Category: LGBTQIA

Kate Cox loses abortion case in the Texas Supreme Court decision.

This blog originally appeared at The Hill.

The Texas Supreme Court has overturned a lower court’s decision that permitted Kate Cox, a pregnant woman facing a diagnosis of a fatal fetal condition, to undergo an abortion.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4354860-texas-supreme-court-rules-against-kate-cox-in-abortion-case/

In a seven-page decision issued on Monday, the Texas Supreme Court deemed the temporary restraining order issued by Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble last week, which permitted Kate Cox to undergo the abortion, as an error.


Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) halted Judge Maya Guerra Gamble’s decision regarding Kate Cox’s medical emergency. Paxton appealed to the state Supreme Court, which temporarily suspended the lower court’s ruling on Friday.

According to the court ruling, a woman qualifying for the medical-necessity exception is not required to seek a court order for an abortion. The law stipulates that it is the responsibility of a doctor to determine if a woman is facing a life-threatening condition during pregnancy, warranting an abortion to preserve her life or prevent impairment of a major bodily function.


“The law entrusts physicians, rather than judges, with both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment based on the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.”


The court additionally determined that Dr. Damla Karsan, Cox’s physician, “sought court approval for the abortion but did not, or at least could not, provide the court with evidence that Ms. Cox’s condition meets the criteria specified by the exception.”

“In its ruling, the court emphasized that these laws represent the legislative policy decision, and the judiciary is obligated to respect and uphold that choice.”

Under state law, a physician conducting an abortion procedure could face a potential life sentence.


At 31 years old, Cox has left the state to undergo an abortion procedure amidst the legal turbulence surrounding her case.

Nancy Northup, the President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which has been advocating for Cox, informed The Hill about her client’s departure from the state. Northup highlighted that Cox had visited the emergency room four times during her 20-week pregnancy.

In a statement, Northup expressed, “Kate’s case has demonstrated the perilous nature of abortion bans for individuals carrying pregnancies, revealing the inadequacy of exceptions. She earnestly sought to receive care in her local environment and recuperate at home with family support. While Kate had the option to leave the state, many others do not, and a circumstance like this could be life-threatening.”

A mother of two children, Cox pursued an abortion upon learning that her fetus had been diagnosed with Trisomy 18, a chromosomal anomaly associated with miscarriage, stillbirth, or the infant’s death within hours, days, or weeks after birth.

Continuing the pregnancy to term would have posed a risk to her future fertility, and both she and her husband expressed a desire to expand their family with more children.

Cox’s situation marks the inaugural instance of a pregnant woman seeking a court order for an abortion procedure following the overturning of Roe v. Wade last year. In response to the reversal, Texas and several other Republican-led states have introduced or enforced their own abortion bans and restrictions.

Thailand Takes Stride Towards Marriage Equality

Thailand Advances Towards Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages

Thailand is set to become the next Asian country to achieve marriage equality as the government cabinet recently approved a bill to legalize same-sex weddings.

The legislation is scheduled to be debated in Parliament later this week.

The proposed amendment to the Civil and Commercial Code seeks to replace “men and women” and “husband and wife” with “individuals” and “marriage partners.” Following this, there will be efforts to amend the pension fund law to formally recognize same-sex couples.

In recent years, Thailand has faced challenges in passing marriage equality legislation despite being recognized as one of the most LGBTQ+-friendly countries. The new government, however, has committed to fulfilling this promise, actively campaigning on the issue and aiming to revive and pass the legislation.

Marriage equality took center stage in the recent election, with Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin advocating for it. In a recent news conference, Srettha emphasized that the proposed change would grant LGBTQ+ couples the “exact same equal rights” as heterosexual couples.

The bill will undergo multiple rounds of debate before potential passage. Upon approval, it will then be presented to King Maha Vajiralongkorn for consent, marking the final step before becoming law.

Thai citizens widely favor marriage equality, with 60% expressing support and 32% in opposition, aligning with the government’s push to legalize same-sex marriage.

A majority of European countries have voted to recognize and honor LGBTQ+ parents.

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation.

The European Union will support families regardless of how the child was conceived or born.


The European Union has voted to endorse parenthood, inclusive of same-sex parents, across the continent.


The European Certificate of Parenthood will acknowledge parenthood irrespective of the method of conception, birth, or family structure, ensuring associated rights to education, healthcare, custody, and succession.


The decision upholds the rights of same-sex parents throughout the EU, irrespective of individual country policies, provided the child is born in a member state.


Nations can establish their regulations on recognizing certain forms of parenthood, such as surrogacy. However, once a certificate is approved in one member country, it must be acknowledged in all of them. States can only reject a parenthood certificate if it is “manifestly incompatible with public order” in specified cases.


The European Certificate of Parenthood will not serve as a replacement for national documents. Instead, it will be accessible online and available for citizens across all EU countries. Once issued, it must be recognized and honored.


“No child should face discrimination based on their lineage or birth circumstances. Presently, children can legally lose parental recognition when crossing into another Member State. This is unacceptable,” emphasized Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques, a Member of the European Parliament from Portugal. “With this vote, we are moving closer to the objective of ensuring that parenthood recognized in one Member State holds true across all Member States.”


The measure would safeguard over two million children.


“This provision is necessary to safeguard the fundamental rights of minors regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents and regardless of how they were born,” said Italian MEP Sabrina Pignedoli. “Anyone who is a father or mother in one Member State will, in fact, be automatically recognized in all other Member States and will, therefore, be able to move freely with their children throughout Europe.”


“Today, unfortunately, this is not the case in Hungary, Poland, or Bulgaria, countries that do not recognize parenthood established in another state in the cases of LGBT parents,” Pignedoli continued. “Even in Italy, as is known, there is strong discrimination, and the judicial authority often has to intervene to re-establish the rights recognized abroad.”


In Italy, as in other conservative countries, anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ groups opposed the measure.

After receiving approval from the European Parliament, the measure must now secure unanimous passage from the governments of all member countries.

Alabama has been granted the ability to enforce a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth.

Alabama has been granted the ability to enforce its felony ban on gender-affirming health care for minors, as per a federal court ruling on Thursday.

A transgender pride flag is displayed.


The decision allows the state to proceed with the ban, lifting a preliminary injunction that had prevented officials from enforcing it for over a year.


On Thursday, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction against Alabama’s 2022 law, turning it into a felony for physicians to prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to transgender individuals under 19. Convictions could lead to sentences of up to a decade in prison.

When the injunction was issued in 2022, U.S. District Judge Liles C. Burke stated that Alabama failed to provide credible evidence demonstrating that gender-affirming treatments are “experimental.”


In August, a federal appeals court reversed this decision, stating, “The use of these medications in general—let alone for children—almost certainly is not ‘deeply rooted’ in our nation’s history and tradition,” referencing the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.


In November, Alabama’s attorneys requested the 11th Circuit stay the enforcement of the district court’s preliminary injunction, which was granted Thursday in a brief unsigned order.


A September request for a rehearing made by the Alabama families challenging the law is still pending, and a full trial on the constitutionality of the ban is slated for August.


Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall praised Thursday’s decision as “a significant victory for our country, for children, and for common sense.”


In a joint statement, lawyers representing the families challenging the law said the ruling will cause significant harm to children and parents in Alabama.


“Alabama’s transgender healthcare ban will harm thousands of transgender adolescents across the state and will put parents in the excruciating position of not being able to get the medical care their children need to thrive,” according to the statement, issued Thursday by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Human Rights Campaign.


Including Alabama, 23 states have enacted laws or policies that heavily restrict or ban gender-affirming health care for transgender minors. Laws passed in five states — Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Idaho — include provisions that make it a felony crime to provide treatment to trans youth under 18.

Pharmacies are allegedly disclosing private data to law enforcement without a warrant, according to lawmakers.

Democrats argue that it could aid prosecutors in states with strict abortion restrictions or bans.

Pharmacies disclose prescription records to law enforcement.

Lawmakers reveal that Americans’ prescription drug records are being shared with law enforcement without customer consent or a judge’s warrant in certain instances.


Democrats express concern over the disclosure, fearing that the policies of prominent retail pharmacy chains, permitted under federal regulations, might aid prosecutors in states with abortion restrictions to pursue individuals assisting women traveling for abortion procedures.


Lawmakers are urging Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to enhance regulations, proposing that pharmacies should only disclose medical records to investigators upon judicial approval, seeking tighter control over the release of such sensitive information.


HHS has announced its efforts to finalize a rule that would reinforce current privacy regulations, especially safeguarding records linked to reproductive health.


“In our discussions with major pharmacies, it became evident that law enforcement agencies annually acquire the prescription records of numerous Americans in a clandestine manner, lacking a warrant,” they stated. “In numerous instances, pharmacies are disclosing confidential medical records without scrutiny by legal authorities. Despite the legal permission for pharmacies to notify customers about government requests for their data, most opt not to do so.”

Containers of abortion medications mifepristone (left) and misoprostol (right) at a clinic in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 22, 2010.


A letter, initially reported by The Washington Post, comes after an extensive congressional inquiry by Democrats into medical privacy following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It was endorsed by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, and Democratic Representatives Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Sara Jacobs of California.


Pharmacies cited in the letter assert compliance with privacy laws and federal health regulations, which presently don’t necessitate a warrant signed by a judge. Frequently, law enforcement provides subpoenas endorsed by a government agency but not subjected to judicial review.

The CVS Pharmacy logo is visible on the building in Los Angeles, dated November 13, 2023.

CVS Health, one of the mentioned pharmacies, has proposed that regulators consider requiring a warrant or judge-issued subpoena. The company emphasizes that it depends on a legal team to ensure that all requests comply with the law.


“By law, we are obligated to keep most investigative requests from regulatory agencies and law enforcement confidential,” CVS stated in a response to ABC News. “For requests without a confidentiality directive, we assess on a case-by-case basis whether it is appropriate to inform the individual who is the subject of the request.”


According to the letter addressed to Becerra, pharmacies are contending with tens of thousands of requests annually, predominantly linked to civil litigation rather than criminal cases.


The matter is expected to gain heightened importance for Democrats as states continue to grapple with differing perspectives on abortion access, with some jurisdictions enacting laws targeting what they term “abortion trafficking,” or aiding a woman in traveling out of state for an abortion.

A generic image representing a medical prescription.


Federal regulations permit the prescription of mifepristone for patients up to 10 weeks of gestation, allowing them to pick it up at a local pharmacy under specific guidelines. Although the patient must be in a state where abortion is legal to obtain the drug, pharmacy access has helped abortion providers in states like California, Colorado, and Illinois serve more patients through virtual clinics.


Anti-abortion rights groups have filed lawsuits in an attempt to remove mifepristone from the market. The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the case, with a likely ruling expected by next summer.


Lawmakers and privacy experts are concerned that large pharmacy chains, with access to a person’s medical records across multiple states, could be exploited by prosecutors seeking to target individuals assisting women in traveling for abortions.


Lawmakers are urging the Biden administration to mandate, under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), that pharmacies require a warrant before sharing sensitive information. They also advocate for notifying customers, unless a judge deems it would impede an investigation.


Forty-four out of 50 US states exacerbate inequality with ‘upside-down’ taxes.

Recent studies reveal that the poorest fifth of households pay, on average, a tax rate 60% higher than the top 1% of households.

An analysis has determined that 44 out of the 50 US states contribute to inequality by imposing a lower share of income taxes on the wealthy compared to lower-income individuals.

The latest research reveals that state and local tax systems are ‘upside-down,’ with inadequate or absent personal income taxes in several states enabling wealthier Americans to evade taxes. This imbalance is exacerbated by a dependence on regressive sales and excise taxes, which disproportionately affect lower-income individuals.

When surveying public opinion on a fair tax code, the consensus is overwhelmingly against the idea that the wealthiest should pay the least,” remarked Carl Davis, Research Director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the organization behind the analysis.


“But despite this public sentiment, a significant disparity exists between what citizens desire and the tax systems currently in place in most states. It’s a concerning mismatch between public preferences and the actions taken by state legislators,” highlighted Carl Davis, Research Director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).


“Out of the 50 states, along with the District of Columbia, merely six states boast tax systems designed to alleviate rather than exacerbate inequality. On average, the poorest fifth of individuals face a tax rate 60% higher than the top 1% of households in the majority of states,” emphasized the report.


“The ultra-wealthy receive notably favorable treatment from the tax system, with the top 1% contributing less than any other income group in 42 states. Additionally, in 36 states, the most impoverished residents are subjected to a higher tax rate than any other demographic,” highlighted the analysis.

Ranked in order of regressive taxation, the states with the most inequitable tax systems are Florida, Washington, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. Conversely, the least regressive jurisdictions are the District of Columbia, Minnesota, Vermont, New York, and California.

State-level policies, including tax cuts benefiting the affluent under the guise of stimulating economic activity, have exacerbated this issue, according to the report. In recent decades, inequality in the US has surpassed that of comparable countries. While certain pandemic-era measures, like a child tax credit, temporarily alleviated the burden on the poorest, many of these interventions have expired.


“But we know this doesn’t have to be the case,” stated Aidan Davis, ITEP’s state policy director.


“There’s a clear path to reverse regressive tax systems, and we’ve seen several states come close to achieving it. The regressive state tax laws we witness today are a deliberate policy choice, and it’s evident that lawmakers have better options available,” expressed Aidan Davis, ITEP’s state policy director.

This article was updated on January 11, 2024. Due to inaccurate information provided to us, an earlier version incorrectly listed New Jersey as the fifth least regressive tax jurisdiction according to the ITEP report, when it should be California.

Estonia has legalized marriage for same-sex couples.

Estonia has become the inaugural former Soviet state to legalize marriage equality.

Commencing this week, same-sex couples in Estonia can enter into marriage, marking the country as the first among the former Soviet nations to legalize marriage equality.

Marriage equality legislation was approved by the parliament of the Baltic state with a vote of 55 to 34 in June of the previous year. This decision followed the election of progressive Prime Minister Kaja Kallas in February 2023. The law officially came into effect on January 1, this past Monday.

Presently, same-sex couples have the option to submit marriage applications online. Typically, these applications take between one to six months to process, with the initial ones not anticipated to be finalized before February 2.


“Laws offer clarity and shape our perspectives,” remarked Minister of Social Protection Signe Riisalo. “I trust that baseless concerns will diminish, and critics of this decision will recognize that what is perceived as a loss is, in fact, a significant gain for many of us.”

In June of the previous year, LGBTQ+ individuals in Estonia expressed their appreciation to the parliament for passing the law. Numerous couples, who were previously in civil unions, are now planning to solemnize their marriages.

“For the LGBT+ community, this is a crucial message from the government, signaling that, at last, we are equal to other couples; that we are valued and entitled to the same services and opportunities,” conveyed Keio Soomelt, the manager of the Baltic Pride festival, to The Guardian.


In 1991, the year Estonia gained independence from the Soviet Union, homosexuality was decriminalized. However, it is only in recent times that a majority of the country has backed same-sex marriage. A decade ago, only 34% of Estonians supported marriage equality, while a slim majority—53%—now supports it, as indicated by a poll from the Estonian Human Rights Center.


“A decade ago, I didn’t witness as many same-sex couples openly holding hands in public,” noted Marielle Tuum, a Tallinn resident and teacher. She mentioned that people in Estonia are now more open, revealing her plan to marry her girlfriend in the spring and host a wedding in the fall.

“I’m thrilled that I can have a meaningful wedding here at home, rather than somewhere else with less significance,” she expressed.

A federal judge has issued a block on the ban in Idaho that restricts gender-affirming care for transgender individuals.

This blog is originally appeared at ABC NEWS.

The legislation was scheduled to be enforced starting January 1, 2024.

A federal judge has provisionally halted the implementation of an Idaho law that prohibited gender-affirming healthcare treatments for transgender individuals under the age of 18. The law, initially scheduled to become effective on January 1, 2024, would have criminalized the provision of such care.

On Wednesday, District Court Judge Lynn Winmill declared that the limitations imposed by the law violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause within the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.


“Transgender children deserve fair treatment within legal frameworks,” expressed Winmill in his verdict. “Parents should possess the right to make fundamental decisions regarding the care of their children.”

He went on to say, “Repeatedly, these cases highlight that the primary function of the Fourteenth Amendment is to safeguard disadvantaged minorities and uphold our essential rights against legislative overreach… and this remains equally valid for transgender children and their parents in the 21st Century.”


Governor Brad Little signed HB 71 into law in April. This legislation prohibits the use of puberty blockers, which enable children to explore their gender identity and temporarily halt the development of permanent sex characteristics. Additionally, the law bans hormone therapies and surgeries. Medical professionals interviewed by ABC News have emphasized that surgeries on adolescents are infrequent and are only considered after careful consideration on a case-by-case basis.


The law includes a provision for children with a “medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex development,” commonly referred to as intersex.


Restrictions on access to gender-affirming care have been enforced in at least 20 states, with many of them encountering legal challenges. The legislation in Arkansas, the inaugural of its kind in the U.S., was also deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge.

Advocates for these limitations assert that they safeguard children from “medically unnecessary interventions that result in irreparable infertility, chronic health problems, and mutilated reproductive organs,” as stated in a press release by the conservative Christian lobbying group Idaho Family Policy Center after the bill was signed.

The adolescent plaintiffs central to this legal action, who stand to be affected by the legislation, emphasize that gender-affirming care has been crucial for their mental well-being. This sentiment aligns with findings from several studies.


According to the CDC, transgender youth are at a higher risk of facing anxiety, depressed mood, and suicidal ideation and attempts, primarily linked to gender-related discrimination and gender dysphoria. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine has established that gender-affirming hormone therapy is effective in enhancing the mental health of transgender adolescents and teenagers.


A plaintiff noted that puberty blockers had “near immediate positive effects” on her. Winmill’s decision highlights that by interrupting the physical changes contributing to her depression and anxiety, her mental health significantly improved.


The second plaintiff initiated puberty blockers following “several months of therapy, additional visits with her doctor, and lab work.” As per the filing, after a few months, she commenced low-dose hormone therapy.


“As a pseudonym for the plaintiff, the filing stated, ‘Since receiving gender-affirming medical care, Jane’s mental health has significantly improved, but the debate over HB 71 and other anti-transgender bills has affected her mental health and her grades.’ ‘When the bill passed, Jane wept in the hallway at school, and her parents had to take her home. The passage of the bill has also caused the Doe family to consider leaving Idaho so that Jane can continue to access the medical care that has helped her so significantly.”


Prominent national medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and over 20 others, concur that gender-affirming care is safe, effective, beneficial, and medically necessary.

Legislation on Personal Pronouns Submitted in Florida Senate

This blog originally appeared at CBS News.

In alignment with a House bill introduced in November, a Senate Republican presented a proposal on Thursday that aims to impose limitations on the use of personal pronouns by government agencies.


Senator Jonathan Martin, representing Fort Myers and a member of the Republican party, submitted the proposal (SB 1382) for deliberation in the upcoming 2024 legislative session, commencing this Tuesday. The identical House bill (HB 599) has been filed by Representative Ryan Chamberlin, a Republican from Belleview.


The introduction of these bills may contribute to ongoing legislative debates on matters concerning gender identity. The bills assert, in essence, that the state policy recognizes a person’s sex as an unchangeable biological characteristic. It further states that assigning a pronoun not corresponding to the person’s sex is considered inaccurate.


These bills would prohibit state and local government agencies from mandating employees and contractors to use a person’s preferred personal title or pronouns if they don’t align with the sex assigned to that person at birth.


Furthermore, these bills would bar employees of government agencies and contractors from presenting preferred pronouns to their employers that “do not correspond to his or her sex.” Additionally, employers would be prohibited from requesting workers to provide personal pronouns.

Transgender Candidate Seeks to Replace the Cosponsor of a Stringent Anti-Drag Bill

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation.

“If you choose to target our communities, be prepared to face competition from within our community.”


A transgender woman is seeking to replace an Ohio legislator who endorsed the state’s anti-drag bill. If successful, she would also become the first openly transgender individual to hold a position in the state’s House of Representatives.

Arienne Childrey is presently the sole candidate in the unopposed March 19 Democratic primary election for the representation of Ohio’s District 84. The 40-year-old shared with the local Cincinnati outlet CityBeat that her decision to run was driven by the intention to challenge state Rep. Angela King (R).


During the previous summer, King and her fellow Republican state Rep. Josh Williams presented House Bill 245. This bill aimed to alter the legal definition of “adult cabaret performances” in the state, encompassing “performers or entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performer’s or entertainer’s gender assigned at birth using clothing, makeup, prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts, or other physical markers.”


The introduced legislation is among numerous bills in state legislatures nationwide that seek to prohibit drag performances in the presence of children. During testimony last month, King referenced a video of a drag performance that occurred in her community.


While King asserted that under HB 245, transgender individuals would still have the freedom to “express their gender as they go to a grocery store, the post office, and live their daily lives,” critics argue that the bill would disproportionately impact the transgender community. In a statement during the summer, Densil Porteus, the executive director of Stonewall Columbus, mentioned that the proposed law “aims to give power to others as to when they believe gender impersonation/drag is being performed.”


As highlighted by writer Joy Ellison in an August editorial for Matter, the current version of the bill explicitly states that transgender entertainers would face a prohibition on performing in locations other than adult venues in Ohio.


Childrey, a resident of Ohio since 2014 and the founder of Northwest Ohio Trans Advocacy, expressed to CityBeat that she couldn’t passively observe King running unopposed in the imminent November election.

“If you’re going to target our communities, then you’ll need to contend with someone from within our community,” she asserted.

“It’s long overdue for us to have someone at the Statehouse genuinely dedicated to addressing those issues—matters that truly affect people and can enhance our lives—rather than someone more focused on causing harm rather than providing assistance,” she added.

Childrey stands against Ohio’s recently enacted prohibition on gender-affirming care. Additionally, her campaign emphasizes education-related matters such as boosting teacher salaries, expanding broadband access in rural areas, and fortifying unions throughout the state.


“Arienne’s dedication to public service and her ability to persevere in the face of challenges set a compelling example for everyone,” stated the transgender advocacy organization TransOhio. “As she confronts the hurdles that come with this groundbreaking journey, we also want to recognize the importance of her candidacy and the influence it will have in paving the way for future generations of trans leaders.”


“The only thing that could bring me more joy than being the first trans woman elected in the state of Ohio,” Childrey expressed, “is to not be the only trans person elected in the state of Ohio.”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑