will be favorable to open service in the U.S. military. He said theĀ studyĀ should have a positive impact on senators who’ve said they wanted to wait for theĀ report beforeĀ endorsing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“The study group came back and said that this will not hurt national security, and the troops, like most Americans, see that it’s the right thing to do,” Murphy said.Ā “And so, now we need the senators over there who’ve been a roadblock to put the political games aside and do what’s right for our country.”
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of repeal legislation in the Senate, and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)Ā sent a letter to the Pentagon on Monday calling for the report to be made available to members of Congress as soon as possible. The Human Rights Campaign issued a similar statement last week.
Asked whether he similarly thinks the report should be available now, Murphy replied, “I think they should release it as soon as it’s completely done.”
Murphy said he’s participated in discussions with Senate leadership andĀ Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) about moving forward withĀ the fiscal year 2011 defense budgetĀ bill, which currently contains “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
Still,Ā the Pennsylvania lawmakerĀ didn’t offer details on the discussionsĀ and characterized them only as “productive.”
Amid reports thatĀ talks are taking place to potentially strip the defense authorization bill of its repeal language, Murphy said Republicans have sought a bill without the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” provision.
“I think that’s what the Republicans would like to see,”Ā Murphy said.Ā “But I think those of us in the House and 78 percent of the American people and those in the military currently serving want to see the Senate do what’s right and repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and put it on the president’s desk, so he can sign it into law.”
With limited time remaining this Congress, it’s possible lawmakers won’t repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year, leaving Obama to come up with another game plan ā perhaps non-congressional action such as a stop-loss order ā to put an end to the gay ban.
But Murphy was reluctant to call on Obama to issue a stop-loss order to end discharges under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and maintained Congress can still repeal the law this year.
“Let’s cross that bridge when we get there,” he said.Ā “Now it’s still in the Congress’ domain to act and especially, specifically, the Senate’s domain.”
While seeing a path forward this year, Murphy doubts that Republican leadership in the 112th Congress will be willing to consider “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as part of its agenda.
Asked whether he thinks GOP leaders in the next Congress would be willing to address the issue, Murphy replied simply, “N0.”
During his time in Congress, Murphy has been seen as aĀ leaderĀ forĀ “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealĀ becauseĀ of hisĀ work moving a measure that would end theĀ ban through the U.S. House.
MurphyĀ took up sponsorship of āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tellā repeal legislation last year, which at the time had about 150 co-sponsors, andĀ gradually built support for the measure.
In May, theĀ work paid off when Murphy submitted a repeal amendment to the House floor that passed by a vote of 234-194.
The work earnedĀ Murphy considerable support among the LGBT community in his bid forĀ re-election. Still, he didn’t survive the Republican tide on Election Day and was defeated by his GOP opponent, Mike Fitzpatrick.
ButĀ Murphy said he isn’t going to “second guess” whether his leadership on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal contributed to his loss on Election Day.
“My dad taught me that if you don’t stand for something, you fall for anything,” Murphy said.Ā “And I was proud to stand for equality and for the troops and for national security, and I’ll continue to do so until I turn the keys over to this office on Jan. 3.”
Even with his loss, Murphy said he stands by other tough votes in his district, such his “yes” votesĀ on the $787 billion stimulus package and health care reform.
“We stopped the worst recession from turning into a depression,” Murphy said.Ā “As far as health care, there are millions of Americans that will now be covered, and that’s something that’s positive.”
And what’s on Murphy’s docket once his term is complete at the end of the year?
“I’m going to hug and kiss my kids and hopefully I’ll catch an Eagles game,” Murphy said.Ā “That’s the game plan.”
The transcript of the Murphy interview follows:
ON ELECTION RESULTS
Washington Blade: What’s your take on the election results on Nov. 2? Do you think that your leadership on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal contributed to your loss on Election Day?
Rep. Patrick Murphy: You know, I’m not going to second guess anything. My dad taught me that if you don’t stand for something, you fall for anything. And I was proud to stand for equality and for the troops and for national security, and I’ll continue to do so until I turn the keys over to this office on Jan. 3.
Blade: Why do you think you think you lost on Election Day?
Murphy: I think it was a tough year for Democrats, and I think my opponent ran a great campaign, and I’m proud of the support that we had, but it was an historic wave that we got caught up in, but … we’re going to continue to standĀ for middle-class families and for our country and do what’s right.
Blade: Is there anything over your past two terms in Congress that you regret? Anything that you think you could have done differently to win re-election?
Murphy: You know, I don’t live my life with regrets. There’s things here and there. I wish I would have played the lottery numbers differently on Saturday night. … We had an incredible time serving the families of my district and our country, and we helped protect 3,000 jobs, we helped end theĀ war in Iraq, we helped move our country in a new direction. …
Blade: So the vote for the stimulus package, the vote for the health care bill — you standĀ by them today?
Murphy: Absolutely.
We stopped the worst recession since the Great — we stopped the worst recession from turning into a depression. As far as health care, there are millions of Americans that will now be covered, and that’s something that’s positive.
ON ‘DON’T ASK’ REPEAL IN LAME DUCK
Blade: How confident are you that Congress is going to be able to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the lame duck session?
Murphy: Well, we need the Senate to act. It’s in the Senate’s hands. We did our job over here in the House. I was proud to lead that effort and now we’re continuing to put the appropriate pressure on the Senate to do what’s right for national security.
We’re still in Afghanistan and Iraq and we cannot be forcing honorable men and women who are willing to take a bullet to keep our families safe to be thrown out just because they happen to be gay.
Blade: Are there any conditions that you think need to be met ā anything that you think needs to happen ā to muster enough support for the Senate to move forward?
Murphy: I think we’ll see ā we need the senators, especially on the Republican side, to do what’s right for our troops, and I think it couldn’t be more clear. A lot of them said, “Well, let’s see what the study group says.” Well, the study group came back and said that this will not hurt national security, and the troops, like most Americans, see that it’s the right thing to do.
And so, now we need the senators over there who’ve been a roadblock to put the political games aside and do what’s right for our country.
Blade: Have you had conversations with Senate leadershipĀ or Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin about moving forward with the defense authorization bill in lame duck?
Murphy: Yes.
Blade: How would you characterize those conversations?
Murphy: Productive.
Blade: What made them so productive?
Murphy: You’ll see.
Blade: How serious do you think this talk is of moving forward with the defense authorization bill with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language stripped? Is thatĀ a serious option that’s on the table?
Murphy: I think that’s what the Republicans would like to see. But I think those of us in the House and 78 percent of the American people and those in the military currently serving want to see the Senate do what’s right and repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and put it on the president’s desk, so he can sign it into law.
Blade: You mentioned the media reports on the Pentagon study. Do you see that having an impact right now on influencing some senators who were on the fence in getting them to support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal?
Murphy: I hope so because they looked their constituents and the American public in the eye and said, “As soon as this working group comes back, we’ll do the right thing on what it says.” Well, the report came out, it shows how the American military feels that this is a non-issue and that there isĀ …Ā 26 other countriesĀ who allow their members to serve openly, and for the American troops, it’s offensive to them to think that they’re not as professional as 26 other countries.
So, hopefully, our senators recognize that and will do what’s right.
Blade: Have you seen the draft report?
Murphy: No.
Blade: Should the Pentagon release the report immediately ā the official report? And, if they do that, what kind of impact do you think that would have on getting the ball rolling?
Murphy: I would like to read it, and I would like to see it, andĀ I look forward to reading it.
Blade: But should they release that report immediately?
Murphy: I think they should release it as soon as it’s completely done.
ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
Blade: Do you think President Obama has been engaged in getting the Senate to move forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in lame duck?
Murphy: Um, uh, yes.
Blade: What evidence do you see of him doing that?
Murphy:Ā Well, I think there’s different levels of engagement and,Ā I think, once the report comes out, I think we’ll see the full spectrum of that engagement.
Blade: During a recent press conference, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs didn’t identify “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as among the legislative items the president wants to see in lame duck. Is that of concern to you?
Murphy: I think they were waiting for the report to come out. The report is days away from coming out officially ā and not just excerpts of it that we’ve all read.
Blade: Is there anything more right now that the president could be doing to get the Senate to move forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal?
Murphy: I think once the report comes out we’ll see the full spectrum of engagement from ā and the appropriate amount of engagement from the White House once that report comes out from his own Department of Defense.
Blade: Do you think Defense Secretary Robert Gates right now is being engaged in getting the Senate to move forward with the defense authorization with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal?
Murphy: I look forward to Gen. [Carter] Ham’s testimony on Thursday.
Blade: But do you think Secretary Gates is engaged?
Murphy: I look forward to Gen. Ham’s testimony on Thursday.
Blade: Do you think that this process ā having a year-long study to examine “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ā was the appropriate way to address the issue? Do you think it jeopardized legislative efforts for repeal by leaving only a small window open for actionĀ in lame duck?
Murphy: Well, I think the premise behind the study was that ā how we’re going to implement “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” [repeal], not if we’re going to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” So, I think it’s interesting ā to read that report and how we’re going to implement it.
But the reality of this is I think that we have time to act. We all serve until Jan. 3, and we need to get out there.
Blade: There’s also been some action in courts. A California federal court ruled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” unconstitutional, and for eight days, had an injunction in place preventing enforcement of the law. Do you think it was a mistake for the Obama administration to appeal this ruling?
Murphy: Well, you know, it’s interesting. I actually met a soldier who went and enlisted after that injunction came out. And then, …Ā heĀ was going to get his physical and they had to withdraw.
I think that’s why it’s very clear that Congress needs to do its job and that we can’t punt this to the courts or to the White House. We need to get after it and finally repeal the law that Congress put into place 16 years ago. …
Blade: In the event that Congress doesn’t repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in lame duck, do you think the president should issue a stop-loss order to stop the discharges?
Murphy: Let’s cross that bridge when we get there. Now it’s still in the Congress’ domain to act and especially, specifically, the Senate’s domain.
ON THE NEXT CONGRESS
Blade: In the event that Congress can’t do it this year ā
Murphy: Congress can do it this year. We all serve until Jan. 3.
Blade: Do you think the 112th Congress will be in an equal position to appeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compared to the 111th Congress?
Murphy: I guess time will tell. We’ll see.
Blade: Do you think Republican leadership in the House will be willing to consider “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal?
Murphy: No.
Blade: If this fight continues, can you recommend someone in the 112th Congress who can take up the mantle of “Don’t Ask, Don’tĀ Tell” repeal in the U.S. House?
Murphy: Let’s get it done in the 111th Congress now. …
ON HIS PERSONAL FUTURE
Blade: Once your term expires, what do you plan to pursue when you go back to Pennsylvania?
Murphy: I’m going to hug and kiss my kids and hopefully I’ll catch an Eagles game. That’s the game plan.
Blade: Is there an occupation that you intend to pursue?
Murphy: We’ll see.
Blade: Do you plan on continuing to be an advocate for open service in the military?
Murphy: I continue to plan on serving my country in some capacity and fighting for the lives that I believe in to make our country even greater.
Blade: And open service in the military is among them?
Murphy: Yes.
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.
-
Federal Government4 days ago
HHS to retire 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth
-
Opinions4 days ago
David Hoggās arrogant, self-indulgent stunt
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
D.C. police seek help in identifying suspect in anti-gay threats case
-
Virginia4 days ago
Gay talk show host wins GOP nom for Va. lieutenant guv