The Supreme Court will decide an important LGBTQ+ case this session.
USA przeciwko Skrmettiemu is about whether state governments can tell families with transgender kids they can’t get their children health care that their doctors recommend, and that will allow them to be healthy, happy young people.
That’s a pretty harmful thing for states to do. Federal courts all over the country have agreed, saying governments can’t make a rule that the same safe effective medical care that is regularly used to help all kinds of kids must be denied only to transgender kids.
That’s discrimination. And what the Supreme Court is going to decide in this case is whether laws like these that deny something to people just because they are transgender go against an important principle in our constitution, that all people should have equal protection under the law.
And in fact the Court has already said something on this question. Just 4 years ago in a 2020 case called Bostock, the Court said that discriminating against someone because they are transgender, or gay or lesbian or bisexual, is discrimination on the basis of sex. Laws that discriminate on the basis of sex are subject to extra scrutiny. That means governments must be able to show a really strong reason why such a law is necessary even though it discriminates against some people. If they can’t show that compelling reason, the law has to go.
The fact is, states haven’t been able show any compelling reason why health care that has been safely used for decades should be denied just to transgender kids. Most federal courts have recognized that is not about health care, it’s about saying trans kids don’t deserve to get care they need like everyone else.
But a handful of higher courts have decided to ignore that important constitutional principle that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law and say it’s OK to discriminate against some people – in this case transgender people.
So now the Supreme Court is going to weigh in. There’s no reason the Court should say anything different in this case than they said in Bostock in 2020. Making sure people aren’t treated unfairly just because of who they are is key part of what our constitution stands for.
Kentucky Families and Civil Rights Groups Urge Supreme Court to Rule Against Discriminatory and Harmful Transgender Health Bans
In their opinia przyjaciela sądu filed today in Stany Zjednoczone przeciwko Skrmetti, Kentucky parents and a wide array of civil rights groups say laws like Tennessee’s and Kentucky’s discriminate against transgender people and harm youth and their families
LOUISVILLE, Ky – Kentucky parents of transgender children and a wide array of civil rights groups have weighed in as the Supreme Court prepares to hear Stany Zjednoczone przeciwko Skrmetti, the challenge to Tennessee’s ban on healthcare for transgender adolescents. The families are plaintiffs in Doe v Thornbury, a challenge to a similar law in Kentucky, and are joined by SAGE, National Trans Bar Association, LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York, Mazzoni Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF). They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
W piśmie dowodowym argumentuje się, że zakazy w Tennessee i Kentucky, podobnie jak te wprowadzone w innych stanach, celowo dyskryminują młodzież transpłciową, odmawiając jej dostępu do leków przepisywanych innym osobom. Przepisy te nie zakazują stosowania tych leków u wszystkich nieletnich, ale tylko w przypadku, gdy są one przepisywane osobom transpłciowym. W wyniku tego dyskryminującego traktowania młodzież transpłciowa nie jest w stanie uzyskać jedynego skutecznego leczenia poważnego stresu spowodowanego dysforią płciową.
“The parents challenging these laws have seen firsthand the positive impact appropriate medical care has had on their children’s wellbeing, and the detrimental health impacts their kids experience without it,” said Corey Shapiro, Legal Director at the ACLU of Kentucky. “Denying these treatments to transgender youth who need them is not only unlawful, it is heartbreaking for parents. We are proud to represent these Kentucky families and will continue to fight for their right to make decisions for their families without government interference.”
“You don’t have to know about transgender health care to know that these bans are not about medicine – they are about discrimination,” said Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. “They ban safe, effective and widely available medications only when they are prescribed for transgender adolescents. The discrimination baked into these laws is intentional, clear, and devastating. The Supreme Court in Bostock powerfully affirmed that discriminating against transgender people is sex discrimination. Under that standard, no state can justify denying transgender adolescents essential medical care.”
“Families, not the government, should make decisions about medical care,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “These bans target youth whose doctors have determined they need this care and whose parents have made informed decisions about what is best for their own children.”
The overwhelming consensus among medical professionals is that established medical treatments are safe, effective, and necessary to protect transgender adolescents’ wellbeing. Yet, 26 states have passed laws banning essential medical care for transgender youth.
Across the country, federal district courts have held that bans like those in Tennessee and Kentucky single out transgender youth in order to deny them safe, effective, and well-established medical care. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court agreed to review a Sixth Circuit opinion which reversed district court decisions blocking these bans in Tennessee and Kentucky. The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the Tennessee case, LW przeciwko Skrmetti, and the U.S. Solicitor General will argue against the ban when the Supreme Court hears the case later this year.
“If America is to make good on its promises of freedom without favor and equality without exception, families and their doctors, not politicians, must be able to make health care decisions for transgender youth,” powiedziałRachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “We urge the Court to protect everyone’s right to live as their true selves, free from discrimination or litmus tests, and to access the medical care they need.”
“Transgender older adults have lived through eras where access to hormone therapy was severely limited or non-existent,” said Aaron Tax, SAGE’s Managing Director of Government Affairs and Policy Advocacy. “Fortunately, today we have evidence-based clinical guidelines that affirm what we now know: hormone therapy is safe, effective, and can be life-saving. Every generation deserves the right to access this vital, gender-affirming care.”
“The National Trans Bar Association endorses the request for the Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision and make clear that denying individuals medically necessary treatment on the basis of their gender identity violates the Equal Protection Clause,” powiedziałRafael Langer-Osuna, Co-Chair of the National Trans Bar Association. “The National Trans Bar Association supports the right of all transgender people, regardless of age, to have access to medically necessary gender-affirming care. As transgender and non-binary attorneys and law students, we unequivocally stand with the plaintiffs and with the transgender youth of Tennessee and Kentucky, and condemn these states’ discriminatory attempts to deny their citizens life-saving medical care. We will continue to use our legal training and experience to protect transgender people throughout the U.S. and the world against discriminatory attacks on basic human rights.”
“BALIF unequivocally supports the right for transgender youth to have access to gender-affirming medical care,” said Dustin Helmer, Co-Chair of Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF). “The consequences of denying this right are not only immoral, but often life-threatening. BALIF endorses the request for the Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision and make it clear that bans on medicinal treatment for transgender adolescents violate the Equal Protection Clause. We abhor Tennessee and Kentucky’s discriminatory attacks on transgender adolescents, and we will continue to fight for policies that uplift and provide safety and dignity for transgender people all over the U.S. and world.”
“Transgender young people and their families need access to medically necessary treatment, and they need the Court to recognize their right to determine, with their doctors, what is best for them without unjustifiable and discriminatory government interference,” said Thomas W. Ude, Jr., Legal and Public Policy Director at Mazzoni Center.
The Kentucky families’ brief is among over 30 friend-of-the-court briefs being filed today. Bioethicists, medical providers, medical historians, family law professors, additional families in states where care has been banned and more are urging the Supreme Court to rule against bans on essential medical care for transgender adolescents so that families can make the health care decisions that are best for their children.
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Announces Ricardo Martinez as Incoming Executive Director
Current CEO of Equality Texas will bring battle-tested leadership experience to one of the nation’s foremost LGBTQ+ litigation organizations at a pivotal moment in the fight to secure civil rights protections for queer and transgender people and families
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) today announced Ricardo Martinez (he/him), current Chief Executive Officer of Equality Texas, as the organization’s incoming Executive Director beginning September 4, 2024.
As CEO of Texas’ largest nonpartisan statewide LGBTQ+ political advocacy organization since 2019, Martinez has been on the front lines in one of the key battleground states in the current national wave of anti-LGBTQ legislation. Under his leadership, Equality Texas led advocacy efforts to defeat 96% of 140+ anti-LGBTQ+ bills filed during the 2023 state legislative session and 99% of 76 anti-LGBTQ+ bills filed in 2021.
“Following a robust nationwide search in partnership with Koya Partners, GLAD’s Board of Directors is proud to announce Ricardo Martinez as the organization’s next Executive Director,” said GLAD Board President Shane Dunn. “Ricardo’s accomplishments at Equality Texas in a tumultuous political environment showcase his leadership strengths and vision. He has demonstrated a commitment to amplifying the voices of marginalized communities along with a willingness to be in the trenches organizing at the grassroots and grasstops levels.
“GLAD is doubling down on our commitment to challenging emerging anti-LGBTQ+ laws across the country, defending and expanding upon the rights and progress we’ve achieved over the past half century, and advocating for positive policy and legislative change. We could not be more excited to have Ricardo join GLAD at this moment, to bring his vision and battle-tested experiences in the heat of some of the fiercest fights for LGBTQ equality we’ve seen to date. GLAD shares our highest admiration and appreciation for the entire team at Equality Texas and their critical ongoing work in our collaborative justice movement,” Dunn added. “Ricardo will be a transformational leader during a pivotal time of organizational growth at GLAD and at a critical moment for the civil rights of LGBTQ+ people and families across our nation. I also want to thank Richard Burns, GLAD’s Interim Executive Director since October and a long-time movement leader, for his leadership and support as we prepare for this next phase.”
Ricardo Martinez
“It has been an honor to lead Equality Texas’ outstanding, dedicated team over the past 5 years to foster deep connections with our Texas community and fight back against hundreds of hostile anti-LGBTQ+ bills. That experience has also given me a profound understanding of the impact of the law on LGBTQ+ people and our families, and a deep recognition that legislative advocacy and litigation must work hand in hand to achieve justice and protect our rights,” said Martinez. “While it is difficult to leave the people and work I love in Texas, I am energized to be joining an organization that has been at the forefront of advancing and defending the civil rights of LGBTQ people and people with HIV for nearly half a century. GLAD’s strategic legal advocacy has made positive impacts for LGBTQ+ people across the country for decades, myself included, and I am proud to have the opportunity to lead and support the work of such an inspirational team in this moment when the defense of LGBTQ+ civil rights in the courts is more critical than ever.”
During Martinez’ tenure at Equality Texas, he significantly increased staff capacity and financial support to meet the current moment and deepened advocacy for and with communities across the state. Under his leadership, Equality Texas developed a network of 300 LGBTQ-serving organizations and allies, launched the Queer Texas Crisis Fund to provide emergency relief to communities disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, and partnered with the White House to schedule state-wide pop-up clinics and provide vaccine information and access during the height of MPOX spread.
“Ricardo leaves Equality Texas and the Equality Foundation stronger, and thanks to his leadership, we are better positioned than ever to lead the fight for equality for LGBTQIA+ Texans,” said Kevin Haynes, Equality Texas Board Chair and & Brad Nitschke, Equality Texas Foundation Board Chair. “Please join us in wishing Ricardo the very best in his future endeavors and thanking him for his invaluable service and leadership. While we will all miss Ricardo, we are delighted that this move will help strengthen the bond with GLAD, and we look forward to a productive future together.”
“During a time when LGBTQ people are fighting for our lives, we need leaders like Ricardo who are dynamic and steadfast in their convictions more than ever,” said Imani Rupert-Gordon, President of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “Ricardo has a rich understanding of what it takes to win, and I am confident he will lead GLAD in a way that will both meet the current moment and be influential in building a stronger movement for the future.”
In addition to leading Equality Texas, Martinez has contributed to the growth and impact of organizations including PENCIL, Summer Search, GLSEN, and Stand for Children, and has a proven track record of engaging supporters to propel the critical LGBTQ+ rights advocacy needed at this moment.
A first-generation immigrant who moved with his family from Mexico City to New York as a child, Martinez will be the first Latino leader of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. Joining GLAD will bring him closer to his Brooklyn home and family as he relocates to New England. Martinez is a graduate of Stony Brook University and holds a master’s degree in nonprofit management from The New School for Public Policy, Management, and Environment. He has been recognized as an emerging LGBTQ Leader by the Obama Administration and received Stony Brook University’s 40 Under 40 award for civil service and activism.
GLAD has benefited greatly from the leadership of Interim Executive Director Richard Burns following former Executive Director Janson Wu’s move to the Trevor Project last October. Burns will continue in his Interim role through Martinez’s transition in September.
About GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders
Founded in Boston in 1978, GLAD is at the forefront of civil rights litigation and advocacy for LGBTQ+ people and people with HIV across New England and around the country. GLAD led the legal marriage equality movement, securing the first state court victory with the landmark Massachusetts Goodridge przeciwko Departamentowi Zdrowia Publicznego ruling 20 years ago and arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court to secure national marriage equality with the Obergefell decision in 2015.
GLAD started the first Transgender Rights Project at an LGBTQ+ legal organization in 2008, secured significant early court rulings establishing the rights of transgender students and affirming transgender nondiscrimination protections under sex discrimination laws, and remains at the vanguard of transgender rights advocacy.
In 1998 GLAD secured a Supreme Court ruling affirming that people with HIV are protected from discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
GLAD has recently welcomed four additional attorneys to its legal team to expand its capacity to meet the current moment and to protect and advance LGBTQ+ legal rights for the long term.
Obecne procesy sądowe i legislacyjne GLAD obejmują kwestionowanie niebezpiecznych praw stanowych zakazujących dostępu do opieki medycznej dla nastolatków transpłciowych; zwalczanie politycznie motywowanych ataków na szkoły publiczne i zapewnienie uczniom LGBTQ+ równego dostępu do edukacji; zwiększanie bezpieczeństwa prawnego rodzin LGBTQ+ i ich dzieci poprzez zaktualizowane przepisy stanowe dotyczące rodzicielstwa; obronę praw pracowników transpłciowych, w tym równego dostępu do opieki zdrowotnej; ochronę i rozszerzanie dostępu do PrEP w celu rozwiązania problemu rasowych dysproporcji w dostępie i zakończenia epidemii HIV; oraz zdecydowaną obronę wolności zawierania małżeństw.
About Equality Texas
For nearly 50 years, Equality Texas has been on the frontlines of the fight for LGBTQIA+ equality in Texas. In recent years, Equality Texas has held the line against over 200 anti-LGBTQIA+ bills. Beyond advocacy in the Texas Legislature, Equality Texas words to connect community members with resources, educate the public about LGBTQIA+ issues, and train leaders for future generations.
This Disability Pride Month, we’re highlighting incredible LGBTQ+ disability justice advocates and organizations fighting to affirm and protect the rights of people with disabilities.
Aubrey Smalls
Aubrey Smalls (he/him) is a Black queer disability advocate and filmmaker with dwarfism. He uses his platform to advocate for the dwarfism community with a focus on education, including running an account dedicated to dwarfism history, spreading information about both historical oppression of and violence toward little people, and uplifting positive figures and moments for people with dwarfism. Smalls is also producing and directing a documentary comedy film about dwarfism, the effects of disability hate groups, and finding your freedom. Smalls has dedicated his creative work to uplifting the stories of people with dwarfism, both in the past and the present.
Jen Deerinwater
Jen Deerinwater (hir) is a bisexual, Two-Spirit, multiply disabled citizen of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma who is a prolific journalist and organizer. Hir studies center politics and government, which inform hir masses of writing on disability rights, along with reproductive rights and climate action. Hir indigenous identity has also influenced all Jen does. Jen founded the nonprofit Crushing Colonialism as a method to uplift indigenous voices, stories, and artists and is on the board Jen is also on the board for the Disabled Journalist Association and is a Senior Advisor for the Disability Culture Lab, along with serving on the Ending the HIV Epidemic among Urban Natives Community Advisory Board.
Olu Niyi-Awosusi
Olu Niyi-Awosusi (they/them) is a Black nonbinary disability activist who described themself as an ethical technologist. They advocate for and help work toward an online world that is useful and inclusive to people with disabilities and people with limited technological access. They work as a front-end web developer while writing and giving talks about how to create a more equitable and accessible “woke web.” They cite their time studying philosophy as what got them interested in tech ethics. In addition to tech focused work, they also founded a mutual aid group to help provide gender-affirming clothing to the LGBTQ+ community in the UK.
Karin Hitselberger
Karin Hitselberger (she/her) is a plus-sized asexual disability advocate, blogger, and consultant. She has a history of work with nonprofits with a specialty in crisis counseling and support for the needs of vulnerable populations. Hitselberger’s blog and other writing focus on disability and how it intersects with body image and pop culture. She believes that writing and voicing her experience as a disabled fat woman is important because it can remind us that we are never alone in our experiences to read about the lives of others.
Syrus Marcus Ware
Syrus Marcus Ware (he/him) is a Black transgender disability and abolitionist artist, activist, and scholar. His artistic work includes painting, installations, performance art, and curatorial practice. Ware’s solo and collaborative works have explored social justice and Black activist culture since 2013. Ware is a core team member of Black Lives Matter and an assistant professor at McMaster University teaching classes on disability performance.
Drag Syndrome
Drag Syndrome is a drag collective including both drag kings and queens with Down Syndrome. Founded in 2019, Drag Syndrome provides a space and funds for artists with Down Syndrome to explore their craft and use drag to mold their own persona and performance art. Daniel Vais, the founder of Drag Syndrome, has discussed how the collective allows performers to be celebrated for their skill, craft, and creativity, he expressed that “[Drag Syndrome] allows them to show their talents. Yes, these are artists who have Down syndrome, but that’s not the main issue…the extra chromosome is only a bonus.”
Transgender, Reproductive, and Fertility Care: The Fight for Health Care Equality and Bodily Autonomy
GLAD has been on the forefront of safeguarding bodily autonomy for decades – and that is critical in this legislative session for transgender people, people who can get pregnant, and LGBTQ+ people who need fertility care. Health care equity work also aims to address the barriers to safe, quality medical care disproportionately affects people of color and low-income individuals as well. These disparities underscore the urgent need to address systemic inequalities and ensure that everyone has equal access to essential health care services.
In the face of escalating threats to transgender health care, GLAD remains vigilant in its defense of trans people’s rights to safe, essential care. Across legal battles in multiple states, GLAD is at the forefront, challenging discriminatory laws and advocating for the rights of transgender youth and adults alike. In Florida federal court, our attorney Jennifer Levi argued at a hearing in December to protect access to transgender people in Doe przeciwko Ladapo, and in June the court ruled to permanently block that unconstitutional law. In Boe przeciwko Marshallowi, GLAD is supporting transgender youth and their families in need of essential care after the court allowed a health care ban to take effect in January. And GLAD has also submitted opposition briefs against similar laws in Tennessee and Kentucky in LW przeciwko Skrmetti I Doe przeciwko Thornbury at the 6th Circuit Appellate Court (which will be heard at the Supreme Court later this year), and others in Oklahoma. Our opposition is committed, strategic, and well-funded, but we rely on our decades-long experience, which has won the day.
In the legislative arena, we are advocating for shield bills designed to protect trans and other vital health care access amidst mounting attacks. We’ve advocated successfully for these crucial bills in Connecticut, Massachusetts, I Vermont in previous sessions, and most recently in Maine I Rhode Island. There are currently laws or executive orders protecting care providers in 14 states and Washington, DC. While these bills shield providers and the patients’ families against prosecution for care legal in these states, hostile outside forces like Libs of TikTok have been spreading misinformation and fear to slow the passage of these vital protections.
Health care access struggles are interconnected. States had been chipping away at abortion access years before the Dobbsdecision which overturned Roe przeciwko Wade, but after the ruling, access fell precipitously. And this crucial care is still being brought in front of our higher courts – the Supreme Court Justices heard oral arguments in March, when a team of anti-abortion medical providers called into question the FDA-approved medication mifepristone, which is used to administer abortions for over 60 percent of US patients. In June, the Justices threw out the lawsuit without ruling on the merits of the case, ensuring continued access to the drug.
And earlier this year, the Alabama Supreme Court delivered a shocking ruling that declared embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) should be considered children. Alabama fertility clinics shut down IVF services for weeks, and sowed concern for people across the country who want to build their family with this treatment. The need to protect access and providers is starkly clear.
Access to safe, patient-centered care is a fundamental right that we must fight for every day. By advocating for the autonomy of patients and care providers in medical decision-making, GLAD is dedicated to ensuring people can access the care they need. Whether it’s affirming gender identity, seeking abortion care, or pursuing assisted reproduction, GLAD stands as a steadfast ally in the fight for health care access and bodily autonomy.
Dedicated commitment to health care equity and patient rights is more than just about a single appointment or procedure – it’s about safeguarding the well-being and dignity of all. As threats to health care access persist, we are resolute in advocating for comprehensive protections that uphold the principle of bodily autonomy for everyone.
A version of this story was originally published in the Summer 2024 GLAD Briefs newsletter. OdnośnieAd więcej.
Aktualizacja: On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a shameful ruling that homeless people are not included in the Constitution’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling will make homelessness drastically worse and impact the 250,000+ people who sleep outside each night, as well as millions of Americans who are just one missed paycheck away from homelessness.
Over 600,000 people experience homelessness in America, and nearly half of them sleep outside. Safe and affordable housing, not carceral measures like jails, fines, or forced treatment, will solve homelessness.
GLAD and 45 other organizations committed to ending discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community submitted an amicus (friend of the court) brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case concerning the criminalization of homelessness. The organizations argue that local ordinances that punish people for sleeping in public areas when shelter beds are unavailable violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and have a disproportionate impact on LGBTQI+ people, who already experience elevated rates of homelessness due to discrimination and marginalization.
The Supreme Court heard the case on April 22, 2024. The Court will issue a decision by June 30, 2024.
The amicus brief was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and was signed by the following organizations:
Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, San Francisco, Cal.
Black & Pink National, Omaha, Neb.
Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Black Trans Nation, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Center for Community Alternatives, Syracuse, N.Y.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY.
DC LGBTQ+ Community Center, Washington, D.C.
Desiree Alliance, Calabasas, Cal.
Drug Policy Alliance, New York, N.Y.
Equality Federation, Portland, Or.
Equality New York, New York, N.Y.
Fountain House, New York, N.Y.
Free to Be Youth Project, New York, N.Y.
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Boston, Mass.
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing
LGBTQ+ Equality, Washington, D.C.
Harvard LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic, Cambridge, Mass.
Housing Works, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Washington, D.C.
If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, Oakland, Cal.
LGBT Bar of New York, New York, N.Y.
Make the Road New York, Brooklyn, N.Y.
National Center for LGBTQ Rights, San Francisco, Cal.
National Center for Transgender Equality, Washington, D.C.
National Trans Bar Association, San Francisco, Cal.
National Women’s Law Center, Washington, D.C.
New York County Defender Services, New York, N.Y.
New York Legal Assistance Group, New York, N.Y.
New York Transgender Advocacy Group, New York, N.Y.
Phoenix Transition Program, Atlanta, Ga.
Rainbow Health Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.
Rights Behind Bars, Washington, D.C.
Ruth Ellis Center, Highland Park, Mich.
SAGE, New York, N.Y.
Sakhi for South Asian Women, New York, N.Y.
Sylvia Rivera Law Project, New York, N.Y.
Tom Homann LGBTQ+ Law Association, San Diego, Cal.
Trans Pride Initiative, Dallas, Tex.
Trans Sistas of Color Project, Detroit, Mich.
Trans(forming), Atlanta, Ga.
Transgender Assistance Program of Virginia, Virginia Beach, Va.
Transgender Law Center, Oakland, Cal.
Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund, New York, N.Y.
Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M.
Potrzeba ochrony dostępu do opieki zdrowotnej staje się coraz pilniejsza
As part of the wave of anti-LGBTQ+ state legislation, 24 states have passed transgender health care bans. As GLAD and others challenge these bans in court, shielding access to care in non-ban states and protecting the providers who deliver it is becoming more urgent.
Health care professionals who provide care for transgender children and adolescents follow well-established standards that have been developed through decades of clinical study. It is age- and developmentally appropriate treatment requiring informed consent of the young person’s parents and informed assent by the patient, and involves in-depth screening by a multidisciplinary care team.
Every major U.S. professional medical association, representing 1.3 million doctors, recognizes this as safe, best practice, and the only proven effective care for transgender adolescents and teenagers suffering from gender dysphoria.
Parents have testified in statehouses and courthouses around the country about how receiving the doctor-recommended care their children need has enabled their young people to live happier, healthier lives – and about their distress over the harmful impact of taking that care away.
Despite all of this, as of March 2024, 24 states have passed laws banning standard-of-care medical treatment for transgender adolescents. 36% of transgender youth aged 13-17 now live in states where the doctor-recommended health care they need has been made illegal. At least two states – Florida and Ohio – have made moves to restrict how transgender adults can access health care as well.
These bans have been pushed by politicians, not doctors or parents. They do not make health care safer for anyone. They do nothing to support parents as they navigate the best options to aid their children’s physical and mental wellbeing. These are blanket bans that take away parents’ ability to make important decisions about their kids’ health care and deny transgender adolescents treatment that has helped them thrive.
GLAD is directly challenging two of these bans in federal court – in Alabama I Floryda – and supporting our partner legal organizations in several other states. When judges have heard the full facts – heard testimony from medical experts, parents, and transgender people – they have ruled against these bans. But as states have pursued appeals into appellate courts that are receptive to backtracking on a range of civil rights protections, including for transgender people, we are starting to see the impact of some of these laws taking effect.
GLAD Attorneys Jennifer Levi and Chris Erchull, and the rest of the legal team from Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., the Human Rights Campaign, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights representing Florida transgender people and families at Doe przeciwko Ladapo trial in December
The cost to families
Imagine being a parent whose child needs medical care that has been shown to work, is covered by health insurance, and is the widely accepted standard of care. And imagine there is suddenly nowhere in your home state you can get them that care, because some politicians have decided they don’t like it. For many families, the only answer is to travel or in some cases move.
As a recent report from Campaign for Southern Equality shows, there are huge costs to these options. Families across the South and Midwest where these bans have taken effect may now need to spend up to 18 hours driving, or pay for airfare and hundreds of dollars in related travel costs, in addition to time off work and school, to make one health care appointment for their child. That’s in addition to costs associated with starting at a new health care practice, and the time it may take to find and secure an appointment. Moving incurs its own costs of course, and means uprooting your and your children’s lives – something most families would rather not do, and shouldn’t have to simply to ensure their child can get health care.
Diminishing access to care
Imagine being a healthcare provider, talking with a family, knowing there is treatment that can help their child – treatment you are trained to provide – and being powerless to help. Providers are wrestling with this every day in states with active bans, where hospitals and practice groups have been forced to shut down care, clinics have closed, and some pharmacies have stopped filling prescriptions.
This is devastating for families and transgender individuals, and the harmful impacts are not limited to states where care has been completely banned. Increased demand in states where care remains available leads to longer wait times, and uncertainty about the reach of bans is also causing a chilling effect for providers and health care institutions. In Florida, where GLAD is challenging restrictions that prohibit well-qualified nurse practitioners from delivering transgender health care for adults but ostensibly allow doctors to continue to do so, one clinic director told the Washington Post recently that he has been unable to hire physicians, because the new law “made most doctors too nervous to commit.”
Some states with bans are also attempting to track the health care residents receive elsewhere. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, for instance, has sought the medical records of Texas transgender youth who received care from a Seattle hospital. Such efforts are clearly aimed at intimidating families seeking care for their children, as well as the providers who serve them.
The good news is that 13 states and DC have now passed laws to shield providers of transgender health care – as well as reproductive health care which is under attack by the same political forces – from the hostile reach of harmful bans. Another 3 states have Executive Orders protecting care, and 6 states have protections for reproductive health care alone.
GLAD has worked alongside providers and state LGBTQ+ community and reproductive equity advocates to pass such laws in Massachusetts and Vermont, including working this session on bills in Rhode Island and Maine.
While the specifics may vary, shield bills are carefully drafted to align with constitutional requirements, federal law, and a given state’s statutory structure. They do several important things to protect access to care:
They establish that essential reproductive health care and medical care for transgender people are legally protected in the state.
They ensure a state’s resources are not used to further hostile litigation from other states where essential care is banned.
They protect patients from having their medical records about protected health care shared with law enforcement agencies in other states where such care is banned.
They may protect the personal contact information of health care providers – something that can be an important protection as medical care providers have been increasingly personally targeted with harassment and threats.
They may also ensure that insurance plans and health care institutions don’t penalize providers simply for providing medical care that is legal in their state.
These protections are growing more urgent, not only because the number of states banning essential health care is increasing, but because those bans and the disinformation being circulated to support them are designed to have a chilling effect on health care providers and institutions everywhere. At the same time, the tactics being employed by opponents are becoming more and more concerning.
Opponents of the Maine shield bill, LD 227, many of them from outside Maine and spurred on by the anti-LGBTQ extremist group Libs of TikTok, used a campaign of intimidation and disinformation about transgender people to try and stop the bill from moving forward. Bomb threats were called into the state house and the homes of the bill sponsors during the week of the committee hearing. Attorneys General from 16 states with transgender health care bans, led by Tennessee, wrote a letter threatening legal action if Maine passed a law protecting health care within its own borders.
GLAD partnered with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, Maine health care associations and providers, and many other organizations and individuals to provide accurate information to legislators and counter the false and at times cruel rhetoric being used against the bill. Maine’s Attorney General responded that the state has every legal authority “to decide what access to health care people in Maine receive, free from interference by out-of-state actors.” In the end, a majority of Maine legislators saw through the fear and falsehoods. LD 227 passed on April 12 and was signed into law by Governor Mills on April 22.
If we want access to quality, science-based health care and the ability for each of us – not the government – to make personal medical decisions for ourselves and our families, we have to protect it – in the courts, in our legislatures, and by making sure providers can practice the medicine they are trained to deliver without hostile, politically-driven interference.
Artykuł ten został pierwotnie opublikowany w biuletynie GLAD Briefs z lata 2024 r. OdnośnieAd więcej.
Michigan wprowadza nowe przepisy chroniące rodziny LGBTQ+ w ramach aktualizacji prawa o rodzicielstwie
1 kwietnia gubernator Gretchen Whitmer podpisała Ustawa o ochronie rodziny w Michigan, prawo, które zagwarantuje, że dzieci urodzone dzięki wspomaganemu rozrodowi i mające rodziców LGBTQ+ będą miały równy dostęp do bezpiecznego związku prawnego z rodzicami i podstawowych praw, które się z tym wiążą.
Gubernator Whitmer podpisuje ustawę o ochronie rodziny w Michigan
Zbiór przestarzałych przepisów obowiązujących w całym kraju nadal stawia rodziców LGBTQ+, ich dzieci i wszystkie rodziny powstałe w wyniku wspomaganego rozrodu w trudnej sytuacji. Aktualizacja tych przepisów, aby uwzględnić rodziny LGBTQ+, jest priorytetem GLAD. W związku z projektami ustaw podobnymi do ustawy o ochronie rodziny w stanie Michigan, które są w toku, Massachusetts, Minnesota i Pensylwania, mamy nadzieję, że Michigan stanie się inspiracją dla innych stanów.
Dyrektor ds. Rzecznictwa Rodzinnego w GLAD, Polly Crozier, ściśle współpracowała z lokalnymi działaczami społecznymi z Michigan Fertility Alliance oraz prawniczką Courtney Joslin, reporterką ds. Jednolitej Ustawy o Opiece nad Rodzicami (Uniform Parentage Act, UPA) z 2017 roku, aby uchwalić ustawę o ochronie rodziny w stanie Michigan. UPA to bezpartyjne, modelowe prawodawstwo, które zapewnia, że stanowe przepisy dotyczące opieki nad dziećmi są zgodne z konstytucją, zorientowane na dziecko i uwzględniają wszystkie rodziny, niezależnie od płci, stanu cywilnego rodziców czy sposobu ich założenia. Michigan jest pierwszym stanem na Środkowym Zachodzie i siódmym stanem w kraju, po Maine, Waszyngtonie, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut i Kolorado, który kompleksowo zaktualizował swoje przepisy dotyczące opieki nad dziećmi, aby chronić rodziny LGBTQ+ w oparciu o ustawę UPA z 2017 roku.
„Michigan pokazało nam, jak powinno wyglądać wzmacnianie rodzin w 2024 roku: uczynienie ich bardziej dostępnymi dla wszystkich rodzin, w tym rodzin LGBTQ+, aby mogły uzyskać bezpieczeństwo i stabilizację, które wiążą się z prawnym rodzicielstwem” – mówi Crozier.
W czerwcu ubiegłego roku GLAD we współpracy z Movement Advancement Project, COLAGE, National Center for Lesbian Rights i Family Equality opublikowało raport na temat stanu przepisów dotyczących rodzicielstwa. Relacje zagrożone: dlaczego musimy zaktualizować stanowe przepisy dotyczące rodzicielstwa, aby chronić dzieci i rodziny szczegółowo opisał, w jaki sposób obecne w kraju niejednolite przepisy dotyczące rodzicielstwa – z których wiele nie było aktualizowanych od dziesięcioleci – stawiają rodziców LGBTQ+ i ich dzieci w trudnej sytuacji.
Prawie 1 na 3 dorosłych LGBTQ+ w USA wychowuje dzieci poniżej 18. roku życia, wiele z nich w stanach, w których wciąż obowiązują przestarzałe przepisy. Oznacza to, że zdecydowanie zbyt wiele dzieci w rodzinach LGBTQ+ jest potencjalnie zagrożonych, a rodzice LGBTQ+ muszą pokonywać kosztowne, czasochłonne i inwazyjne przeszkody prawne, aby chronić swoje rodziny.
Przestarzałe przepisy dotyczące rodzicielstwa mogą sprawić, że dzieci nie będą miały przy sobie rodziców, gdy będą ich najbardziej potrzebować, np. w czasie kryzysu medycznego, lub mogą doprowadzić do tego, że rodzic, który nie ma prawnego zabezpieczenia na mocy prawa swojego stanu, straci kontakt z dzieckiem w takich okolicznościach, jak śmierć prawnego rodzica lub zakończenie związku rodziców.
Nowe prawo w Michigan jest następstwem agresywnych działań w całym kraju, mających na celu ograniczenie możliwości Amerykanów podejmowania osobistych decyzji o tym, czy, kiedy i jak zakładać rodziny, a także działań mających na celu podważenie równych praw osób LGBTQ+ i ich rodzin.
Gubernator Whitmer i Dyrektor ds. Rodziny Rzecznictwo Polly Crozier
Od czasu, gdy Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych orzekł w 2022 roku, że nie ma federalnego prawa konstytucyjnego do aborcji, nasiliły się wysiłki mające na celu ograniczenie nie tylko aborcji, ale także antykoncepcji i dostępu do metod budowania rodziny, takich jak zapłodnienie in vitro. Na początku tego roku doszło do bezprecedensowego Orzeczenie Sądu Najwyższego Alabamy skutecznie zablokował dostęp do zapłodnienia in vitro w tym stanie, zanim ustawodawcy nie wprowadzili częściowego i problematycznego rozwiązania.
Oburzenie w całym kraju w odpowiedzi na orzeczenie w sprawie Alabamy jasno pokazało, że zapłodnienie in vitro i inne formy leczenia niepłodności oraz wspomagane rozrodczość są ważnymi opcjami dla wielu osób, które chcą budować rodzinę. Jednak nawet w wielu stanach, gdzie panuje silna ochrona wolności reprodukcyjnej – jak w Massachusetts, gdzie… Ustawa o rodzicielstwie w Massachusetts jest w toku – dzieci urodzone dzięki wspomaganemu rozrodowi nadal nie mają niezbędnych zabezpieczeń.
„W wielu stanach przepisy dotyczące rodzicielstwa są przestarzałe od dziesięcioleci i nie nadążają za procesem tworzenia rodzin” – mówi Joslin. „Co istotne, wiele dzieci urodzonych dzięki wspomaganemu rozrodowi – w tym zapłodnieniu in vitro i macierzyństwu zastępczemu – nie ma wyraźnych więzi prawnych z rodzicami. Kiedy dzieci nie mają prawnych więzi z rodzicami, są wyjątkowo bezbronne; mogą nie być uprawnione do alimentów ani do istotnych świadczeń rządowych”.
„W obliczu wysiłków zmierzających do ograniczenia wolności reprodukcyjnej Amerykanów i cofnięcia ochrony osób LGBTQ+ i ich rodzin” – dodaje Crozier – „ustawa o ochronie rodziny w Michigan stanowi inspirujący przykład dla innych stanów, w których luki w przepisach dotyczących rodzicielstwa nadal sprawiają, że rodziny są narażone na niebezpieczeństwo”.
Artykuł ten został pierwotnie opublikowany w biuletynie GLAD Briefs z lata 2024 r. OdnośnieAd więcej.
Przełamywanie barier w dostępie do PrEP: wyzwania i możliwości
GLAD founded its AIDS Law Project in 1984 at a time when many people died within months of diagnosis. It would have been unfathomable to the hundreds of thousands of young people who died in the first three decades of the HIV epidemic – and to the parents, children, spouses, partners, friends, and caretakers who survived them – that there would one day be a fully effective daily pill that prevents HIV transmission by close to 100 percent. PrEP is just that. Yet less than a third of the people who need PrEP (HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis) are taking it because formidable barriers from insurance practices to stigma to racial inequities remain.
Photo credit: Michael Fleshman
PrEP remains under-utilized, particularly among communities most at risk for HIV transmission. In 2022, the CDC reported that only 13% of Black people and 24% of Latinx people eligible for PrEP received it, compared to 94% of eligible white people. This stark disparity underscores the urgent need for intervention.
GLAD has been fighting impediments to PrEP access and working to pass laws that will expand the avenues for people to receive PrEP, especially new forms of PrEP such as long-acting injectables. Recently, the US Court of Appeals heard arguments in Braidwood przeciwko Becerra. In this case, a Texas Court struck down a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurers cover PrEP without any charge to the patient. GLAD filed a friend-of-court brief in the case, which reminded the Court of the profound suffering and death experienced by so many earlier in the epidemic.
Working with epidemiologists at Yale, we also calculated the increase in HIV infections if the court upholds the elimination of this important ACA provision. We concluded that there would be at least 20,000 additional preventable HIV infections in 5 years at a cost to the healthcare system of 8 billion dollars! This harm will disproportionately impact people of color who have the least access to PrEP now. We hope this critical information about the consequences of its decision will help the Court understand the importance of maintaining the ACA’s protections.
GLAD has also been working to pass state laws to challenge other barriers to PrEP. Prior authorization, an insurance practice requiring delays while patients wait for coverage approval, significantly impedes access to new long-acting injectable forms of PrEP. Injectable PrEP is a crucial option for people who, because of their circumstances, such as homelessness or fear of disclosure, are not able to adhere to a daily pill regimen. Prior authorization requirements create delays and mean people do not follow up for care. Even after the delay, insurance companies frequently deny approval.
GLAD is working with our partners on bills in Rhode Island and Massachusetts that would prohibit insurers from imposing prior authorization or cost sharing for any HIV prevention medication. The legislation has passed the Senate in Rhode Island. If signed into law, it would be the first of its kind and could build momentum for similar initiatives in other states. Previous victories, such as ensuring PrEP access for eligible minors in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and enabling pharmacy access without an initial doctor’s prescription in Maine and Rhode Island, demonstrate how far we have come in breaking down barriers.
We have the medical tools to end the epidemic. But now we need the laws and policies that will make access to PrEP a reality for all.
Artykuł ten został pierwotnie opublikowany w biuletynie GLAD Briefs z lata 2024 r. OdnośnieAd więcej.
Meeting People Where They’re At – But Not Leaving Them There
In today’s fragmented world, where many interactions occur online, engaging in meaningful conversations with people with different viewpoints can seem like an uphill battle. Yet, when it comes to issues impacting LGBTQ+ people, these conversations can have a powerful impact. Addressing misunderstandings and discussing issues impacting LGBTQ+ people and our lives can help slow the spread of misinformation, build understanding, and lessen support for harmful legislation.
Plaintiffs and community celebration at the MA State House for the first anniversary of marriage equality.
We’ve seen the power of this throughout our movement. We are celebrating 20 years of marriage equality in Massachusetts this year, but the fact is marriage wasn’t settled after GLAD’s landmark Goodridgecourt victory in November 2003, or even on the day couples finally began to marry on May 17, 2004. It took another three years to build support and defend the freedom to marry in Massachusetts from the threat of a constitutional amendment and another decade to win marriage nationally. And by the time the Supreme Court decided Obergefellin 2015 there was a super-majority of support for marriage equality across the country. That happened, in part, because our community launched a movement that centered our stories—of love, commitment, family, community, and what marriage meant to us. We talked to lawmakers, community groups, clergy, business leaders, friends, and family. People listened and learned and were moved to join the cause.
GLAD staff and board celebrating the success of the Yes on 3 campaign
A similar story played out when, in 2018, opponents attempted to repeal the Massachusetts transgender nondiscrimination law on the ballot. With the Yes on 3 campaign, transgender people told their stories, sharing the joys and challenges of their lives with friends, family, lawmakers, the media, and on the doorsteps of their neighbors and even total strangers. Again, people listened, learned, and joined us. We organized and won the support of city and town councils around the commonwealth and editorial support from major media outlets. On Election Night, Yes On 3 prevailed with a whopping 67.8 percent of the vote, making Massachusetts the first state in the US to uphold protections for trans and nonbinary people by popular vote.
Our personal stories, and those of young trans people in our lives, can help humanize complex issues and foster empathy. Today, when we are facing legislation and local initiatives targeting transgender youth around the country, one-on-one conversations with people in your life can be a powerful place to start to shift misunderstanding. Many people may not know a trans person or know that they do. With so much debate in the media and online, you may find yourself in a conversation with someone you care about who has questions or needs the facts. Our loved ones might not know the best way to talk about these things, but if they feel heard, there’s a great opportunity to build connection and understanding.
Addressing misinformation requires patience, empathy, and a commitment to factual discussions. By emphasizing shared values and finding common ground, we can build understanding even in the face of disagreement. Last year, during the holiday season, Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies Mary Bonauto and GLAD’s Public Education department teamed up to create resources for our community on how to talk with people unfamiliar with what it means to be transgender and the harms transgender young people are facing.
Tips for speaking across difference
Give people space to ask questions and help them feel heard.
Start from a place of shared values:
We all want what’s best for children, and families should have access to the best available information to support their kids, including when it comes to medical care.
Equal access to education is fundamental to enable children to grow into healthy, secure adults who can contribute to their communities. All kids deserve to be included and feel like they belong in school life – that includes LGBTQ+ kids
All people are deserving of respect and safety.
It’s ok to not know all the answers – the point is connection and starting a dialogue.
Recognize that creating a safe space for all participants in dialogue is key. With increasing online and offline harassment and doxing, it’s important to trust your gut and take your and others’ level of risk into account. If you feel unsafe or someone is engaging with you in bad faith, you can always disengage.
Navigating conversations like these can be challenging, and it’s essential to approach these discussions with empathy, patience, and a commitment to understanding. While changing someone’s mind may not always be possible, ensuring they feel valued and heard, and sharing your perspective, can further the conversation and get people thinking.
Have you had a conversation with someone who felt differently than you about LGBTQ+ equality? Tell us how it went! Join us on social media to share your experiences and continue the conversation.
Artykuł ten został pierwotnie opublikowany w biuletynie GLAD Briefs z lata 2024 r. OdnośnieAd więcej.
Niedawne orzeczenia Sądu Najwyższego postawiły pilne pytania osobom LGBTQ+ i osobom zakażonym HIV. Nasza infolinia prawna GLAD Law Answers służy pomocą. Skontaktuj się z nami już dziś.
Polski 
Español de México 
Português 
简体中文 
香港中文 
Français 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
Русский 
Deutsch 
Kreyòl Ayisyen