National
Another shot for DP benefits bill
Lieberman, Baldwin reintroduce legislation

House and Senate lawmakers reintroduced legislation on Friday that would allow the U.S. government to provide domestic partner benefits to federal employees in same-sex relationships.
The legislation, known as the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, would allow gay federal workers to have the same benefits for their partners that straight workers can have for their spouses ā including health and pension benefits.
In the House, the legislation was introduced by lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). The legislation has 53 original co-sponsors, including the other three openly gay members of Congress: Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.). Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) is the sole Republican original co-sponsor for the legislation.
Baldwin in a statement said the U.S. government must “set an example as an equal opportunity employer.”
MORE IN THE BLADE: HRC DENIES NOM CLAIM ON DOMA REPEAL IN DEFENSE BILL
“If we are to treat all federal employees fairly and recruit the best and the brightest to serve in government, we need this legislation,” Baldwin said.
The Senate companion legislation was introduced by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.). The only original co-sponsor of the bill is Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Both were seen as leaders in the legislative fight in the Senate to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Lieberman called passage of the legislation “the next step to achieving equity for the gay community.”
“We repealed the ‘Donāt Ask Donāt Tell’ policy in the military because we want the best men and women America has to offer to defend our country,” Lieberman said. “The same is true for federal employees: we want to attract the best men and women possible to serve in federal government. One way to do that is by offering competitive benefits to the family members of gay federal employees.”
MORE IN THE BLADE: SENATE PANEL APPROVES DOMA REPEAL LEGISLATION
According to a 2009 UCLA Williams Institute report, more than 30,000 federal workers would benefit from the legislation because they’re in committed relationships with same-sex partners who aren’t federal employees.
LGBT advocates heralded the introduction of the bills as way forward to ensure gay federal workers are on the same footing as their straight counterparts.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the bill “embodies the simple principle that equal work deserves equal pay.”
“Thousands of LGBT people serve our country every day as federal civil servants, yet their families cannot receive the same important benefits that their straight coworkersā do,” Solmonese said. “This is not simply a matter of fairness; it is also a way to ensure that the federal government recruits and retains the best and the brightest.”
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said Congress should pass the legislation so the U.S. government can keep up with other employers that offer domestic partner benefits.
“It is long past time the federal government ā the country’s largest civilian employer ā provide benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees,” Carey said. “In addition to being fundamentally fair and helpful to thousands of families all across the country, extending these benefits is a sound business decision because it will help the federal government recruit and retain the best people.”
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, praised both Ros-Lehtinen and Collins for bringing GOP support to the legislation.
“As the largest employer in the nation, the United States government should lead the way in attracting and retaining the best and brightest for public service,” Cooper said. “Right now the federal government lags behind 22 states, the District of Columbia, and a majority of Fortune 500 companies when it comes to providing competitive personnel policies. This commonsense legislation would provide greater access to benefits for employees, and would do so without adding to the federal debt.”
According to Log Cabin, the Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that the total cost of the legislation would average about $70 million each year through 2020. This estimated cost would be to around two hundredths of a percent, or .02 percent, of the federal government’s total budget for federal employees.
In the last Congress, both House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over the legislation reported their versions of the bills to the floor. However, the legislation didn’t see a floor vote in either chamber of Congress.
The U.S. government could offer these benefits to federal employees without the passage of this legislation if not for the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Although Lieberman and Collins are championed the federal benefits in the Senate, they aren’t co-sponsors of DOMA repeal legislation known as the Respect for Marriage Act. The bill was recently reported out of committee to the Senate floor.
The Courage Campaign, Freedom to Marry and other LGBT groups have launched a campaign to convince Lieberman and Collins to co-sponsor DOMA repeal, although they haven’t signed on in support.
Lieberman has expressed concern about the portion of the Respect for Marriage Act that would enable federal benefits to flow to married gay couples even if they live in states that don’t recognize marriage equality.
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.
-
Opinions21 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