News

GLAD Law Condemns Governor Ayotte Banning Access to Health Care for Transgender Adolescents

Today, Governor Ayotte signed HB 377, which prohibits medical professionals in New Hampshire from providing medically-necessary puberty-blocking medications and hormone replacement therapy for transgender patients under age 18 and denies parents of transgender youth the ability to seek expert medical care for their child.

The law will go into effect in January 2026. It will not impact anyone already receiving care before its implementation.

Statement from Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law):

“HB 377 epitomizes extreme government overreach into the private lives and personal decisions of New Hampshire families. The best way to protect the health and well-being of transgender young people is to ensure they can continue to access essential, age-appropriate medical care from licensed clinicians practicing according to well-established medical standards of care.

Parents know their children best, and New Hampshire families should be able to make health care decisions in consultation with their trusted providers, without government interference. This law takes that right away from parents who want nothing more than to care for their transgender child.

GLAD Law will continue to work with our allies and use every legal tool we have to ensure all New Hampshire residents—including transgender Granite Staters—can live freely and safely without government intrusion.”

Blog

Home

The Resistance Brief: The World is Changed

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

“The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost.” – Galadriel in the opening of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

When I was thinking about what to write to commemorate the one-year anniversary of my first speech for GLAD Law at Summer Party 2024, I didn’t know exactly where to begin. How do I encapsulate almost a year’s worth of GLAD Law memories into a blog? I asked myself: what has changed? Which immediately triggered the thought of the poetic beginning to one of my favorite movies of all time.

Galadriel’s opening monologue evokes how a shift in power can change the very fabric of a society and alter the delicate balance that once existed. Sound familiar?

The last year has been defined by a rearranging of power, and we’ve all felt the consequences of the choices made by those who recklessly wield it. Yet we forge ahead collectively, working to inoculate against the dark forces trying to oppress us. It hasn’t been easy – but nothing worth fighting for is.

As I prepare for my second Summer Party event tomorrow, I cannot help but feel grateful for the opportunity to lead this organization at this time and with the people around me. Every day, our staff gets to work, fiercely determined to improve the lives of LGBTQ+ people across the country, while at the same time pushing back against the cruel attacks of the federal administration.

I’ve watched our attorneys prepare for legal filings late into the hours of the night. I’ve traveled with members of our development team as they plan and execute three events in different states over the course of a week. I’ve listened as members of our GLAD Law Answers staff take calls from community members who call our confidential legal information line seeking assistance in crisis. We’ve fought every day for all families to have equal protection and recognition under the law in collaboration with our partner organizations and, amid the chaos, celebrated wins in Oregon, New Mexico, Vermont, Hawaii, and Illinois.

There is so much heart, passion, and love that radiates from the actions of our staff.

As I move beyond my first year as Executive Director, looming threats remain, but hope is not lost, nor is it rooted in wishful thinking.

I’m not naive enough to believe that there isn’t a fight ahead. I’m just certain that the fight will be won – and that, with your support, GLAD Law will play a vital role in making that a reality. History, if we’re willing to listen and learn from it, teaches us we’re going to be okay. The history of our movement provides a blueprint of effective strategies and tactics we can use to change the future.

We have a multi-generational staff made up of some of the most talented and committed people. We have a loyal group of GLAD Law donors and champions who have stepped up to support this work when asked – and sometimes without even being asked. Because they understand the urgency of this moment.

Together, we can evoke the past while innovating for the future. In a year of unprecedented ups and downs – one truth remains: our staff continues to show up in consequential moments for our community – when inaction could have consequences – when it matters most. And we will continue to do so because uncommon courage is required, and we understand that we do not get a redo of this moment.

The world is changed. But today, a year in, and all I can think of is celebrating the people that day in and day out inspire me to remain bold, clearheaded, and unwavering in my commitment to the full liberation of all queer people.

What to know, what to do:

Want to know where LGBTQ+ families just gained new protections? Find out which states took action.
Check out our July 1 webinar where GLAD Law attorneys break down the latest Supreme Court rulings and their impact on LGBTQ+ rights.
In the face of relentless attacks, we’re still securing victories. Learn about recent LGBTQ+ wins happening right now.
Despite ongoing legal battles, you can still get a passport with the correct sex marker. Here’s what you need to know.
Need a fun read? Dive into Pink News’ queer take on Lord of the Rings.
Tell Governor Ayotte to veto a proposed ban on healthcare for transgender youth and protect families’ freedom to make healthcare decisions.
On Tuesday, the MA Senate will hold a hearing on a bill to remove barriers and modernize the security and safety of the legal name change process. Learn more and submit your testimony.

Donate Today

Blog

Home

LGBTQ+ Wins Across the Country

At a time when many of our rights and freedoms are being attacked, we’re still fighting – and winning.

LGBTQ+ and HIV Non-Discrimination Protections in Connecticut

Everyone deserves to age in community and with dignity. In June, Connecticut passed comprehensive non-discrimination protections for residents in long-term care facilities, such as nursing homes and assisted living communities.

Non-Discrimination Protections Upheld and Book Ban Defeated

In July, New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte vetoed two harmful bills: HB 148 would have undermined non-discrimination protections for transgender and nonbinary people, making it harder to access public accommodations like bathrooms and more. HB 324 would have created a de facto book ban by creating a vague complaint process in schools where any title could be designated “inappropriate.”

Anti-Transgender Bills Defeated in Maine

The Maine legislature rejected 8 separate bills that would have banned transgender girls from playing sports with their friends and rolled back vital civil rights protections in schools and across the state.

Protecting Transgender Care in Colorado

In May, Colorado lawmakers voted to pass comprehensive protections for transgender health care. The new law improves prescription privacy and requires all health plans to provide care.

Expanding Access to HIV Prevention

In July, Maine passed a law that will expand access to HIV prevention across the state by addressing reimbursement for pharmacists, enabling pharmacists to administer long-acting injectable forms of PrEP, and ensuring insurance coverage of injectable PrEP.

Strengthening Health Care Shield Laws

The Massachusetts House and Senate have passed an important update to strengthen state protections for reproductive and transgender health care. We look forward to this bill soon becoming law.

Don’t miss a chance to help pass vital legislation or urge your lawmakers to vote against harmful bills!

News

Home

GLAD Law Hails Strong Protections for Transgender and Reproductive Health Care Passed by MA House

Yesterday, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a bill to strengthen state protections for access to reproductive and transgender health care. The bill passed the Senate on June 26.

The bill, which builds on the 2022 Healthcare Shield Act enacted in 2022, safeguards access to legally protected health care by prohibiting state agencies and law enforcement from cooperating with other states or federal investigations into reproductive and transgender care provided in Massachusetts, limiting the sharing of patient data and third-party access to medical records, and prohibiting unnecessary surveillance of prescription medications. The bill also increases protections for those who provide or assist in the provision of legally protected health care through enhanced license protections and protections against discrimination by insurance companies, and provides guidance to courts on how to address out of state laws restricting parents’ ability to seek transgender health care for their children.

“This bill provides important protections at a time when access to reproductive care and health care for transgender people are under increasing threat,” said Polly Crozier, Director of Family Advocacy, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. “We’re grateful for the collaborative work between state legislators, the Attorney General, and partners who worked quickly to build on the 2022 Shield Act to increase protections for patients and providers and ensure that health care policy in Massachusetts is driven by science and by people’s need for care, not politics. We look forward to continuing to support this legislative effort and hope the bill will soon become law.”

Blog

Home

Day One and Every Day Since: GLAD Law’s Relentless Defense of LGBTQ+ People

In the face of sweeping anti-LGBTQ+ executive orders, we took immediate legal action to stop, delay, and reduce harm.

Since taking office, President Trump has unleashed a barrage of executive orders targeting – among many others, immigrants, law firms, long-fought efforts to expand equality and inclusion, and LGBTQ+ people, particularly transgender members of our community. These policies immediately threatened safety, dignity, and equal treatment under the law, amounting to a full-scale attack on transgender people’s lives.

Within the first weeks of the new administration, the magnitude and speed of attacks heightened what had already been an emergency situation for LGBTQ+ people in many states. We took decisive action – GLAD Law filed multiple lawsuits in the first days of the Trump administration to protect as many of the people most impacted from immediate harm as possible.

Our Legal Challenges

An Executive Order Aimed at Making it Impossible for Transgender People to Live Their Lives

Executive Order 14168, signed on Day One, made it clear that transgender people would be among the administration’s primary targets. The order directed agencies across the government to operate as if transgender people don’t exist, removing vital federal protections and denying access to essential documents like accurate passports and visas.

One of the government’s first actions under the order was to demand the transfer of transgender women currently incarcerated in federal prisons, who were abruptly slated to be moved to men’s facilities and cut off from medically necessary health care. Transgender women face incredible brutality and increased risk of harassment and sexual assault when housed with men, something the government’s own data shows.

When calls from incarcerated transgender women and their loved ones came in, we knew we had to act quickly. We filed a trio of lawsuits challenging the dangerous policy changes that threatened these women’s safety, Moe v. Trump, Doe v. McHenry, and Jones v. Bondi. The courts ruled swiftly in each case to issue temporary restraining orders and then preliminary injunctions, so our plaintiffs all remain housed appropriately at women’s facilities and can access medical care, as litigation continues.

It’s no coincidence that the part of that Day One executive order directing the transfer of transgender women to men’s facilities – in violation of the data-backed individual placement assessment policy in place for well over a decade – was among the most concrete and quickly acted upon by the new administration. That brutality was a test of the public’s tolerance for how much cruelty can be carried out, and how far the government can push before resistance kicks in.

Prisons were only the beginning. This administration has used fear and disinformation to chip away at medical care for transgender youth, disappear immigrants to foreign prisons on fabricated pretenses with no opportunity to make their case in court, and label peaceful protestors as national security threats. The common thread is clear: dehumanizing and targeting the most marginalized to see what they can get away with.

When the government strips one group of due process, it’s not just a policy shift—it’s a trial balloon. If cruelty and undermining of the rule of law go unchecked, that is ceded ground that ultimately impacts all of us.

The promise of this country and our constitution is that everyone deserves humane treatment, due process, and equal protection under the law. It is up to all of us to ensure that this government—and any government—fails its bet on how much inhumanity the country is willing to ignore. Our democracy and humanity are at stake.

“Soaked in Animus”: The Administration Attempts to Purge Transgender Servicemembers

On January 27, the Trump administration issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. The sweeping order directed the swift removal of existing servicemembers regardless of skill, experience, or record. It also prohibited any transgender person from enlisting regardless of their ability to meet or even exceed the standards.

The order did not hide the administration’s hostility toward transgender people. In language a federal District Court judge in D.C. called “soaked in animus,” it brands transgender people as dishonest, selfish, undisciplined, and unfit. The bias behind the order became even clearer in the follow-up guidance from the Department of Defense, issued on February 26. The memo framed the policy as one grounded in maintaining “readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity”—and baselessly claimed that transgender people lack these qualities.

Having challenged Trump’s first transgender military ban in 2017, GLAD Law was ready. On the day after Trump issued his latest order to purge transgender servicemembers, GLAD Law and our partner National Center for LGBTQ Rights filed Talbott v. USA on behalf of multiple individuals who have honorably and courageously served their country and were facing imminent discharge under the ban.

On March 18, the D.C. District Court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in Talbott halting enforcement of the ban, in a ruling finding it to be based in animus: “Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.” Noting that “thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed—some risking their lives—to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them,” the court found that the ban discriminates based on transgender status and sex. Then, a federal Court in Washington State issued a second nationwide preliminary injunction against the ban in a case brought by our legal movement partners at Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign.

On May 6, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Shilling, granted the Trump administration’s April 24 motion for an emergency order allowing it to implement the ban while the case is being heard in the courts. The Court did not explain its decision.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said Jennifer Levi on the day of the ruling. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”

The transgender servicemembers we represent serve across all branches of the military and are contributing among the highest levels, including a Major, a Captain, a Sergeant, and a Navy Pilot. They bring decades of experience, training, and education, including a West Point education and several master’s degrees. They have decorated careers, with commendations ranging from Sailor of the Year and Meritorious Service Medals to Joint Service Commendations and a Bronze Star. Some have been a part of decorated military families spanning generations and have served honorably throughout the country and the world on many deployments.

“I am now a platoon leader for my military policing unit in the U.S. Army Reserve, and more than anything, I just want to continue to do the job that I have qualified for, trained for, and committed to in order to serve my country. The forced separation of dedicated, qualified servicemembers, the dismantling of careers, and the disrespect shown to families who have sacrificed so much is so counter to our military values. This ban disregards merit and achievement and unleashes unfathomable harms upon the lives, families, and careers of transgender servicemembers.”
Second Lieutenant Nicolas Talbott

It is a tremendous honor to represent courageous and dedicated transgender servicemembers, and we are determined to see this ban overturned for good. We endeavor to match the courage of our plaintiffs as we fight against the hostility of this administration in the courts.

Challenging Trump’s Ban on Transgender Girls in School Sports

In February, the administration issued an executive order threatening to pull funding from public schools if they do not ban transgender girls from participation in sports.

“The Trump administration’s executive orders amount to a coordinated campaign to prevent transgender people from functioning in society. The systematic targeting of transgender people across American institutions is chilling, but targeting young people in schools, denying them support and essential opportunities during their most vulnerable years, is especially cruel,” said Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney, when we filed to expand our existing New Hampshire sports ban case to include a legal challenge to the federal order.

Our lawsuit, Tirrell and Turmell v. Edelblut, challenges HB 1205, a state law passed in 2024 banning all transgender girls in grades 5-12 from participating in school sports in New Hampshire public schools. Last September, the court ordered that our high school student plaintiffs Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle be allowed to play sports during the litigation, ruling that the state law discriminates against transgender students in violation of Title IX and the U.S. Constitution. 

“I love playing soccer and we had a great season last fall. I just want to go to school like other kids and keep playing the game I love.” 
Parker Tirrell

The federal ban, like the state law, singles out and discriminates against transgender girls and insinuates that they are not deserving of the same educational opportunities as all other students. Every child has a right to equal opportunities at school, and all students do better when they have access to resources that improve their mental, emotional, and physical health, including the opportunity to play sports with their friends. We’ll continue to defend every student’s right to learn, grow, and belong – at school and in all areas of life.

“I felt very upset that this has been happening towards a vulnerable community like the trans community, and frankly, it’s just unwarranted.”
Iris Turmell

Defending the Rule of Law

Perkins Coie v. US Department of Justice (District Court, DC)

In March, the law firm Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of President Trump’s March 6 executive order, which targets the firm with broad reprisals for its association with certain clients and causes disfavored by the President. GLAD Law, with 22 other non-profit organizations and represented by a private firm, filed an amicus brief arguing that the executive order creates a chilling effect on non-profits from petitioning the government, limits their ability to access counsel, and is an affront to the rule of law.

On May 2, the D.C. District Court found President Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie unconstitutional.

GLAD Law joined similar briefs in support of Wilmer Hale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey LLP, all of which were similarly targeted by the Trump administration.

The administration is working overtime in its attempts to intimidate those who dare to defend the Constitution. In fact, the administration recently took direct aim at our work, calling out GLAD Law by name in the case brought by Susman Godfrey LLP.

We won’t be intimidated. We have been preparing for government attacks and are ready for this fight. GLAD Law is committed to being on the front lines working to preserve democracy. While the government takes extraordinary measures against a respected law firm for exercising its First Amendment rights, we will keep doing what we’ve always done – using the proper legal channels to protect civil rights.

What’s at Stake

It’s not hyperbole to say that lives are on the line. Today, transgender people are being denied health care. Young people are being told—through sports bans, “don’t say gay or trans” policies in classrooms, and the censoring of books reflecting LGBTQ+ people’s experiences—that they don’t belong. Families are navigating fear and uncertainty.

GLAD Law is committed not just to respond to these attacks, but to lead. Over the last year, we’ve nearly doubled the size of our attorney team, and our supporters have generously stepped up in the face of escalating hostility across the country.

This is long-haul work. Cases will move through the courts, often slowly and not always smoothly, but we are not backing down. We’re not just defending against the most immediate threats—we’re building the legal scaffolding for a future in which LGBTQ+ people can live openly, safely, and freely. Every step forward is a step toward that future.

Timeline: GLAD Law’s Legal Response to Trump’s Anti-LGBTQ+ Executive Orders

January 20, 2025

Executive Order 14168 Issued
Targets transgender people across federal agencies: passports, prisons, shelters, government websites and forms, and more.

GLAD Law challenges filed January 26

January 27, 2025

Executive Order Bans Transgender Military Service
Trump bans transgender individuals from enlisting or continuing service.

GLAD Law challenge filed January 28

January 28, 2025

Executive Order Targets Health Care for Transgender Adolescents
Attempts to ban federal funding for youth medical care and remove coverage for federal employees’ transgender dependents.

February 5, 2025

Executive Order Bans Transgender Girls from Sports
Threatens schools with loss of federal funding for failing to exclude transgender girls from school sports.

GLAD Law lawsuit amended February 12 to include federal challenge

February 12, 2025

GLAD Law Wins Temporary Restraining Orders
In Moe v. Trump and Doe v. McHenry, courts block transfer of transgender women to men’s prisons and preserve medical care access.
Jones v. Trump filed same day.

March 18, 2025

Nationwide Preliminary Injunction in Talbott v. USA
Halts the military ban’s enforcement across the country.

March 26, 2025

Judge Rejects Trump’s Attempt to Overturn Injunction in Talbott
Ban remains halted. Legal protections remain in place while case proceeds.

March 27, 2025

Second Nationwide Injunction Issued
A separate court blocks enforcement of the transgender military ban (Shilling v. USA).

May 1, 2025

Talbott v. USA Plaintiffs Urge Supreme Court to Not Comply With Administration

32 transgender servicemembers and recruits filed friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to leave multiple preliminary injunctions in place preventing implementation of President Trump’s transgender military ban.

May 6, 2025

Supreme Court Allows Ban to Go into Effect While Legal Cases Continue

US Supreme Court grants stay to the government in Shilling, in a 6-3 ruling, allowing the transgender military ban to go into effect while lawsuits proceed. We continue the work in the courts to fight for transgender service members, current and future, to serve their country with pride.

May 6 & 9, 2025

GLAD Law Files Briefs in Response to Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s Clear Animus

We filed two letter briefs with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit after the Supreme Court ruling in Shilling. In our letters, we respond to the Court’s lack of engagement with Secretary Hegseth’s false claims regarding transgender service members, which show his clear animus for current and aspiring trans military personnel.

Blog

Home

The Resistance Brief: Deep is the Heart of Texas

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

I spent the 4th of July in Central Texas. Over the long weekend, I was hoping to recenter after a series of losses that felt heavy on my spirit (the Skrmetti and Mahmoud Supreme Court decisions, and the passage of both Trump’s harmful budget reconciliation bill and a transgender healthcare ban in New Hampshire). And while I subscribe and work to realize the ideals of equality and liberty this country was founded on, I found myself reckoning with complex emotions about what it means to be American and celebrate the 4th when powerful people are actively denying liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness to millions of people and families.

For many, the idea of traveling to Texas to rest and regain a sense of calm and balance may feel like an oxymoron. But you must understand that I have a profound love for the south, particularly Texas.

My grandmother spent time in Texas as a migrant worker – splitting her time between Mexico and Brownsville. She spoke lovingly of the Lonestar State whenever she would tell me stories. Two of my uncles were also born in the Rio Grande Valley. Texas gifted me loving friendships, experiences that have prepared me to lead in this moment, and connections to rural and suburban places I never imagined having ties to. It also introduced me to some of the fiercest civil rights advocates.

I landed in Austin on Thursday night, shortly before the torrential rains began to ravage Central Texas. The downpour, totaling up to 15 inches in some areas on Friday, contributed to the Guadalupe River rising over 30 feet in 2 hours. As I sat home alone, watching the storm, news outlets began to report the devastation in Kerr, Williamson, Kendall, and Travis Counties. My heart broke as we learned about the over 100+ lives lost, including the 27 campers and counselors from Camp Mystic. I can’t imagine the catastrophic impact that losing loved ones, especially children, will have on communities across Central Texas for years to come. And I wasn’t alone; the collective grief was so intense it was palpable, and Texans mobilized to help. That’s what they do – that is what I believe most of us would do if given the opportunity.

We all understand loss, the importance of chosen or given family, and the value of roots from where we grew up. In the faces of those lost, we see our neighbors and our siblings. In the debris of destroyed homes, we recognize memories and community. And in coming together to rebuild, we honor our fallen.

It’s in moments of acute tragedy that I believe our innate ability to recognize each other’s humanity comes naturally without conditions. Our sadness did not depend on who the victims loved, whether they attended the same house of worship we attended or if their parents voted for the same people we voted for – it only mattered that their suffering felt unjust and death untimely.

Bearing witness to profound suffering can be a catalyst for emotional awareness, connection, empathy, unity, and altruism. Though it should not take a tragedy to evoke empathy and remind us of the fragility of this life, I’m heartened by the national response – it’s a reminder of the goodness that still exists in this world. Imagine how much good could be done if we could tap into this force to extend that profound empathy to all corners of this country – to ensure our elected leaders are committed to improving the lives of everyone, upholding the rule of law, alleviating suffering from the sick, making education and jobs with livable wages that help put food on the table more accessible.

The night before my flight back to Austin, I received a kind email from a colleague referencing Frederick Douglass’ 1860 speech defending the Constitution and reminding me that “if the Government has been governed by mean, sordid, and wicked passions, it does not follow that the Constitution is mean, sordid, and wicked.” And so, in emerging from my voluntary retreat to Texas for reflection, I can say with certainty that there yet is much to be celebrated about the people and the fabric of this imperfect country and yet so much more to be done to ensure preventable tragedies don’t occur, people are treated with dignity and respect, and everyone has a fair shot at a good life.

If Douglass could defend the value of our democracy and Constitution in the face of overwhelming oppression, we too can strive for justice and a shift in our collective consciousness that prioritizes compassion and the wellbeing for all Americans. The mean, sordid, and wicked who govern us will fall away, and, just as it has for centuries, our community will endure. Texans will endure.

What to know, what to do:

Read Frederick Douglass’s speech in full: The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?
Consider donating to a Texas flood relief fund, such as this one for Kerr County relief efforts.
Empathy can start with listening. Tennis legend and LGBTQ+ advocate Billie Jean King recently called for greater understanding and inclusion for transgender youth. Read the interview in the Advocate.

Donate Today

News

Home

**GLAD Law Responds to Braidwood Supreme Court Ruling**

“Today’s decision means access to PrEP is safe — for now,” said GLAD Law’s Bennett Klein

The Supreme Court of the United States today issued its ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. upholding the authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to make recommendation for no-cost insurance coverage for preventive healthcare services — including PrEP, a powerful HIV prevention tool.

GLAD Law submitted a friend of the court brief in Braidwood urging the Court to uphold no-cost access to PrEP and other critical preventive health care services. The brief highlights the devastating public health consequences of undermining access to PrEP, a medication that reduces risk of HIV transmission to virtually zero when taken as prescribed. The brief was submitted on behalf of the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors and a coalition of health care advocates.

GLAD Law Senior Director of Litigation and HIV Law Bennett Klein responded to today’s Supreme Court ruling:

“Today, the Supreme Court affirmed a critical component of the Affordable Care Act: access to life-saving preventive health care. The Court upheld the authority of the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force to make recommendations regarding no-cost coverage for preventive healthcare services like cancer and diabetes screenings and HIV prevention such as PrEP, which is nearly 100 percent effective in preventing HIV transmission when taken as directed.

“The ability to rely on medical experts to recommend key preventive health measures is critical to individual and public health in the U.S. Today’s decision means access to PrEP is safe — for now. Ensuring individuals can access PrEP without financial barriers is essential to ending the HIV epidemic, addressing racial disparities in healthcare, and ensuring people have the care they need to live healthy lives and thrive.

“Just last week the FDA approved the game-changing long-acting injectable PrEP medication Lenacapavir. We hope to see the Task Force, and ultimately Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr, approve no-cost insurance coverage of this truly revolutionary method of HIV prevention.

In this political environment, we are deeply concerned, however, that the Court’s Braidwood ruling brings into relief the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ extraordinary power to review and block Task Force recommendations and fire and appoint members at will, which could potentially affect the integrity of future recommendations. In light of Secretary Kennedy’s recent mass firing of an expert vaccine panel and replacement with several vaccine skeptics, we must be vigilant about the politicization of the Task Force going forward. We encourage states to take appropriate action to protect and expand access to PrEP, including the newest six-month injectable, the most effective HIV prevention tool yet to be developed.”

Learn more about the case.

Learn more about GLAD Law’s work to expand and protect access to PrEP.

News

Home

GLAD Law Responds to Mahmoud Supreme Court Ruling

“Today, the Court missed an opportunity to ensure all young people are prepared to interact with diverse people and thrive in an ever-changing world,” said GLAD Law’s Mary Bonauto

WASHINGTON, DC—The Supreme Court of the United States today found plaintiff families entitled to a preliminary injunction in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case that will determine whether parents have a First Amendment right to notice and opportunity to opt out of curriculum involving the five books at issue featuring LGBTQ+ people.

GLAD Law submitted a friend of the court brief in Mahmoud—together with the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, Family Equality, COLAGE, , Free State Justice, Inc., the Human Rights Campaign, GLSEN, and the Trevor Project—arguing that part of the role of public schools is preparing students to participate in a pluralistic democracy.

GLAD Law Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies Mary L. Bonauto, responded to today’s Supreme Court ruling:

“Today’s ruling does not change schools’ obligation to prepare students to interact with and thrive in a diverse and ever-changing world. Freedom of religion is a value we all share, but today the Court missed an opportunity to ensure all young people are prepared to participate in a pluralistic society. The ‘windows’ and ‘mirrors’ approach to reading curriculum employed by Montgomery County Public Schools and districts across the country allows students to learn about reading and writing while better seeing and understanding themselves and the world around them. LGBTQ+ people and families exist, students in our public schools have LGBTQ+ parents, and books that include LGBTQ+ people should not be treated differently than those without LGBTQ+ people. The Court’s decision does not require our schools to abandon these efforts. Parents, students, educators, and neighbors can encourage opportunities for learning about diverse people and families by staying involved with school districts, school boards, and in our local communities.”

Learn more about the case.

Blog

Home

The Resistance Brief: Summoning Hope

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

Soft footsteps shuffled up and down the hallways of the GLAD Law offices, interrupting the silence after the Skrmetti Supreme Court ruling upholding a Tennessee ban on healthcare for transgender youth. Our Communications & Public Education Coordinator walked door to door, checking in and holding space for her colleagues.

This thoughtful action, simple in its technique and gentle in its approach, changed the way many of our staff navigated that day. In acknowledging and processing their shared pain together, they collected the implicit devastation in the air and claimed it as a core memory honoring our united struggle for equality. And in honoring our collective efforts leading up to this critical juncture, they practiced gratitude and cultivated a sense of hope for the future.

Recently, Representative Sarah McBride was quoted as saying, “Hope is a conscious effort – it’s audacious.” During times like these – when hope doesn’t feel tangible – it must be summoned from the depths of our despair, beyond the part of us that is angry and disillusioned with the world as it is.

Rep. McBride continued, noting that “hope isn’t about optimism, or circumstance, or evaluating likelihood.” It is recognizing that beyond the horizon, at the peak of the summit, and beyond the trees, there is a better world we get to co-create.

Hope has powered our movement for LGBTQ+ equality when losses have cut really deep. In 1986, after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state laws criminalizing consensual sex between same-sex partners and limited privacy rights under the Constitution in Bowers v. Hardwick, our movement didn’t give up. We grieved a loss at the height of the AIDS crisis, regrouped and got to work. It took time and perseverance, but our community’s effort and dedication eventually led to the Supreme Court reversing itself 17 years later in Lawrence v. Texas, expressly acknowledging that “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today,” and rendering all laws criminalizing sodomy unconstitutional. From the ashes of Bowers, and a movement’s work, came a decision underscoring LGBTQ+ people’s right to liberty and privacy. And Lawrence in turn was a building block to the Obergefell marriage equality ruling issued 10 years ago yesterday.

Hope declares that we believe in the power of a committed collective to right the wrongs of the world. It inspires the innovation, courage, and boldness we need to show up differently – battle-tested – and show out again and again.

No one teaches us how to hold people gently while the world debates our very existence in the public square. No one coaches us on how to care for ourselves and others when we exceed our anxiety and trauma threshold. And yet, when devastating events like the heartbreaking Skrmetti decision are announced, our community has reliably shown up determined to face the full-on assault on equality head-on because, as a good friend of mine reminded me, we cannot “predicate fighting on winning.”

I recently took part in a panel titled “Leading in Times of Uncertainty and Volatility.” We shared strategies on how to care for our staff, ourselves, and our community during a period of sustained government dysfunction, Supreme Court losses, lawmaker inaction, attacks on vulnerable communities, and political polarization.

The panel was an opportunity to share the strategies that have worked, but the reality is that we don’t always know how to prepare for the next crisis, and sometimes, showing up gingerly and stepping beside the rubble together is all we can do.

Our fight at its core must have soul – it must be anchored in vulnerability, compassion, grace, kindness, and anger. Yes, anger – because it is righteous to feel outrage at the indignities caused by the losses we face during this fight. While our setbacks are real, they are never the end of the story. We keep moving forward, refining our concrete strategies and developing novel tactics to galvanize people to create meaningful and sustainable change.

The tide can and will turn.

What to know, what to do:

Tell Governor Ayotte not to take health care decisions away from families of transgender youth
Learn more about how the Massachusetts Senate is working to protect reproductive and transgender care
Join us at a virtual briefing on July 1 to hear about the impact of the Supreme Court’s final rulings and what comes next
Celebrate the Obergefell 10th anniversary of marriage equality by reading Why it Matters, How We Won, and the Road Ahead
Check out Evident Media’s interview with Major Erica Vandal on the transgender military ban

Donate Today

Blog

Home

Why Did Marriage Become a Legal Fight?

Why did it take a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2015 for same-sex couples to be able to marry nationwide? After all, deciding whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision, a religious exercise for many, and is associated with a life partnership of mutual responsibility, love, care, and commitment. Our traditions and laws allow individuals, not the government, to make that choice for themselves.

The short answer is that States control marriage laws and many states implicitly or explicitly barred same-sex couples from marrying. Those laws collided with the human aspirations and families of LGBTQ+ people who, like generations of people before them, consented to join in marriage with the person of their choice, benefit from marriage’s protections, and take responsibility for one another.

So while states regulate marriage, they must do so in accord with the U.S. Constitution. In earlier cases about or related to marriage, the Supreme Court had already recognized it as “the most important relation in life,” “the foundation of family and … society,” one of “our basic liberties” and “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.”

In Turner v. Safley, a 1987 case about the right of incarcerated people to marry, the Court noted that many elements of marriage remain even with the limitations of prison life, including “expression of personal dedication,” “spiritual significance,” “expectations” of intimacy, and its function as a “precondition for government benefits, property rights, … and less tangible rights.”

Marriage provides profound protection for a couple and their family, starting with legal and societal recognition that eases their way in the world. The rights and responsibilities associated with marriage – hundreds at the state level and over 1000 at the federal level – extend to legal parentage to the couple’s children, workplace and retirement protections, joint ownership of property, family insurance policies and tax rules and filings, as well as inheritance, decision-making, and other protections on a spouse’s disability or death .

In November 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case of Goodridge v. MA Department of Public Health broke the historical barrier and for the first time in the United States, a high court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the state constitution’s equality and liberty guarantees. In its first paragraph the Court declared marriage “a vital social institution” that “nurtures love and mutual support” and “brings stability to our society.” It also called attention to the benefits and responsibilities of marriage: “For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial and social benefits,” and in return “imposes weighty legal, financial and social obligations.”

Rooted in principles of equality, liberty, association, and intimate choice, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared multiple times that “the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.” It’s done so when state laws barred people from marrying because they had outstanding child support obligations, were in prison, sought to marry a person of another race or sought to marry a person of the same sex. Marriage has always been a right, even as a common law right before the U.S. was a country, and the Court has rejected state laws limiting marriage for classes of people.

Same-sex couples are hardly the first to confront laws colliding with our constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the laws, due process of law and others. Throughout U.S. history, state restrictions once barred some people from marrying on racial, ethnic, or health-related grounds that we now recognize as discriminatory. In the foundational (and best-named) case of Loving v. Virginia, a state trial judge sentenced Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter to jail for violating Virginia’s laws barring interracial marriage unless they left the State. They left Virginia and filed suit. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 1967 on equal protection grounds that states cannot restrict marriage based on the race of the partners, and the “the freedom to marry” is part of liberty and the vital personal rights of all Americans. Loving’s dual frameworks of equal protection and due process for evaluating marriage restrictions has continued to this day.

The Obergefell court, looking to both the “essential” marriage right and equal protection, inaugurated nationwide marriage equality on June 26, 2015. Same sex couples could marry in every state on the same terms and conditions as all others, and they would be accorded the same “constellation of benefits” afforded to other married couples.

In the 2017 Pavan v. Smith case, the Supreme Court reinforced the responsibilities of states for equal treatment, and rejected a state court’s refusal to list both parents on a child’s birth certificate.

Marriage equality touches and benefits entire communities across the country. One way we can protect equality is through conversations about why marriage matters to us and to others.

Whether you are part of a married couple, have LGBTQ+ parents, are a sibling, parent, grandparent, family member, friend, co-worker, or neighbor, we’d love to know about your experience. Share your story today.