Connect with us

National

Gingrich rebound troubles LGBT advocates

Former House speaker vaults to top of field: poll

Published

on

Newt Gingrich, Republican Party, gay news, Washington Blade

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A new candidate is rising in the polls among Republicans seeking the White House, but the presidential contender’s anti-gay views aren’t winning him friends in the LGBT community.

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich — who earned a reputation during his tenure in Congress as the bane of the Clinton administration — has claimed the title of new favorite son among Republicans, according to a new poll.

Public Policy Polling reports that Gingrich leads among Republican voters with 28 percentage points. Following him is former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain at 25 points and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 18 percent.Ā Compared to a month ago, Gingrich has risen 13 points while Cain has dropped by 5 points and Romney has gone down by 4.

CainĀ enjoyed front-runner statusĀ a month ago, but has seen a precipitous drop in the polls after allegations emerged that he sexually harassed Ā in the 1990sĀ at least two women while head of the National Restaurant Association, although the candidate has denied any wrongdoing. NBC News reported that at least one of these women received a cash settlement from the organization.

Whether Gingrich will remain at the top of the pack remains to be seen. Other candidates —including Cain, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) — have been at the top of the polls, but have since fallen, while Romney’s numbers remain relatively stable.

Jerame Davis, interim executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said Gingrich’s ascendance shows “the Republican primary field is in disarray” and “the GOP base is desperately searching for a standard bearer with little success.”

“It is preposterous to think that Gingrich, a serial philanderer and the only Speaker of the House of Representatives ever reprimanded for ethics violations, would become a nominee for president of the United States for any political party — let alone be elected president,” Davis said.

Davis added the LGBT community “should be particularly concerned about the possibility of a Gingrich presidency” because the candidate “is openly hostile toward LGBT rights.”

Speaking at a campaign event in Iowa in September, Gingrich called marriage equality “a temporary aberration that will dissipate,” according to the Des Moines Register. In the 2010 election, Gingrich reportedly contributed $150,000 of money he raised for his political group to the campaign to oust three Iowa justices who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in 2009.

Gingrich has been critical of judges ruling in favor of marriage. During his speech before the 2011 Values Voter Summit in D.C., Gingrich denounced retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for ruling against Proposition 8 in California, saying if judges “think that they are unchallengeable, they are inevitably corrupted.”

The former House speaker cited as an example of this corruption “one judge in California deciding he knows more than 8 million Californians about the definition of marriage.”

Vaughn’s ruling against California’s same-sex marriage ban in 2010 prompted Gingrich to call on Congress to send to the states a U.S. constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage throughout the country.

“Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy,” Gingrich said at the time.

Gingrich has also been critical of Obama’s decision to drop the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court. In February, Gingrich called on the U.S. House to retaliate against Obama after the administration declared the anti-gay law was unconstitutional and suggested the president could be impeached over the decision.

ā€œI believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath,ā€ Gingrich said, ā€œand they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.ā€

Asked by Newsmax TV whether President Obama could be subject to articles of impeachment, Gingrich said, ā€œClearly it is a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath and is something that cannot be allowed to stand.ā€

Gingrich holds these views even though he has a lesbian sister: Candace Gingrich. An activist with the Human Rights Campaign, she served in the 1990s as the spokesperson for the organization’s coming out project.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, maintained Gingrich has held “more nuanced” positions on LGBT issues than some may think and pointed to an interview the speaker did with the conservativeĀ American View.

“Regarding marriage, Gingrich helped author DOMA in the 1990s, but now lines up with many conservative voters in that he believes there should be some sort of relationship recognition,” Cooper said.

In the interview, Gingrich said he favors “some kind of legal rights” for LGBT people and backs hospital visitation rights, although he doesn’t know how he feels about civil unions. Cooper said Gingrich articulated similar comments on hospital rights to him personally.

“Regarding gay Americans, the former House speaker has also noted to fellow conservatives, ‘there are many good and kind and decent people who also may be homosexual’ and that ‘you live in a very narrow world if you’ve never met one,'” Cooper said. “Like many Americans, Newt Gingrich remains conflicted on these issues.”

But the biggest complaints about Gingrich from the LGBT community resulted from his role as House speaker in the late 1990s.

Elizabeth Birch, a Democratic consultant who was head of the Human Rights Campaign from 1995 to 2004, said Gingrich’s relationship with the LGBT community at that time left much to be desired.

“He was 100 percent uncooperative in moving any legislation, concepts or ideas that would advance LGBT equality during the years I was at the Human Rights Campaign,” Birch said.

Birch said HRC privately met with Gingrich and he was “courteous” in conservations, but she added “the truth is he’s one of those monolithic political blocks to advancement because he will always serve ideology over humanity.”

According to HRC, Gingrich — before he became speaker in 1995 — voted in favor of the putting in place the recently repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law and in favor of legislation to defund D.C.’s domestic partner registry.

But perhaps Gingrich’s signature anti-gay achievement was passage of DOMA, the statute that continues to prohibit federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Birch recalled that Gingrich by virtue of his position as speaker had a significant roleĀ in the passage of the anti-gay law, which was signed by Clinton in 1996.

“Just by virtue of his station at the time, he was instrumental in having that pass very quickly and efficiently,” Birch said.

Bob Barr, the former Republican U.S. House member who sponsored the bill, and Clinton, who signed the bill into law, now say DOMA should be repealed, but Gingrich still backs the statute.

“That’s who he is,” Birch said. “He was always, always adjusting his plans, his actions and his goals to the right of the party.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misstated the year in which Gingrich became speaker. The Washington Blade regrets the error.

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.

ā€œSuicide 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,ā€ they said in a statement. ā€œThese 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.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.

ā€œI 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. ā€œI 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.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 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.

ā€œLGBTQ+ stories matter,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a statement Tuesday. ā€œThey 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.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 Women’s Law Center announced their submission of a 31-page amicus brief in a press release on April 11.

ā€œAll 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.  ā€œEnsuring 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.

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.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 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 ā€œEnding the HIV Epidemicā€ begun under Trump’s first term will be continued.

ā€œToday’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.ā€

Lambda Legal HIV Project Director Jose Abrigo said, ā€œThe 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.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€

ā€œToday’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.ā€

ā€œWe 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