Nouvelles

Washington, DC – Today, the Supreme Court struck down a central part of the Voting Rights Act, invalidating crucial protections passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed four times in the decades since. The sharply divided decision will significantly reduce the federal government’s role in overseeing voting laws in areas with a history of discrimination against African-Americans.

We, America’s leading LGBT advocacy organizations, join civil rights organizations – and indeed, all Americans whom this law has served to protect – in expressing acute dismay at today’s ruling. Not only had Congress repeatedly reaffirmed the need for this bedrock civil rights protection, but authoritative voices from across America had filed amicus briefs urging the court not to undermine the law: the NAACP; the American Bar Association; the Navajo Nation; the states of New York, California, Mississippi and North Carolina; numerous former Justice Department officials charged with protecting voting rights; dozens of U.S. senators and representatives; and many others.

These varied and powerful voices attest to the self-evident reality that racial protections are still needed in voting in this country. As recently as last year’s elections, political partisans resorted to voter suppression laws and tactics aimed at reducing the votes of people of color.

Voting rights protections, which have long served our nation’s commitment to equality and justice, should not be cast aside now. The court has done America a grave disservice, and we will work with our coalition partners to undo the damage inflicted by this retrogressive ruling.

Center for Black Equity
CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers
The Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
Fédération pour l'égalité
Family Equality Council
Freedom to Marry
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC)
Campagne pour les droits de l'homme
Immigration Equality Action Fund
Lambda Legal
National Black Justice Coalition
Centre national pour les droits des lesbiennes
Centre national pour l'égalité des transgenres
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
The National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance
Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
PFLAG – Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays
Pride at Work, AFL-CIO
Unid@s

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 55

Il y a quinze ans, le 26 juin 1998, l'article principal du New York Times lire : « Les personnes infectées par le VIH peuvent être couvertes par la loi fédérale qui interdit la discrimination fondée sur le handicap, même si elles ne présentent aucun symptôme, a statué aujourd'hui la Cour suprême, ce qui constitue une victoire majeure pour les personnes atteintes du virus qui cause le sida. »

L'affaire était Bragdon c. Abbott, qui impliquait un dentiste du Maine refusant de soigner une femme atteinte du VIH. L'avocat qui a remporté la victoire et qui représentait Sidney Abbott était Ben Klein, directeur du projet juridique sur le sida de l'association Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

« Si les personnes vivant avec le VIH peuvent désormais vivre plus longtemps et avec moins de craintes de discrimination, la stigmatisation n'a certainement pas disparu », a déclaré Klein. « Il reste encore beaucoup à faire pour que les personnes vivant avec le VIH puissent vivre pleinement, sans être victimes de discrimination. »

Pour marquer cet anniversaire, GLAD déploie une série de matériel pédagogique sur les droits légaux des personnes vivant avec le VIH :

• Le nouveau graphique partageable de GLAD illustre les protections dont bénéficient les personnes vivant avec le VIH en vertu de l'Americans with Disabilities Act à la suite de la victoire à Bragdon.

• Le podcast de GLAD sur le Bragdon L'affaire raconte comment le refus d'un dentiste du Maine de soigner Mme Abbott est devenu la base de protections nationales pour les personnes vivant avec le VIH.

• GLAD a produit de nouvelles éditions du Aperçu des questions juridiques pour les personnes vivant avec le VIH pour les six États de la Nouvelle-Angleterre. Ces aperçus expliquent les droits légaux des personnes vivant avec le VIH en matière d'emploi, de soins de santé, de confidentialité, etc.

GLAD a plaidé plus de 100 affaires liées au VIH au fil des ans et se concentre actuellement sur l'accès aux soins de santé pour les personnes vivant avec le VIH. GLAD est le fer de lance du Coalition pour le traitement de la lipodystrophie dans le Massachusetts, qui soutient la législation exigeant une couverture d'assurance pour le traitement médical de la lipodystrophie, un effet secondaire débilitant et défigurant des médicaments contre le VIH.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders est la principale organisation de défense des droits juridiques de la Nouvelle-Angleterre, qui se consacre à mettre fin aux discriminations fondées sur l'orientation sexuelle, le statut VIH, l'identité et l'expression de genre. La ligne d'information juridique de GLAD est disponible du lundi au vendredi de 13h30 à 16h30 au 1-800-455-4523.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 55

Pour marquer cet anniversaire, GLAD déploie une série de matériel pédagogique sur les droits légaux des personnes vivant avec le VIH :

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 55

HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and protections are our entire LGBT community’s issues. Join us in taking the pledge to end this epidemic at http://www.wethelgbt.org

GLAD’s AIDS Law Project has been at the forefront of fighting HIV discrimination in state and federal courts since its founding in 1984.

From our 1998 groundbreaking Supreme Court victory in Bragdon c. Abbott, which established that people with HIV are protected from discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to our current work fighting for privacy and healthcare coverage for people with HIV, our commitment has never waivered.

Today, GLAD and 34 LGBT and HIV/AIDS organizations from across the United States are rededicating our time, talent, and resources to the fight against HIV.

Join us: visit www.wethelgbt.org to read the letter and sign the pledge to do your part in ending the HIV epidemic.

Read GLAD’s press release here.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 55

With April 15 on the horizon, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) means that married same-sex couples across the country are dealing with the indignity, confusion, and expense caused by the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

DOMA means that married same-sex couples cannot file their federal income taxes jointly as married. For some, this means paying more in taxes, and for others, it means paying less. For all, it is a stark reminder that the federal government doesn’t respect their marriage or their family. In tax year 2012, couples from Maine and Washington have been able to marry, and are confronting these problems for the first time.

For couples and members of the media, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is making a number of resources available.

Guides for Couples and Tax Preparers

Navigating Income Taxes for Married Same-Sex Couples
https://www.gladlaw.org/uploads/docs/publications/navigating-taxes-married-couples.pdf

Tax Time and Preserving Your Federal Rights (information on preserving the right to claim a prior-year refund if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional)
https://www.gladlaw.org/uploads/docs/publications/tax-time.pdf

Blog Post

GLAD’s InfoLine Manager Bruce Bell, who has received hundreds of calls about tax-filing, prepared this blog post to help couples think through the issues.

Ligne d'information juridique

Volunteers with GLAD’s Legal InfoLine can answer questions for couples and tax preparers. The Legal InfoLine can be reached at 800-455-GLAD (4523), or by email at gladlaw@glad.org, or for live chat at https://www.gladlaw.org/rights/infoline-contact.

Stories of Tax-Filing Couples Harmed by DOMA

Beth Ryan and Jenny O’Flaherty of Vermont: They moved from Virginia to Vermont to protect themselves and their children from anti-gay laws, but federal discrimination followed them.

Suzanne and Geraldine Artis of Connecticut: At tax time, they must decide to whom their three children belong: to Geraldine or Suzanne. Says Suzanne, “They’re not property, they’re my family.”

Joel Howard and John Tracy Tucker of Connecticut: This couple has paid an additional $12,000 in taxes because of DOMA. “We are basically paying a penalty for being a gay couple,” says Joel.

Ailsa Wu and Kate Herman of Massachusetts: With their modest income, it’s a significant loss to be unable to file jointly. They must hire an accountant to prepare two sets of returns instead of one, and they pay more.

Paul Ruseau and Bob Ruseau of Massachusetts: With two small children and one stay-at-home dad, Paul and Bob take a tax hit that worries them for their children’s future.

There are more stories of couples affected by DOMA at www.gladlaw.org/doma/stories.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 55

(Washington, D.C., March 29, 2013)—Last week, several national LGBT groups and a cooperating attorney filed an administrative challenge to Medicare’s ban on medically necessary healthcare for transgender patients. Medicare, which provides healthcare to Americans ages 65 and older and younger people with certain qualifying disabilities, currently prohibits all forms of gender reassignment surgeries regardless of the individual patient’s diagnosis or serious medical needs.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and civil rights attorney Mary Lou Boelcke initiated the challenge on behalf of Denee Mallon, a transgender woman whose doctors have recommended surgery to alleviate her severe gender dysphoria.

“Medicare’s categorical exclusion of this care lacks any scientific basis,” said Shannon Minter, the Legal Director at NCLR. “Study after study has shown that these surgeries are the only effective treatment for many patients suffering from severe gender dysphoria.”

Ms. Mallon joined the United States Army when she was 17 years old and worked as a forensics investigator for a city police department after she was honorably discharged from the Army. She was later diagnosed with gender identity disorder, a serious medical condition that is characterized by intense and persistent discomfort with one’s birth sex.

“The American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, and the American Psychological Association all support these treatments for transgender patients,” said Joshua Block, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT and AIDS Project. “These procedures have been performed for decades and are proven to be safe and effective.”

Medicare adopted the ban, which is codified as National Coverage Determination (NCD) 140.3, more than thirty years ago. Decades of extensive scientific and clinical research since that time have established that these surgeries are safe and effective.

As a result of the administrative challenge, the Department Appeals Board (DAB) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must review the ban, determine whether it is reasonable based on current standards of care, and reverse it if it is not. The DAB is staffed by career civil servants who have been tasked with providing an impartial independent review of disputes concerning Medicare and other HHS programs. Earlier last week, the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on its own initiative included a statement on its website that it would be reconsidering the ban. CMS subsequently withdrew its proposal to reconsider the ban and through a spokesperson explained that the ban would instead be reviewed through the independent DAB process.

“What matters to us is that there will be a fair and scientifically based review of the ban. We don’t think the medical data supports it and are hopeful that CMS will agree,” said Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

###
The American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Project works to end discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression. https://www.gladlaw.org

Le Centre national pour les droits des lesbiennes est une organisation juridique nationale qui s'engage à faire progresser les droits humains et civils de la communauté lesbienne, gay, bisexuelle et transgenre par le biais de litiges, de défense des politiques publiques et d'éducation du public. http://www.nclrights.org

Mary Lou Boelcke is a civil rights attorney in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 55

Last week, several national LGBT groups and a cooperating attorney filed an administrative challenge to Medicare’s ban on medically necessary healthcare for transgender patients. Medicare, which provides healthcare to Americans ages 65 and older and younger people with certain qualifying disabilities, currently prohibits all forms of gender reassignment surgeries regardless of the individual patient’s diagnosis or serious medical needs.

En savoir plus ici.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 55

Washington, DC – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in États-Unis c. Windsor, challenging Section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for all federal purposes.

The following statement was made by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders’ Executive Director Lee Swislow after oral arguments today in États-Unis c. Windsor:

“For every day DOMA continues to be enforced by our federal government, thousands of legally married same-sex couples are denied critical protections.

DOMA is a blatantly discriminatory law which targets a particularly disliked group, impacts important personal interests, and represents a one-time departure from the usual process of allocating federal rights and benefits.

Same-sex couples who are legally married in their home states should be treated like all other married couples in this nation – with respect and dignity.

I am confident this case got a fair hearing today in our nation’s highest court. This day has been long in the making, and the question is not if, but when, this discriminatory law will be overturned.”

GLAD’s two DOMA challenges, Gill c. Office of Personnel Management et Pedersen c. Office of Personnel Management were considered at the Supreme Court conference in December, but were not granted certiorari.

GLAD filed Gill, the country’s first strategic challenge to DOMA in 2009; and filed Pedersen in 2010. Gill was the first case in which DOMA was found unconstitutional by a federal District Court, and also achieved the first appellate ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional in May 2012.

Gill was held by the Court and will most likely be addressed by the Court in June.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 55

Washington, DC – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Hollingsworth v. Perry, challenging California’s Proposition 8 that revoked same-sex couples’ ability to marry in the state.

The following statement was made by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defender’s Executive Director Lee Swislow after oral arguments:

“We are confident this case got a fair hearing today in our nation’s highest court. Gay and lesbian couples have the same love and make the same commitment as all couples, and deserve the same recognition as full citizens.

These couples are simply asking for the government to honor their fundamental right to marry and to treat them with equal dignity and respect under the law.

Our country’s history is one of expanding the circle of constitutional rights and protections to include more citizens, and our nation is always the better for it.

We are hopeful that the court will seize this historic moment, and come down on the side of fairness, dignity and equality.”

GLAD has been a leader in the fight to secure the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, starting with its 1997 litigation in Vermont leading to civil unions in 2000 and the landmark 2003 victory in Goodridge c. Ministère de la Santé publique making Massachusetts the first state to legally marry same-sex couples, followed by wins in Connecticut’s Supreme Court in 2008, in the New Hampshire and Vermont legislatures in 2009, and at the ballot box in Maine in 2012.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 55

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto and Edie Windsor

Marriage at the Supreme Court – Wednesday, March 27

Windsor c. États-Unis

Plaintiff: Edith Windsor

Federal constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of gay and lesbian couples. Read more at www.aclu.org/edie

Briefs and additional information: www.gladlaw.org/doma/documents et www.aclu.org/edie

Case Brought by: Paul, Weiss and the ACLU

Audio of the Argument: www.supremecourt.gov

For live updates from Washington D.C. throughout the day, follow: