National
Gay intern credited with saving Giffords
‘I heard gunshots, I ran toward where the congresswoman would be’
(Photo courtesy of Hernandez)
For Danny Hernandez, the shootings on Saturday in Tucson, Ariz., that critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) were a life-changing moment during which many say he demonstrated unparalleled heroism.
Hernandez, who’s gay and had worked as an intern for Giffords for just five days at the time of the shooting, is credited with providing the first aid that saved her life.
In an interview with Washington Blade, Hernandez, 20, a political science student at the University of Arizona, said he was tasked with signing in visitors at the “Congress on Your Corner” event when the shooting began.
“About 10 minutes after the event started, I heard gunshots,” he said. “I heard someone say ‘Gun!’ I ran toward where the congresswoman would be.”
Giffords, who was shot in the forehead, was among the 20 people shot by 22-year-old gunman Jared Loughlin, who used a semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine during his attack. Six people were killed, including five who died at the scene and a 9-year-old girl who died at the hospital.
“The attitude that I had,” Hernandez said, “was trying to make sure that those who had been injured were going to be OK, so to try to provide whatever first aid I could until someone else could come in and take over.”
When he reached Giffords, Hernandez said he noticed others had been shot, and said his first priority was to determine who was still alive.
“Once I saw that the congresswoman was still alive, but she had been severely injured, she became my first priority, not because of her position, but because of the severity of her wounds,” Hernandez said.
After assessing Giffords’s injuries, Hernandez propped her up against his chest to keep her from asphyxiating on her own blood. Once she was able to breathe again, Hernandez applied pressure to stem the blood loss as much as possible.
Medics arrived on the scene to take Giffords and others to the University Medical Center in Arizona. Doctors are now optimistic about her recovery. The first aid provided by Hernandez, who said his only training was through a certified nursing assistant program in high school, is widely seen as responsible for saving her life.
Amid the media frenzy and shock over the shootings, Hernandez has emerged a figure of hope after rushing into danger to save Giffords. In the days since the shooting, Hernandez has appeared on national TV for interviews with CNN, the “Today” show and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
Back home in Arizona, Hernandez has been praised for his actions. The Arizona State Legislature on Monday gave him a standing ovation after Gov. Jan Brewer (R) applauded his deeds during her State of the State address.
“Daniel Hernandez, a University of Arizona junior showed no fear in the face of gunfire,” Brewer said. “His quick action in going to Gabby Giffords’s aid likely saved her life.”
Hernandez said he was “very proud” to receive the honor afforded to him by the state legislature and the Arizona governor, but expressed modesty over his accomplishment.
“I’m a little press shy, and trying to control it as much as possible because the only thing I really care about right now is making sure that those people who survived get better and that we give support to their family members,” he said.
Hernandez also demurred when asked by the Blade whether he thinks he should be labeled a hero for his actions.
“Using words like ‘hero,’ I think, is kind of not the appropriate word because although those who did step in and took some action were brave, the real heroes are the people like Congresswoman Giffords … and the people who dedicated their lives to public service,” Hernandez said.
Dedicating much of her life to public service, Giffords was elected to the Arizona State Legislature in 2000 before becoming a congresswoman in 2007. Seen by many as a liberal for her support for abortion rights, health care reform and the stimulus package, Giffords beat her Republican opponent, Tea Party candidate Jesse Kelly, to win re-election in November 2010.
Hernandez said he wanted to work for Giffords because he’s been following her since she was a state legislator. After a stint working on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, Hernandez said he had many interactions with Giffords and they became friends. After she won re-election last year, he decided to go to work for her.
“She was just an impressive person whom I always admired,” Hernandez said. “And in November of 2010, after she won her seat here again, one of the first things I did after she won was to make sure I applied to an internship with her office because I wanted to continue working with her as much as possible.”
On LGBT issues, Giffords’s record is mostly positive. The Human Rights Campaign gave her a score of 81 out of 100 for support for pro-gay legislation in the 110th Congress.
Giffords voted for hate crimes protections legislation and repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” She additionally was a co-sponsor of a trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act. She was not a co-sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act or legislation that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Even though he has a background in political science, Hernandez said LGBT issues haven’t been one of his priorities and said he’s more interested in public service in general.
“That’s why I worked for her office, not because of any one issue but because I wanted to be involved and wanted to be involved in the political process and trying to help others,” he said.
The degree to which political discourse in America influenced the shootings has emerged as a central discussion topic. Many pundits have questioned whether right-wing rhetoric against health care reform, which Giffords’ supported, contributed to the action that nearly took her life.
Giffords was among 20 members of Congress targeted by Sarah Palin on her website for supporting health care reform. Palin’s site included a map with Giffords’s district depicted in crosshairs. The map has been removed from Palin’s site.
John Aravosis, the gay editor of Americablog, said Palin “shares a great deal of responsibility” for feeding what he called “America’s culture of violence.”
“Just go to Western Europe, walk around in any capital at 2 or 3 in the morning, then try to do the same in Washington, D.C.,” Aravosis said. “It’s different in America.”
Aravosis said conservative leaders like Palin — as well as personalities like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh — tap into the culture of violence in the hopes that it will help Republicans win elections.
Among other things, Aravosis accused conservatives of contributing to violence by saying health care reform would lead to death panels for the elderly and insisting that President Obama pals around with terrorists.
“It’s the GOP that’s cheapened political discourse, since the founding of conservative talk radio, and things only went downhill when they created Fox,” Aravosis said. “I have no idea what can be done about it, other than shaming them, and hoping they learn to restrain themselves.”
Hernandez said he also believed the shootings show that political discourse in the country is “something that needs to change.”
“I think, if there’s anything that can be learned from this tragic incident, it’s that we need to make sure that we cut down on the fiery rhetoric,” he said. “Instead of trying to tear each other down and work on destructive criticism on both sides, we need to kind of come together as a nation regardless of every factor and try to work constructively to move this nation forward.”
In a video posted online Wednesday, Palin disputed the notion that conservative political discourse in some way contributed to the violence last week in Tucson and said people were making “irresponsible statements” to assign blame for the event.
“It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions,” she said. “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own and they begin and end with the criminals who committed them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.”
Asked whether he thinks Palin had a role in prompting the shootings, Hernandez said he’s not part of the investigation and doesn’t know what the causes were.
“I think the only thing that I can say is making sure that, in the future, we cut down on any kind of rhetoric, especially things that can be seen as something that may cause some violence in the future,” he said.
What does the future hold for Hernandez? He said he wants to pursue a role in public service and isn’t ruling anything out as part of that path.
“I don’t know in what capacity,” Hernandez said. “I’m not ruling anything out, but, right now, it’s too soon.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Competing rallies draw hundreds to Supreme Court
Activists, politicians gather during oral arguments over trans youth participation in sports
Hundreds of supporters and opponents of trans rights gathered outside of the United States Supreme Court during oral arguments for Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. on Tuesday. Two competing rallies were held next to each other, with politicians and opposing movement leaders at each.
“Trans rights are human rights!” proclaimed U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to the crowd of LGBTQ rights supporters. “I am here today because trans kids deserve more than to be debated on cable news. They deserve joy. They deserve support. They deserve to grow up knowing that their country has their back.”
“And I am here today because we have been down this hateful road before,” Markey continued. “We have seen time and time again what happens when the courts are asked to uphold discrimination. History eventually corrects those mistakes, but only after the real harm is done to human beings.”
View on Threads
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke at the other podium set up a few feet away surrounded by signs, “Two Sexes. One Truth.” and “Reality Matters. Biology Matters.”
“In just four years, the Biden administration reversed decades of progress,” said McMahon. “twisting the law to urge that sex is not defined by objective biological reality, but by subjective notion of gender identity. We’ve seen the consequences of the Biden administration’s advocacy of transgender agendas.”
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, was introduced on the opposing podium during McMahon’s remarks.
“This court, whose building that we stand before this morning, did something quite remarkable six years ago.” Takano said. “It did the humanely decent thing, and legally correct thing. In the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court said that trans employees exist. It said that trans employees matter. It said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on sex, and that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It recognizes that trans people have workplace rights and that their livelihoods cannot be denied to them, because of who they are as trans people.”
“Today, we ask this court to be consistent,” Takano continued. “If trans employees exist, surely trans teenagers exist. If trans teenagers exist, surely trans children exist. If trans employees have a right not to be discriminated against in the workplace, trans kids have a right to a free and equal education in school.”
Takano then turned and pointed his finger toward McMahon.
“Did you hear that, Secretary McMahon?” Takano addressed McMahon. “Trans kids have a right to a free and equal education! Restore the Office of Civil Rights! Did you hear me Secretary McMahon? You will not speak louder or speak over me or over these people.”
Both politicians continued their remarks from opposing podiums.
“I end with a message to trans youth who need to know that there are adults who reject the political weaponization of hate and bigotry,” Takano said. “To you, I say: you matter. You are not alone. Discrimination has no place in our schools. It has no place in our laws, and it has no place in America.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Justices considered whether laws unconstitutional under Title IX.
The Supreme Court heard two cases today that could change how the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX are enforced.
The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., ask the court to determine whether state laws blocking transgender girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Once decided, the rulings could reshape how laws addressing sex discrimination are interpreted nationwide.
Chief Justice John Roberts raised questions about whether Bostock v. Clayton County — the landmark case holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity — applies in the context of athletics. He questioned whether transgender girls should be considered girls under the law, noting that they were assigned male at birth.
“I think the basic focus of the discussion up until now, which is, as I see it anyway, whether or not we should view your position as a challenge to the distinction between boys and girls on the basis of sex or whether or not you are perfectly comfortable with the distinction between boys and girls, you just want an exception to the biological definition of girls.”
“How we approach the situation of looking at it not as boys versus girls but whether or not there should be an exception with respect to the definition of girls,” Roberts added, suggesting the implications could extend beyond athletics. “That would — if we adopted that, that would have to apply across the board and not simply to the area of athletics.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed Roberts’ concerns, questioning how sex-based classifications function under Title IX and what would happen if Idaho’s ban were struck down.
“Does a — the justification for a classification as you have in Title IX, male/female sports, let’s take, for example, an individual male who is not a good athlete, say, a lousy tennis player, and does not make the women’s — and wants to try out for the women’s tennis team, and he said there is no way I’m better than the women’s tennis players. How is that different from what you’re being required to do here?”
Justice Samuel Alito addressed what many in the courtroom seemed reluctant to state directly: the legal definition of sex.
“Under Title IX, what does the term ‘sex’ mean?” Alito asked Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who was arguing in support of Idaho’s law. Mooppan maintained that sex should be defined at birth.
“We think it’s properly interpreted pursuant to its ordinary traditional definition of biological sex and think probably given the time it was enacted, reproductive biology is probably the best way of understanding that,” Mooppan said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, questioning how that definition did not amount to sex discrimination against Lindsay Hecox under Idaho law. If Hecox’s sex is legally defined as male, Sotomayor argued, the exclusion still creates discrimination.
“It’s still an exception,” Sotomayor said. “It’s a subclass of people who are covered by the law and others are not.”
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the broader implications of the cases, asking whether a ruling for the states would impose a single definition of sex on the 23 states that currently have different laws and standards. The parties acknowledged that scientific research does not yet offer a clear consensus on sex.
“I think the one thing we definitely want to have is complete findings. So that’s why we really were urging to have a full record developed before there were a final judgment of scientific uncertainty,” said Kathleen Harnett, Hecox’s legal representative. “Maybe on a later record, that would come out differently — but I don’t think that—”
“Just play it out a little bit, if there were scientific uncertainty,” Kagan responded.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on the impact such policies could have on cisgender girls, arguing that allowing transgender girls to compete could undermine Title IX’s original purpose.
“For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all league, there’s a — there’s a harm there,” Kavanaugh said. “I think we can’t sweep that aside.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Idaho’s law discriminated based on transgender status or sex.
“Since trans boys can play on boys’ teams, how would we say this discriminates on the basis of transgender status when its effect really only runs towards trans girls and not trans boys?”
Harnett responded, “I think that might be relevant to a, for example, animus point, right, that we’re not a complete exclusion of transgender people. There was an exclusion of transgender women.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged the notion that explicitly excluding transgender people was not discrimination.
“I guess I’m struggling to understand how you can say that this law doesn’t discriminate on the basis of transgender status. The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams… it treats transgender women different than — than cis-women, doesn’t it?”
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst urged the court to uphold his state’s ban, arguing that allowing participation based on gender identity — regardless of medical intervention — would deny opportunities to girls protected under federal law.
Hurst emphasized that biological “sex is what matters in sports,” not gender identity, citing scientific evidence that people assigned male at birth are predisposed to athletic advantages.
Joshua Block, representing B.P.J., was asked whether a ruling in their favor would redefine sex under federal law.
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block said. “I think the purpose is to make sure sex isn’t being used to deny opportunities.”
Becky Pepper-Jackson, identified as plaintiff B.P.J., the 15-year-old also spoke out.
“I play for my school for the same reason other kids on my track team do — to make friends, have fun, and challenge myself through practice and teamwork,” said Pepper-Jackson. “And all I’ve ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers. But in 2021, politicians in my state passed a law banning me — the only transgender student athlete in the entire state — from playing as who I really am. This is unfair to me and every transgender kid who just wants the freedom to be themselves.”
Outside the court, advocates echoed those concerns as the justices deliberated.
“Becky simply wants to be with her teammates on the track and field team, to experience the camaraderie and many documented benefits of participating in team sports,” said Sasha Buchert, counsel and Nonbinary & Transgender Rights Project director at Lambda Legal. “It has been amply proven that participating in team sports equips youth with a myriad of skills — in leadership, teamwork, confidence, and health. On the other hand, denying a student the ability to participate is not only discriminatory but harmful to a student’s self-esteem, sending a message that they are not good enough and deserve to be excluded. That is the argument we made today and that we hope resonated with the justices of the Supreme Court.”
“This case is about the ability of transgender youth like Becky to participate in our schools and communities,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “School athletics are fundamentally educational programs, but West Virginia’s law completely excluded Becky from her school’s entire athletic program even when there is no connection to alleged concerns about fairness or safety. As the lower court recognized, forcing Becky to either give up sports or play on the boys’ team — in contradiction of who she is at school, at home, and across her life — is really no choice at all. We are glad to stand with her and her family to defend her rights, and the rights of every young person, to be included as a member of their school community, at the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in both cases by the end of June.
U.S. Supreme Court
As Supreme Court weighs trans sports bans, advocate and former athlete speaks out
PFLAG staffer Diego Sanchez competed at University of Georgia in 1970s
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases Tuesday addressing the legality of banning transgender women and girls from participating in sports under the 14th Amendment.
Though the two cases differ slightly in their fact patterns, they ultimately pose the same constitutional question: whether laws that limit participation in women’s sports to only cisgender women and girls violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In both cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — trans girls filed lawsuits against their respective states, Idaho and West Virginia, arguing that the bans violate their right to equal protection under the law by subjecting them to different standards than cisgender girls.
Lindsay Hecox, now 24, filed her lawsuit in 2020 while attending Boise State University. That same year, Idaho enacted the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which barred trans women from participating in any sport in public schools, from kindergarten through college. Although Hecox underwent hormone therapy that significantly lowered her testosterone levels, she was still excluded under the law when she attempted to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams.
The second case centers on B.P.J., a 15-year-old trans girl who has identified as female since third grade and has been on puberty blockers since the onset of puberty. In 2021, West Virginia enacted the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which requires sports teams to be designated by “biological sex” rather than gender identity. B.P.J.’s mother filed suit on her behalf after her daughter was barred from participating on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams.
A key distinction between the two cases is that attorneys for B.P.J. have argued that because puberty blockers were part of her development, her body is more aligned with that of a cisgender girl than a cisgender boy. Despite these differences, both cases raise the same constitutional issue: whether it is lawful to bar someone from participation in sports based on sex assigned at birth.
The Washington Blade spoke with PFLAG Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez.
Sanchez is a trans elder with firsthand experience as a college athlete at the University of Georgia and later became the first openly trans legislative staff member on Capitol Hill.
His dual experience — as a former athlete and a longtime policy expert deeply familiar with constitutional law — gives him a unique perspective on the questions now before the Supreme Court. Sanchez will also be one of the featured speakers at a rally on the steps of the court as the justices hear arguments.
When asked how attitudes toward trans athletes differ from when he competed at the University of Georgia from 1976-1980 to today — when 27 states have passed laws restricting trans participation in sports — Sanchez said the contrast is stark.
“I had the good experience of being supported by my teammates and my coach,” Sanchez said. “The thing that’s so different today is that these [trans] kids are able to go home and get kisses and hugs from their parents, being lauded in the stands by their families, and then being told that who they are doesn’t necessarily fit with who they’re allowed to be in their expression at the moment, and that to me, seems a terrible injustice.”
Sanchez emphasized that sports offer lessons that extend far beyond competition.
“When you’re an athlete, you learn an awful lot of things about life,” he said. “You learn about leadership, but you also learn that your best effort becomes part of a team effort … how you feel as an individual contributor is affected by what ends up being part of how you live your life as an adult.”
After his time as an athlete, Sanchez began working in government, eventually serving as senior policy advisor to then-U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) until Frank’s retirement in 2013. Sanchez said that one of the most important aspects of his role was simply being visible as a trans person in spaces where many lawmakers had never knowingly met one before.
“My job was to make sure that no one, no legislator, could say that they had never met a trans person,” Sanchez said.
Sanchez also addressed the broader implications the Supreme Court’s decision could have on how gender is treated within institutional systems.
“I don’t think it affects how people perceive their own gender or express their own gender, but I do think that it could create barriers if it doesn’t welcome the way that community and society actually are,” he said. “The most important thing for people to know … is to remember that every person is an individual, and that the right to contribute to society should be something that is supported by the government, not hindered.”
He added that the court’s role must be understood within the framework of checks and balances established by the Constitution.
“The risk, of course, here is always remembering that we have three branches of government, so that this action by the judiciary branch may or may not have implications on whether or how things can be perceived or executed at other branches,” Sanchez said. “I would hope that our government is interested in letting the future generations and current generations be the best that they can be as well.”
“Do people get to live their lives as they are, or is the government an obstruction or a support?”
When asked what message he would share with young trans athletes watching the Supreme Court take up these cases, Sanchez said community support remains critical, regardless of how the justices rule.
“Make sure that the environment that you put yourself in is something that honors who you know you are and supports you becoming the best person you can be, and that anything that takes away from that is purely dissonance,” he said.
“What we do with dissonance is what distinguishes us as whether we excel or doubt.”
That same sense of community, Sanchez said, is what rallies — like the one planned outside the Supreme Court — are meant to reinforce, even as decisions are made inside the building.
“Rallies, including tomorrow’s, are about people knowing they’re not alone, and hearing from other people who support who they are,” he said. “There is support across the country … I wish that I had had someone my age now that I could have looked to, but I am the role model, but I didn’t have any.”
Looking ahead to the possibility that the court could uphold bans on trans athletes, Sanchez said the immediate challenge will be ensuring that families and communities continue to affirm trans youth amid legal uncertainty.
“Having the endorsement of being supported who you are, it helps you so much,” he said. “You cannot put the issue of rights back into the genie’s bottle once people experience what freedom and welcoming is.”
For Sanchez, whose life has spanned decades of change in both sports and government, the cases before the Supreme Court represent a pivotal moment — not just legally, but culturally.
“Living your life, for me, does not require bravery,” he said. “It’s just taking one step and then another.”
Va. Senate committee approves resolution to repeal marriage amendment
Rise of Chalamet continues in ‘Marty Supreme’
Zach Wahls stood up for us, now let’s stand with him
Grenell: ‘Real hope’ for gay rights in Iran as result of nationwide protests
Rollback of health IT standards will harm LGBTQ patients
Ford’s ‘First Look’ festival showcases three new productions
Mid-Atlantic Leather kicks off this week
Stress-free lease renewals during winter months
PHOTOS: ‘ICE Out For Good’ Sunday protests
