Noticias

**GLAD Law Responds to Madera trenzada Sentencia de la Corte Suprema**

“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 contra 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 presentó una amigo del escrito de la corte en Madera trenzada 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 bennet 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 Madera trenzada 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.”

Conozca más sobre el caso.

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

Noticias

Hogar

GLAD Law Responds to Mahmoud Sentencia de la Corte Suprema

“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 contra 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 presentó una amigo del escrito de la corte en Mahmoud—together with the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, Igualdad familiar, COLAGENO, , Free State Justice, Inc., the Human Rights Campaign, GLSEN, y the Trevor Project—arguing that part of the role of public schools is preparing students to participate in a pluralistic democracy.

Director sénior de derechos civiles y estrategias legales de GLAD Law María 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.”

Conozca más sobre el caso.

Blog

Hogar

The Resistance Brief: Summoning Hope

Blog de Ricardo Martínez (él/él), Director Ejecutivo

Soft footsteps shuffled up and down the hallways of the GLAD Law offices, interrupting the silence after the Escarcha 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 contra 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 lorenzo 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 Escarcha 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 tener 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.

Qué saber, qué hacer:

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
Verificar Evident Media’s interview with Major Erica Vandal on the transgender military ban

Dona hoy

Lea más ediciones del Brief de Resistencia.

Blog

Hogar

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” y “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.”

En 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 contra el Departamento de Salud Pública de MA 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 Amar contra 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.

El 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 contra 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.

Blog

Hogar

Why Marriage Equality Matters

Deciding whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision, a religious exercise for many, and strongly associated with a lifelong partnership of love, mutual responsibility, care, and commitment. Same-sex couples sought and seek to marry for these purposes too, and to form a family recognized by law and society. Our traditions and laws allow individuals, not the government, to make that choice for themselves.

There have always been people who fell in love and wanted to marry, but who knew full well that the law forbade this. After the Amar contra Virginia case striking down race discrimination in marriage, couples called attention to the sex discrimination in marriage restrictions, because they, too, wanted to participate in this vital personal right. Without marriage as an option, they could not be the family that their parents, friends and extended family could be.

At GLAD law, we saw so many people building families together even as the law regarded them as legal strangers. Marriage provides profound protection for a couple and their family, starting with legal and societal recognition of their family that eases their way in the world and allows them to plan a life together, including, if they choose, raising children.

As the Obergefell court stated, without marriage as an option, the “harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives.” For example:

Long time partners were unable to share in the pension survivor or social security benefits their partner or spouse had paid because they were not married. On death, they had no rights to inheritance as a spouse would, and without a will or forms providing guidance, a partner could not even authorize the transfer of their beloved’s deceased body out of the home after a heart attack.

There were no rights to a share of a deceased partner’s estate without a will, meaning a survivor could lose both their beloved partner and their financial security.

Although couples shared bank and credit card accounts, bought property together, and planned life together as one family, their invisibility as a legal family compelled them:
- to pay for separate health insurance policies,
- to file separate federal income tax returns and to pay higher rates without the married filing jointly status or the ability to take or pool various deductions.
- on the end of their relationship, to burdensome litigation because there was no divorce process to help them sort out their debts, property division, or parental rights and responsibilities of their children.
Most consequentially, without marriage, in many states couples were unable to obtain a court judgment of adoption or joint parentage that would secure both partners legal relationship with their child.
These and many other extra financial burdens or extra processes to secure what was automatic for married couples placed significant strain and hardship on the families of same-sex couples.

In May 2004, the era of same-sex couples’ legal exclusion from marriage ended. In a decisive and historical turning point, as a result of the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Goodridge contra el Departamento de Salud Pública, same-sex couples could marry legally in that State. And people came to Massachusetts to marry!

In 2007, the Massachusetts Legislature, after 3+ years of constitutional amendment efforts to undo Goodridge, defeated the last of the amendment proposals, making it clear to the nation and the world that marriage of same sex couples was here to stay.

Following that turning point, courts in Connecticut (2008), California (2008), and Iowa ruled that marriage bans are unconstitutional. Then the first wave of state legislatures began passing marriage laws, including Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine in 2009. By the time the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal “Defense of Marriage Act” in 2013, numerous state legislatures had also passed marriage equality laws, starting with New York in 2011, Maine’s ballot win on marriage in 2012, as well as Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. In 2013, marriage was also restored to California after a Supreme Court ruling about the litigation following passage of Proposition in 2008.

The 20^th anniversary of marriage equality in 2024 provided an opportunity for the RAND Corporation to conduct research and review all peer-reviewed literature on the impact of same-sex couples marrying both for them and for the broader society. The research demonstrated a positive impact for married same-sex couples and their children, including greater economic stability, better physical and mental health, and more access to health insurance for children. And contrary to predictions from opponents leading into the Obergefell case, there were no adverse consequences – no drop in marriage rates or rise in divorce rates for different-sex couples over the last 20 years.

The bar on same-sex couples marrying marked our families as outsiders, deprived LGBTQ+ people and families of countless protections and responsibilities, and violated our constitutional commitments to due process of law and equal protection of the laws. The 2015 Supreme Court Obergefell opinion ended by emphasizing the ability to join in marriage is part of “equal dignity in the eyes of the law” and affirming that “the Constitution grants LGBTQ people that right.”

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.

Blog

Hogar

**10 Years After Obergefell, Our Work to Protect LGBTQ+ Families Continues**

GLAD Law led the fight for marriage equality, from the first state court win in Massachusetts to arguing the landmark Obergefell contra Hodges case at the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, we’re working to make sure all LGBTQ+ families, and our ability to build and grow them, are protected.

This June 26 marks the tenth anniversary of the Obergefell contra Hodges Supreme Court ruling that made marriage equality the law of the land. The historic ruling followed years of work in the courts and state legislatures, alongside many thousands of LGBTQ+ people and supporters across all backgrounds, faiths, and regions of the country.

Ten years on, it’s clear that nationwide marriage equality has been good for LGBTQ+ people and our children. Beyond that, it strengthens communities by respecting families, improving health and economic stability for couples and parents raising kids, and assists businesses and other economic actors by removing the complications of a patchwork system of marriage recognition. It’s no surprise that the vast majority of Americans continue to strongly support marriage equality. Likewise, in 2022, a bipartisan Congress codified Obergefell constitutional guarantees of equal recognition and respect from states and the federal government for LGBTQ+ people’s and other marriages into federal law with the Ley de Respeto al Matrimonio.

Politicians in a handful of states have introduced resolutions this year urging the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. But these measures have not gained traction and have been rebuffed, including by Republicans who view marriage equality as settled and have moved on. Even if passed, a resolution would have no practical effect and is not a route to Supreme Court review. GLAD Law is prepared to defend against any attempts to chip away at Obergefell protections – but even in this moment when we are facing increased anti-LGBTQ+ policies, we can be clear: neither the federal government nor any state can take away your marriage.

Widening the lens, even in this extraordinarily challenging year, we are protecting family and parent-child relationships beyond marriage, too. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled to protect the relationship between a lesbian non-birth mother and her child. The legislature is now also considering a Parentage Act that would ensure paths for all children to have the security of a legal tie to both of their parents, no matter their parents’ gender or marital status, or how their family was formed.

GLAD Law has been instrumental in passing such laws in many states over the last 15 years, with the latest wins including the Ley de protección familiar de Michigan y el Ley de paternidad de Massachusetts, both effective in 2025. New Mexico also enacted a confirmatory adoption law this year, providing a streamlined path for same-sex parents to confirm their legal relationship with their child and ensure it will be respected wherever they move or travel. As we write this, a similar bill just passed the Vermont legislature and has been sent to the governor, bringing the number of states with such laws to ten once that bill is signed.

But we have also seen warning signs that the Trump administration and its political allies aim to target LGBTQ+ families, restrict access to fertility health care, and narrow the definition of who can be a family.

An April 3 White House proclamation about National Child Abuse Prevention Month frighteningly sought to cast support for transgender young people as a “prevalent” form of child abuse. The proclamation singled out schools and health care providers as “offenders,” but its sweep could include parents who secure necessary health care for their transgender children. The proclamation also emphasized the importance of a “strong mother and father,” language often used in the past to delegitimize LGBTQ+ families. Proclamations are not law, but they signal how far this administration may try to go.

We are also seeing signals that the Trump administration and its allies may further restrict access to reproductive care. Despite promises to make assisted reproduction and IVF to help people build their families “affordable and available to all,” the actions of administration allies seek to redefine infertility care and delay and limit IVF.

Groups like the anti-LGBTQ Heritage Foundation, which led “Project 2025,” seek to replace effective, science-based health care with recommendations that stigmatize people navigating fertility challenges, ignore male infertility, and push women to focus on lifestyle and stress issues to achieve “natural” conception. Such a focus ignores the steps many people have already tried to achieve a pregnancy over a period of time and delays access to IVF, where time can be of the essence. In fact, pushing off IVF to a later and later day, and with fewer IVF cycles completed, may well be the point. In April, Arkansas became the first state to pass a law that rejects IVF as deviating from “natural human functions.”

We don’t yet know what will come of this developing effort at the federal level. Still, the warning signs are clear that the government and its allies want to control who has access to IVF and family building, who can be a family, and under what circumstances.

GLAD Law is working in coalition with reproductive rights, fertility health care, and family advocacy groups—including the grassroots-led multi-state coalition State Strong, which grew out of work for the Michigan Family Protection Act—to ensure access to fertility health care remains science-based, accessible and affordable, and inclusive of all people who seek to build their families.

Many people across demographic groups, including LGBTQ+ people, seek to build families and raise and nurture the next generation. From legal security for children and parents to marriage equality, protecting LGBTQ+ families has been a core part of GLAD Law’s work since our founding nearly 50 years ago. We won’t stand by while some politicians again attempt to make it harder for LGBTQ+ people to form families or narrowly define anyone’s family out of existence.

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.

Blog

Hogar

Opal Lee, the Grandmother of Juneteenth

Blog de Ricardo Martínez, GLAD Law Executive Director (he/him)

In moments of great strife, it is my tendency to go inward. I’m certain it’s a defense mechanism that protects me from anxiety, stress, intellectualizing situations, grieving, and anguish. In the quiet, my solemn contemplation, I seek inspiration to pull me back from challenges, disappointments, and betrayals that the world has thrown at me.

Yesterday, after the heartbreaking Escarcha decisión was announced, I needed time to collect my thoughts, pay attention to my body’s response, and dig deep to reassure myself that despite the loss we experienced I don’t “predicate fighting on winning.”

The catalyst that inspired me to pick my head back up this time was Opal Lee. She is known as the “grandmother of Juneteenth.” She’s a Texan (born in small town Marshal), a retired schoolteacher, a board member of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF), and an organizer.

For decades, she championed establishing Juneteenth as a federal holiday. Back in 2016, at 88 years old, she began an annual 2.5 mile walk to draw more public attention to the cause. The length of the walk symbolizing the two and a half years it took for news of emancipation to reach Texas. Concurrently, she began a petition to showcase the public’s support for the observance of Juneteenth as a holiday. A year later in 2017, Opal walked 1,400 miles to Washington D.C. – delivering 1.5 million signatures to Congress supporting Juneteenth.

Opal has described herself as a ‘little old lady in tennis shoes getting in everybody’s business.’ But the reality is that her efforts and impact are widely felt. Her approach, defined by her patience, creativity, historical perspective and charisma, galvanized Texans. She had a novel idea, committed time, love, and advocated on the principle that America was founded on: Freedom. Her message was simple and effective – taking her all the way to the White House where on June 17, 2021, President Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act bill making Juneteenth a federal holiday. Her success did not happen overnight.

So how did Opal Lee snap me back from my reflective pondering? I focused on the lessons her story taught me.

1. A hurtful past can fuel a powerful future: A mob of white supremacists burned her house down on June 19, 1939 when she was 12 years old. Rather than allowing that hurtful experience to be a barrier to advocacy, she instead focused and reclaimed that date to help bring people together to understand the importance of Juneteenth.

2. Tenacity, persistence, and creativity have the power to create change: 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.

3. We get so much more done together than apart: Opal Lee has always said none of us are free until we are all free. Ms. Lee is not preaching platitudes; she believes this. She understands the power of community. As do we. We are part of a greater whole – and like all our social justice partners, we contribute to the collective in our areas of specialty – converging in strategic ways to protect the best things about this country – including our intersectional multifaceted identities.

Opal Lee’s perseverance, tenacity, and expressions of love reminded me that we have to remain steadfast in our commitment to achieving justice and equality – regardless of the setbacks.

Beyond the lessons her advocacy taught me, there is much to reflect on as we observe Juneteenth today.

On that day when the last enslaved African ancestors were freed, they were promised a broad range of rights (knows as the 12 freedoms). Those freedoms like personal liberty, access to education, right to legal protection, freedom of movement, access to healthcare have not always been upheld for Black Americans and are now similarly being denied to marginalized groups like transgender people.

As we grieve the Skrmetti decision let us also recognize the ongoing inequality that has long existed in this country for Black Americans. Let us also acknowledge that our struggle is inextricably connected. Let us also celebrate resilience, perseverance, past victories, and lessons learned.

The fight is long from over. We are powerful beyond measure. And as Opal would say “everybody has a part to play.”

Learn more about Opal Lee’s legacy in Fort Worth Texas, in this video on her life’s work and the future of The National Juneteenth Museum.

Noticias

Hogar

**GLAD Law and NCLR Respond to the Escarcha Sentencia de la Corte Suprema**

“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 en Estados Unidos contra 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 Asociación Médica de Estados Unidos y el Asociacion Americana de Psicologia 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.

Director Senior de Derechos Transgénero y Queer de GLAD Law Jennifer Levi y 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 Jennifer Levi, directora sénior de derechos transgénero y queer de GLAD Law.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.

You Can Help Power This Fight

Noticias

Hogar

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.”

Noticias

Hogar

Maine Legislature Rejects Bills Targeting Transgender Student Athletes

AUGUSTA – The Maine Legislature rejected eight bills on Monday that targeted transgender student athletes, the transgender community and the Maine Human Rights Act. A broad coalition came together to organize in response, including equality organizations, health care providers, legal advocacy groups and everyday Mainers of all ages and backgrounds.

“Thousands of Maine people showed up at the State House, called and emailed their legislators and stood strong against eight different bills that targeted our community,” said Gia Drew, Executive Director of EqualityMaine. “We are grateful for the members of the Maine Legislature who listened and helped to defeat these harmful bills. Our community is resilient, and we want every transgender person in Maine to know that they are loved, that they are not alone, and that we will stand with them.”

The Legislature considered and rejected eight bills:

LD 233, An Act to Prohibit Biological Males from Participating in School Athletic Programs and Activities Designed for Females When State Funding is Provided to the School;
LD 868, An Act to Ensure Equity and Safety in Athletics, Restrooms, Changing Rooms and Housing at Elementary, Secondary and Postsecondary Schools;
LD 1002, An Act to Protect Children’s Identification by Requiring Public Schools to Use the Name and Gender Specified on a Child’s Birth Certificate;
LD 1134, An Act to Prohibit Males from Participating in Female Sports or Using Female Facilities;
LD 1704, An Act to Prohibit a School Administrative Unit from Adopting a Policy that Allows a Student to Use a Restroom Designated for Use by the Opposite Sex.
LD 1337, An act to Amend Maine Human Rights Act Regarding Female Athletes and Safety in Women’s Single-sex Shelters;
LD 1432, An Act to Remove Consideration of Gender Identity from the Maine Human Rights Act; and
LD 380, An Act to Amend Certain Laws Regarding Gender-affirming Health Care Services

“Maine voters made clear 20 years ago that it’s wrong to discriminate against someone because they are transgender, and the Maine Law Court weighed in in 2014 to affirm that schools must treat transgender students equally, including access to school bathrooms or locker rooms,” said Mary Bonauto, Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law).

“Let’s be clear – these bills were a direct attack on our rights, our dignity and our lives,” said Bre Danvers Kidman, co-director of MaineTransNet. “Our community rose up, stood shoulder to shoulder with allies across the state and shut them down. Transgender people do not exist to be used as a political wedge issue. Our civil rights are not up for debate. We are not going away. We know who we are, we know what we deserve and we will never stop fighting to live safe, free, and visible in every part of this state.”

More than 900 Maine people testified against efforts to deny trangender students access to health care and ban them from participating in school sports during a public hearing in May. The hearing drew an extraordinary cross-section of our state — parents, educators, fellow students, current and former athletes, faith leaders, and more — all united in defense of dignity, fairness, and inclusion. Their testimony reflected a clear consensus: these attacks do not reflect Maine values and have no place in our laws.

“Transgender student athletes are being targeted by some of the richest and most powerful men in the world. We are thankful for the tremendous work of our allies in the Legislature who stood up for what is right, and for the members of the trans community who told their stories and demonstrated the harm these terrible bills would have caused,” said Destie Hohman Sprague, Executive Director of the Maine Women’s Lobby.

“Every student should be treated with kindness and respect, and they should be able to attend school and play sports without fear. These bills wouldn’t have just hurt transgender girls, they would have hurt everyone and subjected all Maine girls to invasive procedures that violate personal privacy,” said Sue Campbell, Executive Director of OUT Maine.

The coalition remains united and prepared to respond to future threats to equality and human rights in Maine. As efforts to roll back protections or target vulnerable communities continue to surface across the country, advocates, organizations, and community members across the state stand ready to defend Maine’s values of compassion, courage and humanity.