National
Kicked out and $79,000 in debt
Penalties hound service members expelled under ‘Don’t Ask’
For Sara Isaacson, separation from the University of North Carolina’s Army ROTC program because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” comes with a price tag of $79,265.
Isaacson told the Washington Blade she understands the U.S. military wants to protect its investment in training her, but she hopes to repay her debt by serving in the armed forces as opposed to paying the expenses out of pocket.
“I have always said the goal is still to serve my country and I want to be able to fulfill my commitment by serving in uniform,” she said. “The military right now is not allowing me to do that, so I don’t think it’s fair that they’re asking for the tuition back.”
Isaacson, 22 and a lesbian, said she hasn’t yet graduated from college and doesn’t know how she could pay the money that the U.S. military is seeking.
“I’m a few classes away from graduating and I don’t have $80,000 to repay the military,” she said.
Facing recoupment charges after discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a problem that continues to plague many service members even after President Obama signed legislation allowing for repeal and the Pentagon has moved ahead with lifting the military’s gay ban.
The issue received renewed attention last month when Iraq war veteran and former Army Lt. Dan Choi, who gained notoriety after he handcuffed himself to the White House gates in protest over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” informed media outlets that the Army wants him to repay $2,500 of the unearned portion of his Army contract.
In an open letter to Obama, Choi states that he is refusing to pay the Army the money.
“It would be easy to pay the $2,500 bill and swiftly done with this diseased chapter of my life, where I sinfully deceived and tolerated self-hatred under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” he writes. “But I choose to cease wrestling, to cease the excuses, to cease the philosophical grandstanding and ethical gymnastics of political expediency in the face of moral duty.”
The recoupment issue only comes into play for troops discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in certain situations.
In one situation, like Choi’s, troops can be forced to pay back all or a portion of the bonuses they received upon reenlistment.
In another scenario, service members can be required to pay tuition grants afforded to them if they don’t complete their education in a training program such as ROTC or post-graduate medical or dental school.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said his organization has had more success in mitigating recoupment for troops who were outed by a third party rather than those who outed themselves.
“In many of those cases, we’ve been able to argue on the service member’s behalf that they would have completed their employment contract and agreement but for the intervening factor by a third party,” he said.
Third party outings were restricted early last year when Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued new guidance for the enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Sarvis said the case of Hensala v. Air Force confirmed the U.S. military can seek recoupment fees if service members out themselves. In 2003, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case and remanded it to district court.
Isaacson is among the service members who are facing discharge because they volunteered their sexual orientation while enrolled in a ROTC program.
In January 2010, about three-and-a-half months before she would have been commissioned as second lieutenant in the U.S. Army, Issacson said she was removed from the program after she made the decision to come out to her commanding officer.
“I voluntarily came out to my commanders because I felt like I wasn’t living up to the Army value of integrity by continuing to lie to my commander, all of my peers, to all of the other people in my battalion about something that was so fundamental to who I am,” Isaacson said.
Even though she was never directly asked about her sexual orientation, Isaacson said she felt pressured to mention it when talking with her colleagues about significant others or dating advice.
Isaacson is awaiting appeal on her separation, but the standing decision from the U.S. Army Cadet Command is that she must repay the entire $79,265 that was afforded to her to pay tuition.
“I would like to see them continue with the certification of the repeal in a speedy manner so that people like myself who want to be able to fulfill this obligation that we have to the military can do that through our service,” she said.
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said addressing the recoupment has been a priority for his organization since the passage of legislation allowing for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“It’s not that widespread of a problem, but when it does hit someone, it hits them pretty hard,” Nicholson said. “Sometimes the amounts are so massive, and the people who are subjected to recoupment are so young, that the level of devastating lives is rather disproportionate.”
Nicholson said he’s been “hounding” White House officials on the recoupment issue even prior to signing of repeal legislation.
Part of the reason for keeping the practice in place, Nicholson said, was that the Obama administration didn’t want to take action before the Pentagon working group published its report on implementing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“Obviously, we realized when that report came out that it was not something they addressed, so we obviously started hounding them again on this,” Nicholson said.
Noting that current law gives the Pentagon discretion over whether or not to collect recoupment fees, Nicholson said ending the practice would be a “simple fix” because it would only require an order from President Obama.
“The easiest thing would be for the president to make the decision to direct the secretary of defense to direct the service secretaries to not elect recoupment in cases of gay discharges,” Nicholson said.
Sarvis said because the courts have weighed in on the issue, SLDN seeks to address those who are facing recoupment fees on an individual basis.
“I don’t think that we’re going to get any across the board remedy or any retroactive remedy from the Defense Department,” Sarvis said. “I think we’ll have to negotiate on a case-by-case basis.”
A White House spokesperson deferred comment to the Defense Department on the recoupment issue. The Pentagon didn’t respond by Blade deadline with a statement.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
An effort to increase the number of psychiatrists of color
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
Police mental health struggles gain growing attention
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
Man faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
Cuba under pressure and without answers
