Connect with us

National

Reid recommits to ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal in lame duck

Senators talk of extending session to vote on gay ban

Published

on

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reaffirmed on Monday his commitment to bring a vote "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal (Blade photo by Michael Key).

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reaffirmed on Monday his commitment to bring “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal to vote in the lame duck session of Congress amid fears other legislative priorities will bump the issue from the agenda.

Reid pledged to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by year’s end on the Senate floor as he described a litany of legislative items he wants the chamber to take on during lame duck, including passage of the DREAM Act, renewing tax cuts for middle class families and ratification of the START Treaty.

“We’re also going to repeal the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law,” Reid said. “We’re going to match our policy with our principles and finally say in the United States, everyone who steps up to serve our country can be welcome.”

Legislation to repeal the military gay’s ban is pending before the Senate as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill. A previous attempt to bring the legislation to the Senate floor in September failed when a united Republican caucus blocked consideration of the measure.

Many senators — including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) — said they wanted a more fair amendment process with more amendments for the minority as a condition to moving forward with the legislation.

In his remarks, Reid said Republicans are blocking consideration of the defense authorization bill because they don’t believe they have the votes to take out the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” provision by amendment once the legislation reaches the floor.

Reid said when Republicans refuse to debate the defense authorization bill, they also “hold up a well-deserved raise for our troops, better health care for our troops and their families” as well as other important initiatives for the U.S. military.

A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also affirmed President Obama wants Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before lawmakers adjourn for the year.

“The White House remains fully committed to passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, including the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ during the lame duck,” the official said. “This is a priority for the president, and are we confident that the Congress will be able to address this issue this year.”

Concern that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal may have fallen from the schedule emerged when Reid offered remarks earlier in the day and didn’t include the defense authorization bill as among the legislative items for which he would file cloture on Monday.

Instead he listed other items, including the DREAM Act and legislation that would provide healthcare benefits and compensation to workers who responded to Ground Zero during the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Reid only mentioned the defense authorization bill after Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) reminded him on the floor to say something about the legislation.

The majority leader responded by saying he had bipartisan conversations on Sunday about trying to find a way to move forward with the defense authorization bill.

“The issue on that, Madam President, is what we do with amendments,” Reid said. “And without belaboring the point here, I would be happy to consider doing a number of amendments if we had time agreements on those amendments. But to just have an open process — at this stage, I don’t see how we can do that.”

Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said Reid didn’t include “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” among the items on which he would file cloture on Monday because the Senate leadership is still in talks to find enough Republican support to move forward with the defense authorization bill.

“Discussion are ongoing that involve Sen. Levin, Sen. [Joseph] Lieberman, Sen. Collins and others about trying to put together a debate that will satisfy folks and both of the aisle,” Manley said.

Manley said he couldn’t make a prediction on when these discussion would conclude, but said Reid remains committed to bringing up the legislation to a vote during lame duck.

Despite the commitment from Reid for a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” concerns that time will run out before lawmakers act persist.

In a brief exchange with the Washington Blade on Capitol Hill, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) expressed concerns about being able to move forward with the defense authorization in the limited time that remains in the session.

“The longer this go on the more difficult it becomes, but I’m obviously … still hopeful,” Levin said.

Christopher Neff, deputy executive director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, acknowleged that time is an issue as he said he still sees a path forward for repeal.

“The calendar, in my estimation, has always been a bit more difficult than the vote count, but I do think that there are scenarios where this can be finalized for a signature before Congress adjourns,” Neff said.

Neff cited what he perceived as Obama’s commitment to repeal as a reason for why repeal can still happen and noted a recent call the president made to Levin against stripping the defense authorization bill of its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language.

“President Obama has shown strong leadership in reaching out to Sen. Levin and to Sen. Reid to try to move this process forward,” Neff said. “I think the White House has taken a leadership role on this and they want to see it delivered and I think there’s more to be done.”

Talk is emerging about extending the legislative session beyond what was previously planned to accomodate a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

During his earlier remarks, Reid set Dec. 17 as the target date for when he wants the Senate to adjourn for this Congress and said he doesn’t think his colleagues want to stay until Christmas Eve as they did last year.

But Manley said the Dec. 17 target date for adjournment is “not hard and fast” and “we’ll have to wait and see how long we’re going to need.” He added the entire Democratic caucus would agree to extending the session for that to happen.

In a statement, Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said the Senate should stay in session for until the remainder of the calendar year if that’s what’s necessary to complete legislative work before the chamber, such as passage of the defense authorization bill.

“It’s time to follow Elvis Presley’s advice — we need ‘a little less conversation, and a little more action,’” Udall said. “I’m willing to stay through Christmas and New Year’s, if that’s what it takes, to fight for middle-class tax relief, the defense authorization bill, public lands legislation — which means jobs for Coloradans — and other important work.”

On Monday, the Huffington Post reported that Lieberman and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) were in favor of extneding the legislative session to pass “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“Sen. Lieberman believes that there are at least 60 votes to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year, provided that leadership allows time for sufficient debate and amendments,” Lieberman spokeswoman Erika Masonhall was quoted as saying. “Wanting to go home is not an acceptable excuse for failing to pass a bill that provides essential support for our troops and veterans and failing to take action that the president, the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have called for.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Vermont

Vt. lawmaker equates transgender identity with bestiality

Vermont Democrats condemned comments, demanded apology

Published

on

Vermont state Sen. Steven Heffernan (R-Addison) (Photo public domain; courtesy Vermont General Assembly)

State Sen. Steven Heffernan (R-Addison) equated transgender people to bestiality on the Vermont Senate floor on May 15 while debating an animal cruelty bill.

Heffernan, who was elected in 2024 to the state Senate, constructed a scenario in which a trans person is indistinguishable from someone committing bestiality.

“In these crazy times, what happens if the individual identifies as an animal having intercourse with an animal? How is the courts going to handle that?” the former member of the Vermont Air National Guard said while debating House Bill 578. “Being that we voted through Prop Four, and if it does make it through this state, and I have a gender identity that I identify as a dog and had sex with my dog, is this law going to affect me?”

State Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (D-Chittenden Central), who presented H. 578 responded professionally.

“The bill that we are putting forward in the current law is quite clear that any act between a person and an animal that involves contact with the mouth, sex organ, or anus of the person, and the mouth, sex organ, or anus of the animal, without a bona fide veterinary purpose, will be a crime.”

In the video, Heffernan continued to ask inappropriate questions — questions that Vyhovsky answered.

“If I identify as that animal, will this be able to … It says a person. I’m not a person. I’m identifying as this animal I’m having intercourse with,” he said. “We are identifying genders, of whatever gender we decide we want to be, and I think I like this bill. I’m going to vote for this bill, but I want to make this chamber aware of what’s coming.”

Vyhovsky made a statement saying this was a planned move in an attempt to “other” trans Vermonters instead of protecting them.

“Senator Heffernan knew exactly what he was doing,” said Vyhovsky. “Sen. Heffernan is using the same dehumanizing playbook that has been used against LGBTQ+ people for generations — the false, ugly suggestion that queer and trans identity is synonymous with deviance and harm. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.”

This derogatory action at the expense of trans people appears to be part of a pattern of behavior from Heffernan in his official capacity.

In March, Heffernan left the floor right before lawmakers voted on Proposal 4, conveniently missing the bill vote. PR 4, if passed by the state’s voters in the fall, would amend the state constitution to enshrine protections against unjust treatment, including discrimination based on a “person’s race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin.”

Heffernan told VTDigger at the time that he left because his stomach was feeling “agitated” and he needed to use the restroom. He said he had not made up his mind on how to vote on the amendment, largely because he’d heard from constituents urging him both to vote for and against it.

“My pizza hit at the right time, I guess,” he said, calling the timing “convenient.”

Despite his leaving — and being the only lawmaker to do so — the state Senate voted to pass it 29-0, with Heffernan marked “absent.” This came after the state House of Representatives voted to pass it 128-14 last week.

Vermont Senate Democrats condemned the statement and used the opportunity to emphasize the need for the state to pass PR 4 on Nov. 4.

“In the wake of Sen. Heffernan’s comments, the stakes of this election couldn’t be more clear,” the statement provided to the Washington Blade read. “Transgender and nonbinary Vermonters are our neighbors, our friends, and our family members. On Friday, Sen. Heffernan used his platform as an elected official representing the people of Vermont to dehumanize them. Senate Democrats will never stop fighting for dignity for all Vermonters. We demand Senator Heffernan apologize to those he has harmed with his words and actions.”

State Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (D-Chittenden Southeast), speaking in her capacity as chair of the Senate Ethics Panel, responded to similar transphobic comments made by President Donald Trump in a White House counterterrorism strategy document last week, in which he said those with “extreme transgender ideologies” should know “we will find you and we will kill you,” stating:

“A lot of people are living in fear in this country because of what somebody with the power of the pen and the power of the military is saying every day,” Hinsdale said. “Just because [speech] is protected does not mean it is worthy of this institution, and does not mean it is worthy of the office we hold and the power that we wield in the lives of Vermonters.”

The Blade reached out to Heffernan for comment but has not heard back.

Continue Reading

National

BREAKING NEWS: Barney Frank dies at 86

Former Mass. congressman came out as gay in 1987

Published

on

Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) when he was in Congress. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) died on Tuesday. He was 86.

The Massachusetts Democrat served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1981-2013. Frank in 1987 became the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay.

The Washington Blade earlier this month interviewed Frank after he entered hospice care at his Ogunquit, Maine, home where he lived with his husband, Jim Ready, since 2013. The former congressman, among other things, talked about his new book, “The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy.”

The book is scheduled for release on Sept. 15.

NBC Boston reported Frank’s sister, Ann Lewis, and a close family friend confirmed his death.

The Blade will update this article.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Texas Children’s Hospital reaches $10 million settlement with DOJ over gender-affirming care

Clinic specializing in detransition care will be established

Published

on

Justice Department in D.C. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

The Justice Department announced May 15 that it has reached a settlement with Texas Children’s Hospital, one of the nation’s top pediatric hospitals.

Under the agreement, the hospital will pay more than $10 million in damages and civil penalties related to its provision of gender-affirming care and will establish a clinic specializing in detransition care.

The DOJ partnered with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office to resolve allegations that the hospital submitted false billings to public and private insurers to secure coverage for pediatric gender-affirming procedures. The department alleges the conduct violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the False Claims Act, and federal fraud and conspiracy laws.

The settlement was reached out of court, meaning neither party formally admitted wrongdoing. Both the DOJ and Texas Children’s Hospital denied liability.

“The Justice Department will use every weapon at its disposal to end the destructive and discredited practice of so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ for children,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a DOJ press release. “Today’s resolution protects vulnerable children, holds providers accountable, and ensures those harmed receive the care they need.”

The DOJ’s hardline stance on gender-affirming care sharply contrasts with the positions of major medical organizations, transgender healthcare advocates, and human rights groups, which broadly support gender-affirming care as an evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria.

Adrian Shanker, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Policy and Senior Advisor on LGBTQI+ Health Equity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under during the Biden-Harris administration, told the Washington Blade the settlement could have sweeping consequences for trans youth and healthcare providers nationwide.

“The Trump administration’s framing of gender-affirming care is wildly inaccurate, scientifically implausible, and frankly, just mean-spirited,” Shanker told the Blade. “What’s really clear is that the science hasn’t changed, the evidence hasn’t changed — it’s only the politics that have changed. Unfortunately, the people that lose out the most with a settlement like this one are the patients that are denied access to care where they live.”

According to Shanker, the agreement also requires Texas Children’s Hospital to revoke privileges for physicians involved in providing gender-affirming care, potentially limiting their ability to practice elsewhere.

“This is a weaponized Department of Justice doing absurd investigations against providers that are providing care within the established standard of care,” he said. “They’ve come up with an absurd remedy in their settlement to require a so-called ‘detransition clinic’ to open at Texas Children’s. It’s harmful to science, it’s harmful to trans people, and it’s harmful to the medical profession.”

Shanker argued the case reflects a broader politicization of trans healthcare.

“Every American should be concerned about the weaponized Department of Justice and their obsession with trans people and their access to care,” he said. “These hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, the providers of gender-affirming care, have done nothing wrong. They followed the standards of care that are well established and followed the mountain of evidence.”

Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, echoed those concerns.

“For Texas Children’s to capitulate to this pressure campaign of both Paxton and the Trump administration and end this care, and go after physicians who had been lawfully and faithfully taking care of their patients, it’s hard to see that as anything other than bending the knee in the face of political pressure,” Loewy told the Blade. “That’s not putting your mission above politics. Your mission is to provide health care for kids that need it.”

Loewy said the settlement reflects years of efforts by Paxton and the Trump-Vance administration to target gender-affirming care providers. Paxton has pursued investigations into providers across Texas since 2022 and supported a 2023 law banning gender-transition-related medical care for minors. Meanwhile, the Trump-Vance administration moved quickly in its second term to restrict trans healthcare access, including through Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”

“This is a perfect storm of Ken Paxton’s own mission to stigmatize and target trans young people and their healthcare in Texas with the Trump administration’s targeting of trans people and gender-affirming medical care,” Loewy said. “It is the two of them together. Without that, you wouldn’t have had this settlement.”

Loewy also emphasized that the settlement is part of a broader legal strategy targeting providers nationwide.

“You can’t view this one in isolation from all of the other administrative subpoenas that have been sent to hospitals or other kinds of medical providers that have provided gender-affirming medical care to trans adolescents,” she said. “It is all part and parcel of the same direct line from the executive orders that were issued in the first days of this Trump administration.”

“Every court that has considered those subpoenas has found them illegitimate and issued for an improper purpose, or at least narrowed them really dramatically,” she added. “Courts agree these hospitals didn’t do anything wrong. It’s the DOJ that has the problem here.”

Shanker also criticized the settlement’s requirement that the hospital establish a detransition clinic, arguing the move contradicts existing medical evidence.

“The irony shouldn’t be lost on anyone that the Trump administration is claiming that gender-affirming care lacks a scientific basis, and then is requiring the opening of a so-called detransition clinic, which certainly lacks a scientific basis,” Shanker said. “There’s less than a 1% regret rate when it comes to gender-affirming care. That’s lower than knee surgery, lower than bariatric surgery, lower than childbirth, lower than breast reconstruction, and lower than tattoos.”

Loewy was similarly blunt in her criticism.

“This is the most craven, political, ridiculous elevation of ideology over evidence,” she said. “They are creating a program built on an outcome that almost never happens. It is unprecedented and politically mandated rather than healthcare mandated.”

She said the settlement’s broader effect will be to intimidate providers and further marginalize trans people.

“The real effect here is to further stigmatize trans people and intimidate healthcare providers,” she said. “This is about sending a message nationwide that the DOJ is coming after the doctors. These are committed, faithful, law-abiding physicians and healthcare providers who just want to provide the healthcare their patients actually need.”

Both Loewy and Shanker warned that restricting access to gender-affirming care could deepen health disparities for trans people.

“We know that when transgender Americans lack the care that they need, we end up with higher rates of depression, higher rates of anxiety, higher rates of self-harm and suicidal ideation,” Shanker said. “We know that gender-affirming care is a medically appropriate, scientifically grounded form of care that resolves these challenges and leads us toward health equity. It’s unfortunate that the Trump administration has politicized not only transgender medicine, but the very basis of public health.”

Shanker said the restrictions are already prompting some trans people to relocate in search of care.

“We’re already seeing medical refugees leave states that have restricted access to care to move to states where it’s still available,” he said. “Frankly, we’ve already seen some trans people go to other countries to receive care or maintain access to care.”

Loewy said the DOJ’s recent subpoenas targeting hospitals, including those issued to NYU Langone Health in New York, suggest the administration is escalating its legal strategy.

“We’ve seen the DOJ escalate this by convening a grand jury and issuing grand jury subpoenas to hospitals,” she said. “That is going to be the next front in this fight.”

In addition to , there has been as large increase in anti-trans legislation in the past few years — with 126 federal pieces of legislation introduced this year and 26 state level policies passed across the country.

Still, Loewy pointed to recent court victories as evidence that challenges to these policies can succeed.

“Just yesterday, a state court in Kansas struck down that state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care in one of the most meticulous recognitions of the medical consensus and the harm of denying care to trans young people,” she said. “When courts actually look at the science and the impacts on trans people, they still can rule the right way.”

Asked whether there is any optimism to be found amid the ongoing legal battles, Loewy said she continues to draw hope from advocates, families, and community organizers fighting back.

“The solidarity of the community is really what brings hope,” she said. “There are incredible lawyers, advocates, families, and organizations fighting every day to protect these kids and their privacy and safety. It is that community strength and collaborative effort that continues to give me hope.”

Continue Reading

Popular