Connect with us

National

Lesbian guardsman calls on Boehner to drop DOMA defense

Cancer patient fears she may not ‘have the time to wait’

Published

on

Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan (Blade photo by Michael Key)

A lesbian guardsman suffering from cancer is calling on House Speaker John Boehner to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

She met with staff in his D.C. office on Thursday in an effort to convince the Ohio Republican to discontinue support for the anti-gay law.

Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan met with Katherine Haley, a policy assistant to Boehner, to ask the speaker to drop defense of DOMA so that upon her death, her spouse, Kathy Morgan, can receive federal benefits. MorganĀ serves in the New Hampshire National Guard and just returned from deployment in Kuwait.

In September 2011, the guardsman was diagnosed with stage-four incurable breast cancer. After being first diagnosed in 2008 and undergoing a double mastectomy and chemotherapy, Morgan was declared cancer-free and deployed to Kuwait, but was later informed her cancer had returned and has resumed chemotherapy.

“I’m very worried about the military survivor benefits for Karen if I don’t survive this bout with cancer,” Morgan said in a Washington Blade interview. “I explained to her that I wasn’t afraid to die, but I was worried that Karen would not receive the same spousal survivor benefits as our heterosexual counterparts.”

Among the benefits that Morgan is seeking for her spouse are survivor’s benefits, Social Security benefits and health insurance coverage.

Morgan said Boehner’s staffer spoke with her for about 15 to 20 minutes and was “polite” and “empathetic,” but said Boehner would probably continue to defend DOMA in court.

“I told her that I believe in miracles, but it was important for her to relate to the speaker that I need this to happen now because I don’t have the time necessarily to wait through the legislative or judicial process,” Morgan said. “If he were to not defend DOMA, that would immediately [help] my family and benefit us.”

Michael Steele, a Boehner spokesperson, confirmed “the meeting did occur,” but declined to offer any more information about the discussion or Morgan’s call for Boehner to discontinue his defense of DOMA.

The Morgans are among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that Servicemembers Legal Defense Network filed in October on behalf of gay troops and veterans against DOMA on the basis that the anti-gay law blocks them form receiving federal benefits afforded to service members in opposite-sex marriages. Morgan attended the meeting with Boehner’s staff along with David McKean, an SLDN attorney.

During the meeting, Morgan submitted photos of herself in uniform, and with her partner and daughter as well as a letter dated Feb. 9 about her struggle with cancer, her family’s military history and how the veterans benefits her mother received upon the death of her father, who was in the Army and deployed twice to Germany, helped her keep “a roof over our heads and food on the table.”

“The military informs us that it is only as strong as the families that support it,” the letter states. “In turn, my military leadership supports my efforts to attain benefits to take care of my family. As a service member who has proven that I am willing to die for my country I am asking you not to defend DOMA for the sake of the many people whose lives it negatively impacts.”

The meeting follows a similar letter dated Dec. 23 that Morgan sent to Boehner asking him for a meeting to discuss the negative impact that DOMA has on her family.

After the Justice Department announced last year President Obama had determined DOMA was unconstitutional and would no longer defend the statute against litigation, Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group in the House, which voted in March along party lines to take up defense in the administration’s stead.

Congress is unlikely to repeal DOMA legislatively given its given makeup. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported out legislation to repeal the law in November, but there are no plans for a floor vote. Success on the House floor is unlikely and Boehner has indicated he won’t bring up the repeal legislation to a vote.

The Obama administration has a deadline of Feb. 28 to respond to the lawsuit in which Morgan is a plaintiff. The administration is expected to decline to take up defense of the law and for Boehner to take up defense of the law as he has with other DOMA cases.

Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN’s executive director, said in a statement Boehner should drop defense of DOMA so the courts can decide the constitutionality of the anti-gay law on their own and permit Morgan and others in same-sex relationships to receive federal benefits.

“Our message for Speaker Boehner and others today is simply this: Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan can’t wait,” Sarvis said. “She and her family deserve equal treatment, and she may not have years for this process to play out in the courts or on Capitol Hill. Speaker Boehner can make a difference here, and we respectfully ask him to take a look at this case and get to know this family. We are confident that when he does, he will see that these discriminatory laws hurt our military, harm families and are indefensible.”

The meeting with Boehner’s office isn’t the only one Morgan had on Capitol Hill. The lesbian guardsman also met with her member of Congress, Rep. Frank Guinta (R-N.H.), about her desire for Boehner to discontinue defense of DOMA. SLDN’s McKean was present during this meeting as well.

Morgan said she spoke with Guinta for close to 10 minutes. She said he was also “empathetic” to her situation and said he’d “see what he can do.”

“I also explained to him that I knew that he was pro-military because he comes from New Hampshire and the congressional delegates from New Hampshire are pro-military,” Morgan said. “But I explained to him that for me it was a military issue. It wasn’t just my issue. It was an issue for all other thousands of gay and lesbian families in the same situation across the nation.”

A spokesperson for Guinta declined to comment on the meeting, saying its was a private discussion between the lawmaker and one of his constituents. Guinta isn’t a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that would repeal DOMA.

In addition to the lawsuit, SLDN also launched an online petition at Change.org on the same day of the meeting calling on Boehner to discontinue his defense of DOMA in court. As of late afternoon on Thursday, the petition had 211 signatures.

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