Press Archives - GLAD Law
Überspringen Sie die Kopfzeile zum Inhalt
GLAD Logo Primäre Navigation zum Inhalt überspringen

Nachricht

Das GLAD-Gesetz wird vom Repräsentantenhaus von Massachusetts verabschiedet und sieht einen starken Schutz für Transgender und die reproduktive Gesundheitsversorgung vor. 

Gestern verabschiedete das Repräsentantenhaus von Massachusetts einen Gesetzentwurf zur Stärkung des staatlichen Schutzes für den Zugang zu reproduktiver und Transgender-Gesundheitsversorgung. Der Senat verabschiedete den Gesetzentwurf am 26. Juni.  

Der Gesetzentwurf, der auf dem 2022 verabschiedeten Healthcare Shield Act aufbaut, sichert den Zugang zu gesetzlich geschützter Gesundheitsversorgung. Er untersagt staatlichen Behörden und Strafverfolgungsbehörden die Zusammenarbeit mit anderen Bundesstaaten oder bundesstaatlichen Ermittlungen zur reproduktiven und Transgender-Versorgung in Massachusetts. Er schränkt die Weitergabe von Patientendaten und den Zugriff Dritter auf Krankenakten ein und untersagt die unnötige Überwachung verschreibungspflichtiger Medikamente. Der Gesetzentwurf erhöht zudem den Schutz für diejenigen, die gesetzlich geschützte Gesundheitsversorgung anbieten oder dabei helfen, durch verbesserte Lizenzbestimmungen und Schutz vor Diskriminierung durch Versicherungsunternehmen. Er gibt Gerichten Orientierung im Umgang mit Gesetzen anderer Bundesstaaten, die Eltern die Möglichkeit zur Inanspruchnahme transgender Gesundheitsversorgung für ihre Kinder einschränken.  

„Dieser Gesetzentwurf bietet wichtigen Schutz in einer Zeit, in der der Zugang zu reproduktiver Versorgung und Gesundheitsfürsorge für Transgender-Personen zunehmend bedroht ist.“ sagtePolly Crozier, Direktorin für Familienvertretung, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. „Wir sind dankbar für die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Gesetzgebern des Bundesstaates, dem Generalstaatsanwalt und Partnern, die schnell daran gearbeitet haben, den Shield Act 2022 weiterzuentwickeln, um Erhöhen Sie den Schutz für Patienten und Leistungserbringer und stellen Sie sicher, dass die Gesundheitspolitik in Massachusetts von der Wissenschaft und dem Pflegebedarf der Menschen bestimmt wird und nicht von der Politik. Wir freuen uns darauf, dieses Gesetzgebungsvorhaben weiterhin zu unterstützen und hoffen, dass der Gesetzesentwurf bald in Kraft tritt.“ 

Nachricht

GLAD Law reagiert auf Braidwood Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs

“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 reichte eine Schriftsatz des Amicus Curiae 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.

Nachricht

GLAD Law reagiert auf Mahmoud Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs

Heute hat das Gericht eine Gelegenheit verpasst, dafür zu sorgen, dass alle jungen Menschen auf die Interaktion mit unterschiedlichen Menschen vorbereitet sind und in einer sich ständig verändernden Welt erfolgreich sein können.“, sagte Mary Bonauto von GLAD Law

WASHINGTON, DC—Der Oberste Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten hat heute festgestellt, dass die klagenden Familien Anspruch auf eine einstweilige Verfügung haben in Mahmoud gegen Taylor, ein Fall, der darüber entscheiden wird, ob Eltern gemäß dem Ersten Verfassungszusatz ein Recht auf Benachrichtigung und die Möglichkeit haben, sich vom Lehrplan für die fünf fraglichen Bücher mit LGBTQ+-Personen abzumelden. 

GLAD Law reichte eine Schriftsatz des Amicus Curiae In Mahmoud– zusammen mit dem Nationales Zentrum für LGBTQ-Rechte, Gleichberechtigung der Familie, COLAGE, , Free State Justice, Inc., die Menschenrechtskampagne, GLSEN, Und das Trevor-Projekt– und argumentiert, dass es zur Aufgabe der öffentlichen Schulen gehört, die Schüler auf die Teilnahme an einer pluralistischen Demokratie vorzubereiten.

GLAD Law Leitender Direktor für Bürgerrechte und Rechtsstrategien Mary L. Bonauto, reagierte auf das heutige Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs: 

Das heutige Urteil ändert nichts an der Verpflichtung der Schulen, Schülerinnen und Schüler auf die Interaktion mit einer vielfältigen und sich ständig verändernden Welt vorzubereiten und sich darin zu entfalten. Religionsfreiheit ist ein Wert, den wir alle teilen, doch heute hat das Gericht eine Gelegenheit verpasst, alle jungen Menschen auf die Teilhabe an einer pluralistischen Gesellschaft vorzubereiten. Der „Fenster“- und „Spiegel“-Ansatz im Leselehrplan, der von den öffentlichen Schulen von Montgomery County und den Schulbezirken im ganzen Land eingesetzt wird, ermöglicht es Schülern, Lesen und Schreiben zu erlernen und sich selbst und die Welt um sie herum besser zu sehen und zu verstehen. Es gibt LGBTQ+-Personen und -Familien, Schülerinnen und Schüler unserer öffentlichen Schulen haben LGBTQ+-Eltern, und Bücher mit LGBTQ+-Personen sollten nicht anders behandelt werden als Bücher ohne LGBTQ+-Personen. Die Entscheidung des Gerichts verpflichtet unsere Schulen nicht, diese Bemühungen aufzugeben. Eltern, Schülerinnen und Schüler, Lehrkräfte und Nachbarn können Möglichkeiten zum Lernen über vielfältige Menschen und Familien fördern, indem sie sich in Schulbezirken, Schulbehörden und unseren lokalen Gemeinden engagieren.

Erfahren Sie mehr über den Fall.

Nachricht

GLAD Law and NCLR Respond to the Skrmetti Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs  

“The Court today failed to do its job. It chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics.”

WASHINGTON, DC—The Supreme Court of the United States today issued its ruling In United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on healthcare for transgender youth. 

Today’s decision has no impact in states where health care for transgender youth is not currently banned.

Every major medical association including the American Medical Association und die American Psychological Association support this care, backed by decades of research and relying upon the same safe and effective medications used to treat a range of other health issues for children and adults. Last month, in the most comprehensive review to date, a new 1,000+ report commissioned by the Utah Legislature found that this care is supported by substantial evidence, is safe and effective, and reduces risk of suicidality.

GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi Und National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter, both of whom have more than 30 years each of LGBTQ+ impact litigation experience, including on transgender health care cases, and are themselves transgender, responded to today’s Supreme Court ruling:

“The Court today failed to do its job,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution’s backbone. Instead, it chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics.”

“The Court’s ruling abandons transgender youth and their families to political attacks. It ignored clear discrimination and disregarded its own legal precedent by letting lawmakers target young people for being transgender,” said National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter. “Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians. This decision will cause real harm.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling sends a dangerous message that even laws causing immediate harm to transgender youth can stay in effect while legal challenges work their way through the courts, often a process that takes months or years. This allows states to enforce discriminatory policies that disrupt lives, restrict medical care, and create fear and instability, even before their constitutionality has been fully decided. As of June 2025, similar laws have passed or been proposed in over 20 states, creating a patchwork of legality that leaves many families uncertain whether their child will be able to receive proper care.

This ruling paves the way for a broader wave of anti-transgender legislation under the Trump administration, bolstered by President Trump’s return to office and multiple executive orders targeting transgender people, including efforts to eliminate federal recognition of gender identity, restrict access to healthcare for transgender people of all ages, and the banning of transgender students from sports and public school inclusion.

Anti-transgender legislation like Tennessee’s law is part of a growing national campaign to strip transgender people of their rights, dignity, and access to lifesaving care. These laws are not based on medical evidence or concern for children, but on fear, misinformation, and a desire to erase trans people from public life. The harm they cause is real, immediate, and profound. At GLAD Law, we are committed to challenging these attacks in the courts, supporting affected families, and working toward a future where all transgender people can live openly, safely, and with full equality.

Make a donation today to support our legal advocacy and ensure every young person can grow up with the freedom to be themselves.

Nachricht

GLAD Law Condemns Committees of Conference Approval of Legislation Banning Access to Health Care for Transgender Adolescents

Today, Committees of Conference reported a bill to ban access to health care for transgender youth. HB 377 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.

Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) shared the following response: 

“The legislature can still reverse its extreme overreach into the private lives of New Hampshire families by rejecting this bill. Parents and families, not the government, know what’s best for their children. All New Hampshire families must retain the ability to make healthcare decisions for themselves without government interference. This legislation takes that right away from parents, who want nothing more than to care for their child. 

“The best way to protect the health and well-being of transgender young people is to ensure that they can continue to access essential, age-appropriate medical care from licensed clinicians practicing according to the well-established medical standards of care. Banning necessary medical care puts young people at increased risk of serious harms, including depression, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts or behavior. When transgender youth, like all youth, receive the medical care and support they need, they are able to thrive and have healthy, happy childhoods that set them up for success in life. 

“Furthermore, this ban punishes medical providers who follow expert medical standards of care for transgender patients—standards that are endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and every other leading U.S. medical professional association.

“It can be hard to understand what it’s like to have a transgender child. The parents of transgender adolescents need information and advice from professionals they trust, but this bill would cut off access to that guidance, leaving families without hope for supporting their children as they suffer.

“This effort to prevent young people from receiving necessary health care is just the latest in a years-long campaign by extremist politicians to roll back rights and protections for transgender Granite Staters, especially transgender youth, and to insert government between them and their families. GLAD Law will continue to work with our allies and use every legal tool at our disposal to ensure that all New Hampshire residents—including transgender Granite Staters—can live authentically and without needless government intrusion.”

Nachricht

Parlament im Bundesstaat Maine lehnt Gesetzesentwürfe gegen Transgender-Studentensportler ab

AUGUSTA – Das Parlament des Staates Maine lehnte am Montag acht Gesetzesentwürfe ab, die sich gegen transgender studentische Sportler, die Transgender-Community und den Maine Human Rights Act richteten. Eine breite Koalition, darunter Gleichstellungsorganisationen, Gesundheitsdienstleister, Rechtsanwälte und Bürgerinnen und Bürger Maines jeden Alters und jeder Herkunft, bildete sich als Reaktion darauf.

„Tausende Menschen aus Maine versammelten sich im Parlamentsgebäude, riefen ihre Abgeordneten an, schrieben ihnen E-Mails und wehrten sich entschieden gegen acht verschiedene Gesetzesentwürfe, die unsere Gemeinde ins Visier nahmen“, sagte Gia Drew, Geschäftsführerin von EqualityMaine. „Wir sind den Abgeordneten des Parlaments von Maine dankbar, dass sie zugehört und dazu beigetragen haben, diese schädlichen Gesetzesentwürfe zu verhindern. Unsere Gemeinde ist widerstandsfähig, und wir möchten, dass jede Transgender-Person in Maine weiß, dass sie geliebt wird, dass sie nicht allein ist und dass wir ihnen zur Seite stehen.“

Der Gesetzgeber hat acht Gesetzesentwürfe geprüft und abgelehnt:

  • LD 233, Ein Gesetz, das biologischen Männern die Teilnahme an für Mädchen konzipierten Sportprogrammen und Aktivitäten von Schulen verbietet, wenn die Schule staatlich finanziert wird;
  • LD 868, Ein Gesetz zur Gewährleistung von Gleichberechtigung und Sicherheit im Sport, in Toiletten, Umkleideräumen und Unterkünften an Grundschulen, weiterführenden Schulen und postsekundären Schulen;
  • LD 1002, Ein Gesetz zum Schutz der Identifizierung von Kindern, das öffentliche Schulen verpflichtet, den Namen und das Geschlecht zu verwenden, die auf der Geburtsurkunde eines Kindes angegeben sind;
  • LD 1134, Ein Gesetz, das Männern die Teilnahme an Frauensportarten oder die Nutzung von Einrichtungen für Frauen verbietet; 
  • LD 1704, Ein Gesetz, das es einer Schulverwaltungseinheit verbietet, eine Richtlinie zu erlassen, die es einem Schüler erlaubt, eine Toilette zu benutzen, die für das andere Geschlecht vorgesehen ist.
  • LD 1337, Ein Gesetz zur Änderung des Maine Human Rights Act in Bezug auf weibliche Sportler und die Sicherheit in Frauenhäusern nur für ein Geschlecht; 
  • LD 1432, Ein Gesetz zur Entfernung der Berücksichtigung der Geschlechtsidentität aus dem Maine Human Rights Act; und 
  • LD 380, Ein Gesetz zur Änderung bestimmter Gesetze zu geschlechtsangleichenden Gesundheitsdiensten

„Die Wähler in Maine haben vor 20 Jahren klargestellt, dass es falsch ist, jemanden aufgrund seiner Transsexualität zu diskriminieren. Und das Gericht von Maine schaltete sich 2014 ein und bekräftigte, dass Schulen Transgender-Schüler gleich behandeln müssen, was auch den Zugang zu Schultoiletten oder Umkleideräumen einschließt“, sagte Mary Bonauto, Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law).

„Um es klar zu sagen: Diese Gesetzesentwürfe waren ein direkter Angriff auf unsere Rechte, unsere Würde und unser Leben“, sagte Bre Danvers Kidman, Co-Direktorin von MaineTransNet. „Unsere Community hat sich erhoben, Seite an Seite mit Verbündeten im ganzen Staat gestanden und sie zum Schweigen gebracht. Transgender-Personen existieren nicht, um als politisches Spaltungsthema missbraucht zu werden. Unsere Bürgerrechte stehen nicht zur Debatte. Wir werden nicht verschwinden. Wir wissen, wer wir sind, wir wissen, was wir verdienen, und wir werden niemals aufhören, dafür zu kämpfen, in jedem Teil dieses Staates sicher, frei und sichtbar zu leben.“

Mehr als 900 Einwohner Maines sagten im Mai bei einer öffentlichen Anhörung gegen die Bemühungen aus, transsexuellen Schülern den Zugang zur Gesundheitsversorgung zu verwehren und sie von der Teilnahme am Schulsport auszuschließen. Die Anhörung zog einen außergewöhnlichen Querschnitt unseres Staates an – Eltern, Pädagogen, Mitschüler, aktuelle und ehemalige Sportler, religiöse Führer und mehr – alle vereint in der Verteidigung von Würde, Fairness und Inklusion. Ihre Aussagen spiegelten einen klaren Konsens wider: Diese Angriffe spiegeln nicht die Werte Maines wider und haben in unseren Gesetzen nichts zu suchen. 

„Transgender-Studentensportler werden von einigen der reichsten und mächtigsten Männer der Welt ins Visier genommen. Wir sind dankbar für die großartige Arbeit unserer Verbündeten im Parlament, die für das Richtige eingetreten sind, und für die Mitglieder der Transgender-Community, die ihre Geschichten erzählt und aufgezeigt haben, welchen Schaden diese schrecklichen Gesetzesentwürfe angerichtet hätten“, sagte Destie Hohman Sprague, Geschäftsführerin der Maine Women's Lobby.

„Jede Schülerin sollte mit Freundlichkeit und Respekt behandelt werden und ohne Angst zur Schule gehen und Sport treiben können. Diese Gesetzesentwürfe hätten nicht nur Transgender-Mädchen geschadet, sondern alle. Sie hätten alle Mädchen in Maine invasiven Eingriffen ausgesetzt, die die Privatsphäre verletzen“, sagte Sue Campbell, Geschäftsführerin von OUT Maine.

Die Koalition bleibt vereint und bereit, auf zukünftige Bedrohungen der Gleichberechtigung und Menschenrechte in Maine zu reagieren. Während landesweit immer wieder Bestrebungen auftauchen, Schutzmaßnahmen zurückzufahren oder gefährdete Gemeinschaften ins Visier zu nehmen, stehen Aktivisten, Organisationen und Gemeindemitglieder im gesamten Bundesstaat bereit, Maines Werte – Mitgefühl, Mut und Menschlichkeit – zu verteidigen.

Nachricht

Transgender-Soldaten müssen sich bis heute entscheiden, wie sie aus dem Militär entlassen werden: „Freiwillig“ oder unfreiwillig

“There is nothing voluntary about forced separation,” says GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has instructed transgender servicemembers to self-identify for separation by today, June 6—July 7 for reservists—or face “involuntary separation.” GLAD Law Und NCLR report that transgender servicemembers are struggling with an impossible choice. Many say that “voluntary” separation is misleading. Yet they fear the unknown consequences of the involuntary separation process for themselves and their families. Former military leaders have also spoken out, calling the rushed nature of this ban “alarming” and noting that “military policy changes typically involve months of careful planning and timelines that account for the complexity of the military personnel system.”

GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi Und NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys in Talbott gegen USA (formerly Talbott gegen Trump), are transgender themselves and each have more than three decades of experience litigating landmark LGBTQ+ cases. Together, Levi and Minter also led the 2017 legal fight against the transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump Und Stockman v. Trump, which secured a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the ban. Levi and Minter responded to today’s deadline:

“There’s nothing voluntary about forced separation,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Honorable and committed transgender servicemembers are being coerced into choreographing their own dismissal under a presidential edict that maligns their character with falsehoods, characterizations the government itself admitted in court are untrue. These are decorated veterans who served for decades and forcing them out simply for being transgender is a shameful betrayal of American values.”

“The military has invested millions of dollars in training thousands of transgender servicemembers, such as Talbott plaintiff Major Erica Vandal, who was born into a military family on a base overseas, graduated from West Point, served with distinction for 14 years, deployed to Afghanistan, and has been awarded a Bronze Star,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “Major Vandal and others are now being forced out through a humiliating process typically reserved for misconduct that will leave a stain on their records. This mistreatment of servicemembers who have put their lives on the line for our country is needlessly cruel and a shocking betrayal of our commitment to all those who serve.”

Talbott gegen USA, and a second legal challenge to the ban, Shilling v. USA, are continuing through the courts. Talbott gegen USA is awaiting the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision on the government’s motion for emergency stay. The recent Supreme Court order in Shilling does not apply to Talbott.   

Talbott gegen USA (formerly Talbott gegen Trump), the first legal challenge filed against President Trump’s transgender military ban executive order, is on behalf of 32 plaintiffs and brought by LGBTQ+ legal groups GLAD Law Und NCLR with pro bono legal counsel from Wardenski P.C., Kropf Moseley PLCC, and Zalkind, Duncan + Bernstein.

Nachricht

There is No Legal Basis for Threats to Providers of Transgender Youth Care

Statement from Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, in response to the FBI’s tweet about investigating health care providers of transgender youth:

There are no federal laws that support threats to providers of health care for transgender adolescents. This is part of an ongoing effort to intimidate doctors who are providing essential medical care. As a comprehensive, systematic review recently commissioned by the Utah legislature concluded, a strong body of medical evidence supports the safety and efficacy of this care. These efforts make it more difficult for parents to secure the health care their children need to thrive.

Read the FBI’s tweet about investigating providers.

Learn about the Utah legislature’s report.

Nachricht

Vermonts neues Gesetz zur bestätigenden Adoption erhöht die Sicherheit für LGBTQ+-Familien

Vermont continues to lead on ensuring LGBTQ+ people and families are protected and treated equally with passage of a new law making it easier for parents who have had a child through assisted reproduction to confirm their parentage through adoption.

Yesterday, Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed into law An act relating to confirmatory adoptions. (H.98) Championed by state Reps. Martin LaLonde and Barbara Rachelson, the legislation makes the adoption process more efficient for parents seeking an adoption decree to confirm an existing parent-child relationship by removing cumbersome and costly barriers that non-genetic parents face when adopting their own children. Confirmation of an existing parent-child relationship through judgments like adoption decrees is vitally important to protect families formed through assisted reproduction, including LGBTQ+ families. The new law takes effect July 1.

“I’m proud to see this bill signed into law. This is what we should be prioritizing as legislators: ensuring that all Vermont families — no matter how they’re formed — are legally protected and more secure,” said Rep. Barbara Rachelson, the primary sponsor of H.98. “H.98 streamlines the adoption process for parents who planned for and built their families through assisted reproduction. Now, if an individual who is already considered a parent under Vermont law seeks an adoption decree to confirm their parent-child relationship, they won’t have to undergo an invasive home study, notify gamete donors, or complete a mandatory residency period before receiving an adoption decree.”

“Parents who use assisted reproduction, in Vermont and elsewhere, continue to face the reality that other states may discriminate against them and refuse to recognize their legal status as parents because of a lack of genetic connection — especially if the parents are LGBTQ,” said Rep. Martin LaLonde, who co-sponsored H.98. “Although Vermont recognizes parents who use assisted reproduction with donor gametes as legal parents, other states may not. With an adoption decree, if the family travels or moves to another state, that state must recognize the parents’ legal relationships to their children. Streamlining the adoption process enables families to more easily obtain this important layer of protection.”

Under the new law, parents of children born through assisted reproduction who are parents or presumed parents under the Vermont Parentage Act can petition for an  adoption decree by submitting a certified copy of the child’s birth certificate, a signed petition for adoption, a copy of their marriage certificate if applicable, and a signed declaration explaining that the child was born through assisted reproduction, attesting to their consent to assisted reproduction, and stating that there are no other persons with a claim to parentage of the child.

The law was passed as LGBTQ+ families grow more concerned about attacks on LGBTQ+ people at the federal level and in states that are less LGBTQ+-friendly than Vermont. 

“This is an important step toward ensuring that LGBTQ+ families in Vermont are able to protect themselves wherever they may travel. With extremists escalating their attacks on LGBTQ+ people across the country, parents are justifiably seeking paths to secure their legal parent-child relationship, including through adoption decrees, which are easily recognizable and must receive respect in all jurisdictions,” said Polly Crozier, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Director of Family Advocacy. “Vermont joins nine other states with confirmatory adoption laws, and we expect others will follow their lead. We’re thankful to Representatives Rachelson and LaLonde for championing this bill and to Governor Scott for signing it into law.”

“This common-sense legislation is vital for LGBTQ+ families, and all families using assisted reproduction in Vermont, especially in the current political and social climate. It gives increased legal security to children born through assisted reproduction in an efficient and validating manner,” said Meg York, Senior Policy Counsel and Director of LGBTQ+ Family Law and Policy at Family Equality. “Parents seeking to protect their children in this way will no longer endure an onerous, lengthy, and expensive adoption process, making it accessible to more families. Thank you to Representatives Rachelson and LaLonde, and all of our allies and partners in Vermont for their leadership on H.98.”

“As a family law attorney specializing in the legalities of adoption and assisted reproduction, I’m profoundly pleased H.98 was signed into law. Even before the start of the second Trump administration, we heard from many LGBTQ+ families interested in confirmatory adoption for greater legal security,” said Kurt Hughes, Senior Partner at Tarnelli & Hughes Family Law. “This law will make a tangible difference for families across Vermont. Families are formed in many different ways and our laws must continue to reflect that reality. Thank you to Governor Scott, the Legislature, and Representatives Rachelson and LaLonde for upholding Vermont’s commitment to fairness and equality for all.”

Nachricht

New Filing Says Secretary Hegseth’s Public Statements and the Talbott Case Make Clear the DC Circuit Must Address Whether the Transgender Military Ban is Based on Hostility or ‘Animus’

Late-night letter brief argues the Supreme Court’s explanation-less order in a different case—that did not consider animus—does not impact Talbott, and the preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the ban should remain in effect

WASHINGTON, DC—Last night, the plaintiffs in Talbott filed a letter brief with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals responding to yesterday’s Supreme Court order in the related Shilling case and alerting the court to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s open disparagement of transgender troops.

The letter brief notes that the Supreme Court order in the Shilling case yesterday is not binding on the DC Circuit’s pending resolution of the government’s request for a stay in Talbott. The Supreme Court’s order in Shilling does not explain the basis for its decision, and the district court’s reasoning in Talbott is different than in Shilling. The Talbott court found that the military ban is based on anti-transgender animus, which is not a constitutionally permissible basis for a government policy. The Shilling court did not rule on the issue of animus.

Plaintiffs in Talbott gegen USA (formerly Talbott gegen Trump), are 32 transgender servicemembers and recruits. U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes in Talbott issued the first nationwide preliminary injunction on March 18 blocking implementation of the transgender military ban resulting from President Trump’s 2025 executive order. In a forceful order in which Reyes held that the ban undermines national security and is likely unconstitutional, she called it “soaked with animus and dripping with pretext.”

Talbott gegen USA attorney GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi stated:

“The American people are sick of cowardly doublespeak coming out of this administration. Secretary Hegseth’s comments about transgender troops are a disgrace to the military and all those who serve.”

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals could issue its decision at any time in response to the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction halts implementation of the ban and protects transgender servicemembers and recruits from its significant harms while the future of the ban is being decided in court. These harms include servicemembers being removed from deployments, denied commissions and promotions, placed on administrative leave, denied medically needed care, and ultimately being placed in involuntary separation proceedings, and imminent discharge.

Talbott gegen Trump was the first legal challenge filed against President Trump’s recent transgender military ban executive order. The case is on behalf of 32 plaintiffs and was brought by LGBTQ+ legal groups GLAD Law and NCLR along with legal counsel from Wardenski P.C., Kropf Moseley PLCC, and Zalkind, Duncan + Bernstein. GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi and NCLR’s Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys in this case, are transgender themselves and each have more than three decades of experience litigating landmark and key LGBTQ+ cases. Together, Levi and Minter led the legal fight in 2017 against the transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump Und Stockman v. Trump, which also secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.

Learn more about Talbott gegen USA.

de_DEDeutsch
Datenschutzübersicht

Diese Website verwendet Cookies, damit wir dir die bestmögliche Benutzererfahrung bieten können. Cookie-Informationen werden in deinem Browser gespeichert und führen Funktionen aus, wie das Wiedererkennen von dir, wenn du auf unsere Website zurückkehrst, und hilft unserem Team zu verstehen, welche Abschnitte der Website für dich am interessantesten und nützlichsten sind.