Connect with us

News

Obama admin says insurers can’t discriminate against gay unions

Prohibits discrimination even in non-marriage equality states

Published

on

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, gay news, Washington Blade
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, gay news, Washington Blade

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid has issued guidance clarifying insurers can’t discriminate against same-sex couples. (Image public domain)

The Obama administration clarified on Friday that insurers are prohibited from discriminating against same-sex marriages for the purposes of non-grandfathered family coverage — even if applicants are applying in non-marriage equality states.

In guidance dated March 14, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid says existing provisions in the health care reform law prohibiting discrimination by insurers on the basis of gender — which the Obama administration has interpreted to extend non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity — also requires insurers not to refuse family coverage for married same-sex couples.

The guidance is set up as Q&A. The question is “If a health insurance issuer in the group or individual market offers coverage of an opposite-sex spouse, may the issuer refuse to offer coverage of a same-sex spouse?” The response starts off simply, “No.”

“This section prohibits an issuer from choosing to decline to offer to a plan sponsor (or individual in the individual market) the option to cover same-sex spouses under the coverage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex-spouses,” the guidance states.

Alicia Hartinger, a CMS spokesperson, said the guidance spells out that non-discrimination is the rule for insurers — both on and off the health insurance exchanges — when selling policies.

ā€œCMS recognizes the importance of all Americans and their families having access to quality, affordable coverage,” Hartinger said. “Today’s guidance clarifies that issuers may not choose to treat same-sex spouses differently from opposite-sex spouses. If an issuer offers opposite-sex spouse coverage, it may not choose to deny the same coverage to a same-sex spouse. We will continue to work with states and issuers to help ensure all Americans have an equal opportunity to purchase the new coverage options available to them.ā€

The guidance says insurers cannot refuse family coverage to married same-sex couples even if they live in — or the insurance is sold in — a non-marriage equality state that doesn’t recognize those unions.

Additionally, the guidance acknowledges insurers may not have realized this prohibition when designing their policies for the 2014 coverage year. Accordingly, while encouraging immediate compliance, CMS says insurers need not begin adhering to this policy until Jan. 1, 2015. The guidance also directs states to begin enforcing the regulations no later than Jan. 1, 2015.

The guidance doesn’t address whether it requires CMS to provide coverage to same-sex couples in domestic partnerships or civil unions. A CMS official said the guidance applies only to marriages, not these other unions.

LGBT advocates praised the new guidance as a step toward ensuring that married same-sex couples have the same access to health insurance as their opposite-sex counterparts.

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, earlier said her group wanted the Obama administration to make the clarification and upon news of the guidance said it would help same-sex couples “hurting right now” because they were denied health insurance.

“Today’s important HHS announcement will help remove this type of discrimination by requiring the health insurance industry to treat us the same as straight married couples — even if the states where we live do not recognize marriage equality,” Carey said. “While insurers are not required to be in compliance with the new rules until January 2015, we urge the industry to act now — as affordable health care delayed is affordable health care denied.ā€

There have been reported incidents of married gay couples being unable to receive family coverage in the aftermath of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. In February, a gay couple — Alfred Cowger and Anthony Wesley of Gates Mills, Ohio — filed a federal lawsuit charging that they were unable to obtain family coverage because their state doesn’t recognize their marriage.

In January, Blue Cross and Blue Shield canceled family insurance policies it sold to same-sex couples under the Affordable Care Act in North Carolina. Following news reports about the cancellations, the insurer changed course and agreed to offer family coverage on the health insurance exchange to same-sex couples.

Kellan Baker, director of the LGBT State Exchanges Project for the Center for American Progress, said the new guidance is important because research shows LGBT families have trouble accessing health insurance.

ā€œResearch has shown that same-sex couples, as well as transgender people and other members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, communities, frequently face obstacles to affordable, comprehensive insurance coverage,ā€ Baker said. ā€œMy colleagues and I look forward to working with HHS to ensure that this guidance is fully implemented in a timely manner and that similar action is taken to remove other barriers to coverage, such as discriminatory insurance exclusions that target transgender people.ā€

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

United Kingdom

UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of woman limited to ‘biological women’

Advocacy groups say decision is serious setback for transgender rights

Published

on

The U.K. Supreme Court (Photo by c_73/Bigstock)

The British Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled the legal definition of a woman is limited to “biological women” and does not include transgender women.

The Equality Act that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity took effect in 2010.

Scottish MPs in 2018 passed a bill that sought to increase the number of women on government boards. The Supreme Court ruling notes For Women Scotland — a “feminist voluntary organization which campaigns to strengthen women’s rights and children’s rights in Scotland” — challenged the Scottish government’s decision to include trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate in its definition of women when it implemented the quota.

Stonewall U.K., a British advocacy group, notes a Gender Recognition Certificate is “a document that allows some trans men and trans women to have the right gender on their birth certificate.”

“We conclude that the guidance issued by the Scottish government is incorrect,” reads the Supreme Court ruling. “A person with a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) in the female gender does not come within the definition of ‘woman’ for the purposes of sex discrimination in section 11 of the EA (Equality Act) 2010. That in turn means that the definition of ‘woman’ in section 2 of the 2018 Act, which Scottish ministers accept must bear the same meaning as the term ‘woman’ in section 11 and section 212 of the EA 2010, is limited to biological women and does not include trans women with a GRC.”

The 88-page ruling says trans people “are protected by the indirect discrimination provisions” of the Equality Act, regardless of whether they have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

“Transgender people are also protected from indirect discrimination where they are put at a particular disadvantage which they share with members of their biological sex,” it adds.

Susan Smith, co-founder of For Women Scotland, praised the decision.

“Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex,” she said, according to the BBC. “Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the Supreme Court for this ruling.”

Author J.K. Rowling on X said it “took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court.”

“In winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK,” she added.

Advocacy groups in Scotland and across the U.K. said the ruling is a serious setback for trans rights.

“We are really shocked by today’s Supreme Court decision — which reverses 20 years of understanding on how the law recognizes trans men and women with Gender Recognition Certificates,” said Scottish Trans and the Equality Network in a statement posted to Instagram. “The judgment seems to have totally missed what matters to trans people — that we are able to live our lives, and be recognized, in line with who we truly are.”

Consortium, a network of more than 700 LGBTQ and intersex rights groups from across the U.K., in their own statement said it is “deeply concerned at the widespread, harmful implications of today’s Supreme Court ruling.”

“As LGBT+ organizations across the country, we stand in solidarity with trans, intersex and nonbinary folk as we navigate from here,” said Consortium.

The Supreme Court said its decision can be appealed.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Two charged with assaulting, robbing gay man at D.C. CVS store

Incident occurred after suspects, victim ā€˜exchanged words’ at bar

Published

on

D.C. police just after 1 a.m. on April 10 arrested two men for allegedly assaulting and robbing a gay man inside a CVS store at 1418 P St., N.W., according to a police report and charging documents filed in D.C. Superior Court.

The charging documents state that the alleged assault and robbery occurred a short time after the three men ā€œexchanged wordsā€ at the gay bar Number 9, which is located across the street from the CVS.

The arrested men are identified in the charging documents as Marquel Jose Diaz, 27, of Northwest D.C., and Lorenzo Jesse Scafidi, 21, of Elizabeth City, N.C. An affidavit in support of the arrest for Diaz says Diaz and the victim ā€œwere previously in a relationship for a year.ā€

Court records show Diaz was charged with Simple Assault, Theft Second Degree, and Possession of a Controlled Substance. The court records show the controlled substance charge was filed by police after Diaz was found to be in possession of a powdered substance that tested positive for cocaine.

Scafidi was charged with Simple Assault and Theft Second Degree, the court records show.

The D.C. police report for the incident does not list it as a suspected hate crime. 

The court records show both men pleaded not guilty to the charges against them at a Superior Court arraignment on the day of their arrest on April 10. The records show they were released by a judge while awaiting trial with an order that they ā€œstay awayā€ from the victim. They are scheduled to return to court for a status hearing on May 21.

The separate police-filed affidavits in support of the arrests of both Diaz and Scafidi each state that the two men and the victim ā€œexchanged wordsā€ inside the Number 9 bar. The two documents state that both men then entered the CVS store after the victim went to the store a short time earlier.

Scafidi ā€œcame into the CVS shortly after and entered the candy aisle and slammed Complainant 1 [the victim] to the ground causing Complainant 1’s phone to fall out of CP-1’s pocket,ā€ one of the two affidavits says. It says Scafidi ā€œagain picked up CP-1 and slammed him to the ground.ā€

The affidavit in support of Diaz’s arrest says Diaz also followed the victim to the CVS store after words were exchanged at the bar. It says that after Scafidi allegedly knocked the victim down in the candy aisle Diaz picked up the victim’s phone, ā€œswung onā€ the victim ā€œwhile he was still on the ground,ā€ and picked up the victim’s watch before he and Scafidi fled the scene.

Without saying why, the two arrest affidavits say Diaz and Scafidi returned to the scene and were arrested by police after the victim and at least one witness identified them as having assaulted and robbed the victim.

Attorneys representing the two arrested men did not respond to phone messages from the Washington Blade seeking comment and asking whether their clients dispute the allegations against them.

The victim also did not respond to attempts by the Blade to obtain a comment from him. The police report says the victim is a resident of Fairfax, Va.

Continue Reading

El Salvador

Gay Venezuelan makeup artist remains in El Salvador mega prison

Former police officer said Andry HernƔndez Romero was gang member because of tattoos

Published

on

The Salvadoran capital of El Salvador from El Boquerón Volcano (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A new investigation points to a discredited, former police officer who played a ā€œkey roleā€ in the wrongful deportation of Andry HernĆ”ndez Romero, a gay asylum seeker and makeup artist who was sent to a maximum security mega prison in El Salvador under Trump’s Alien Enemies Act.Ā 

USA Today found in a recent investigation that the former Milwaukee police officer who filed the report about HernĆ”ndez, citing his tattoos as the reason for the gang affiliation, has a long history of credibility and disciplinary issues in his former police officer position. 

The private prison employee who previously worked as a police officer until he was fired for driving into a house while intoxicated — among other alcohol-related incidents — ā€œhelped seal the fateā€ of HernĆ”ndez.Ā 

The investigation by USA Today found that the former police officer accused HernĆ”ndez of being a part of the Tren de Aragua gang because of his two crown tattoos with the words ā€œmom,ā€ and ā€œdad,ā€ which are now being identified as Venezuelan gang-related symbols. 

Since then, his story has made headlines across the nation because HernĆ”ndez has no criminal record and is legally seeking asylum in the U.S. due to credible threats of violence against him in Venezuela because of LGBTQ persecution. 

He was targeted shortly after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which is a proclamation for all law enforcement officials to ā€œapprehend, restrain, secure, and remove every Alien Enemy described in section 1 of [the] proclamation.ā€

Charles Cross, Jr., the former police officer, signed the report which wrongfully identified HernĆ”ndez as a gang member. Cross was fired in 2012 after many incidents relating to his credibility and how it was affecting the credibility of the department to testify in court. 

He had already been under investigation previously for claiming overtime pay that he never earned. In 2007, he had also faced criminal charges for damage to property, according to court records. 

In March, the Washington Blade spoke with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center Litigation and Advocacy Director Alvaro M. Huerta regarding the case and stated that ā€œofficials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection alleged his organization’s client was a member of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuela-based gang, because of his tattoos and no other information.ā€ 

HernÔndez came to the U.S. last year in search of asylum and now makes up one of 238 Venezuelan immigrants who were deported from the U.S. to El Salvador, Honduras and Venezuela. Many of those being deported are being sent to the Center for Terrorism Confinement, a maximum-security mega prison in El Salvador, which has been accused of human rights violations. 

According to the investigation, the Department of Homeland Security ā€œwouldn’t offer further details on the case, or the process in general, but reiterated that the department uses more than just tattoos to determine gang allegiance.ā€ 

His story is now being looked at as a cautionary tale of the lack of due process of law the U.S. government is taking, as the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement ramp up deportations across the nation. 

Organizations like the Human Rights Campaign are now calling for Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to cease wrongful deportations and return HernĆ”ndez home. The petition also urges the U.S. government to afford all Americans, forging nationals and asylum seekers residing in the U.S., due process of law as required by the Constitution. 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular