The Slovak government on Wednesday indefinitely postponed a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the rights of same-sex couples and toughen rules surrounding gender transition.
The amendment would also see national law take precedence over European Union law.
The government admitted to “not having secured enough votes” to pass the contentious text in parliament and postponed it indefinitely.
Following the amendment’s publication in late January, nationalist Prime Minister Robert Fico invoked “the traditions, the cultural and spiritual heritage of our ancestors” to construct a “constitutional barrier against progressive politics” and restore “common sense”.
“There are two sexes, male and female”, defined at birth, the proposal states — an echo of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration speech.
“Sex cannot be modified except for serious reasons, according to procedures that will be established by law,” it continues.
The amendment only authorises adoption for married couples, with rare exceptions.
It also states that Slovakia’s “sovereignty” regarding “cultural and ethical questions” should override EU law.
A pair of Christian couples in Massachusetts are suing the state, saying their rights were violated when they lost their foster licenses over their views on gender and sexuality.
The couples — Audrey and Nick Jones, in Worcester County, and Greg and Marianelly Schrock, in Middlesex County — argue their First Amendment rights to freedom of religious exercise and freedom of speech are being violated in the lawsuit filed in federal court this month.
Their argument hinges on a state requirement that foster parents sign an agreement that they will “support, respect, and affirm the foster child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression” — and that refusing to do so forced them out of the foster parent role.
The case comes as Massachusetts faces a dire shortage of families willing to serve as foster parents. The Joneses and Schrocks would provide a loving home for any child — including a gay or transgender child, their attorney told GBH News.
But, as Audrey Jones told their licensing agent, she and her husband “cannot support a child dating someone of the same sex or affirm a child who wanted to use different pronouns.” They argue the policy is unconstitutionally restrictive and ultimately harms foster children who have no place to go.
LGBTQ+ advocates told GBH News they were saddened and outraged by the case and worry it will test the strength of anti-discrimination laws. They specifically point to the vulnerability of LGBTQ+ youth in foster care: Nationally, 40% have run away or have been kicked out of their homes for being LGBTQ+, and LGBTQ+ youth who are in foster care are three times more likely to attempt suicide than LGBTQ+ youth who are not, according to the Trevor Project.
“These are already traumatized kids facing additional trauma because of their identity — and this isn’t about the foster parents,” said Tanya Neslusan, the executive director of MassEquality. “When you are parenting children, it is never about the parents — it is about the children and making sure that their needs are prioritized. And if you can’t in good conscience do that, then that’s really what it comes down to.”
This lawsuit follows a similar case filed two years ago by Mike and Kitty Burke, a Catholic couple from Southampton. They sued after being denied a foster care license because they would “not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA,” per court filings. Attorneys for the state recently asked the court to dismiss that case since the Burkes have since moved to Florida.
“Because it’s a state-run system, the state has to have some leeway to make some decisions about … what it means to keep a child emotionally safe and healthy while that child is in state custody.”
Josh Gupta-Kagan, Columbia Law School
Mallory Sleight, an attorney on the Jones-Schrock case who works for the Alliance Defending Freedom’s parental rights team, says her organization has been contacted by six Massachusetts families about this issue. The Joneses and Schrocks, she says, previously served as foster parents without issue and want their licenses back. But she said requiring them to sign the agreement violates their religious beliefs.
“DCF has said that these families are required to agree ahead of time that they would use any chosen pronouns,” she said. “And by using chosen pronouns, you are agreeing that a boy is in fact a girl, or a girl is in a fact a boy. And biblically, these families simply do not hold that belief. And by speaking that belief, especially to a child, they are violating their own religious convictions.”
Legal experts say this case follows more than a century of legal battles and legislation about the role religion can play in the foster care system — and, in the last few years, how that overlaps with LGBTQ+ foster children. Experts agreed that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent openness to religious discrimination lawsuits could give the plaintiffs reason to hope.
In the lawsuit, the families suggested a less restrictive policy that would give the Department of Children and Families discretion about which children are placed with which parents. Department leadership could choose to not revoke foster parents’ licenses and instead just give social workers leeway to not place gender non-conforming children with such parents — a stance the Boston Globe Editorial board endorsed last week.
“If the department wants to, the department can specifically match them with children that they think would be good fits for their homes. So that could be religious children — because there are religious foster children who would love to be with religious foster parents who they could go to church with and be in Sunday school and read the Bible with,” Sleight told GBH News.
“By using chosen pronouns, you are agreeing that a boy is in fact a girl, or a girl is in a fact a boy. And biblically, these families simply do not hold that belief.”
Mallory Sleight, an attorney representing the Joneses and Schrocks
Still, some experts doubt the merits of the case. They say the rights of the legal parent or guardian and the child’s right to health and safety will outweigh the rights of a foster parent acting as a temporary caretaker.
“This is not like going to speak in the town square,” said Josh Gupta-Kagan, a Columbia Law School professor who focuses on children and families issues. “Because it’s a state-run system, the state has to have some leeway to make some decisions about … what it means to keep a child emotionally safe and healthy while that child is in state custody.”
And advocates say they want LGBTQ+ children to feel safe and comfortable in their foster homes.
“We would hope that the goal of every foster parent coming into the system to help … we hope that everyone comes in thinking: ‘I will affirm every child no matter their race, their gender identity, their sexual and their sexual orientation,’” said Shaplaie Brooks, executive director of the Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth.
Brooks said the Department of Children and Families has been “moving the needle” on helping LGBTQ+ youth in the foster care system — but says that big steps still need to be taken. Her commission has been helping support couples fostering LGBTQ+ children, connecting them with gender-affirming care resources.
“Especially as of late … DCF has tried to center the needs of each child as best as possible in their care,” she said.
In fact, Gupta-Kagan imagines a hypothetical lawsuit if the policy didn’t exist and the state allowed foster parents to not affirm or support LGBTQ+ youth — a lawsuit “that the state is not fulfilling its obligation to keep children in its custody safe.”
A spokesperson for DCF told GBH News it does not comment on pending litigation. State attorneys have not responded to the complaint in court, and an initial hearing hasn’t been set yet in the case.
Six months after Iowa removed gender identity as a protected class from its civil rights laws, the state now must pay $85,000 to LGBTQ+ students ejected from the Iowa Capitol in 2020, among them trans students who were denied access to the building’s bathrooms.
Iowa Safe Schools, an LGBTQ+ youth advocacy group, sponsored the visit of about 150 Iowa students and chaperones to the Capitol to meet with legislators in 2020. The group’s then-executive director, Nate Monson, told the Iowa Register that, at the time, Iowa State Patrol troopers told several transgender students they couldn’t use one of the bathrooms and had to use a gender-neutral restroom instead.
When Monson intervened, arguing that the troopers’ directions were inconsistent with state law, the entire group was ordered to leave.
“I went up to the trooper and said, ‘No, that’s not what the law says,’” Monson said. “The civil rights code includes gender identity. He told me it did not. Then I told him yes, it did. And he said, ‘Well it doesn’t include bathrooms.’”
The students were then told to leave the Capitol altogether, that they had been banned from the Capitol grounds, and they would be arrested if they returned.
The students and several Iowa Safe Schools leaders filed suit in 2022, alleging sex-based discrimination, harassment, and unlawful retaliation.
Under terms of a settlement agreement — filed in July and approved by the Iowa State Board of Appeals on Tuesday — the state will pay the students and group leaders to settle the case without admitting any wrongdoing.
“These individuals were exercising their constitutional and civil rights when they were singled out and removed from the Iowa Capitol solely because of their identity and their affiliation with an LGBTQ+ organization,” said Devin C. Kelly, an attorney for the plaintiffs, following the Board of Appeals approval.
“At a time when LGBTQ+ Iowans and their families continue to face growing challenges, this settlement reaffirms a simple truth: all Iowans are equal under the law,” Kelly added.
In a letter to the Board of Appeals, state attorney Jeffrey Peterzalek made it a point to say that the plaintiffs’ legal claims “would now not be allowed” under the updated Civil Rights Act.
With Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds’ signature in February, Iowa became the first state in the nation to remove a previously protected class from its civil rights laws. The change took effect July 1.
Sens. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat, and Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, introduced a bipartisan bill on Wednesday to re-establish national emergency suicide prevention services for LGBTQ+ youth — which have been stripped by the Trump administration at a time when the vulnerable group needs it most.
In July, the Trump administration terminated the 988 hotline’s LGBTQ+ services, which connected young people in crisis with counselors trained in supporting LGBTQ+ youth. This new bill, backed by the LGBTQ+ youth suicide prevention organization Trevor Project as well as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, would modify the Public Health Service Act to reinstate those services and require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to maintain them. The bill now moves to committee.
The Trevor Project estimates that more than 1.8 million LGBTQ+ young people seriously consider suicide each year in the United States, as they face high rates of bullying, assault and discrimination. And when the 2024 presidential race was called for Donald Trump, calls and texts to the Trevor Project’s own crisis hotlines spiked by 700 percent, as LGBTQ+ youth felt afraid about the outcome of the election.
“Given that LGBTQ+ youth are more than four times as likely to attempt suicide than their peers, the need for these services remains pressing,” said Jaymes Black, CEO of The Trevor Project, in a statement. “This is not about politics, or identity; this is about doing what is best to support our country’s highest risk populations — and save young people’s lives nationwide.”
During his first term in 2020, President Trump signed a bipartisan law to create 988 as a more accessible resource for mental health emergencies. The free hotline launched in July 2022. Since then, millions of people in crisis have turned to 988. And nearly 1.5 million of those calls, texts and chats were sent by young Americans seeking specialized LGBTQ+ services.
“We are in the middle of a mental health crisis, and the 988 lifeline saves lives, plain and simple,” said Baldwin, who wrote the original legislation to create the 988 hotline. Cutting funds for specialized services within 988 puts the lifeline in jeopardy, she said in a statement.
“There is absolutely no good reason that Donald Trump took away this specialized help for our LGBTQ youth. Mental health does not see partisan lines or geography,” the Wisconsin Democrat added.
California lawmakers passed legislation this week to prevent health providers from releasing transgender patients’ confidential medical records in investigations of gender-affirming care in states that ban treatment for minors.
Senate Bill 497, introduced in February by Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat representing San Francisco, builds upon a 2022 state law that established California as a state of refuge for transgender people. That law, also authored by Wiener, prevents states that have banned gender-affirming care for minors from taking legal action against trans youth, their families and their doctors over treatment administered in California.
The latest bill would require law enforcement requesting health information about transgender people in California to provide a warrant, according to Wiener’s office. It would also bar medical providers from complying with out-of-state requests, including subpoenas, for information related to gender-affirming care.
“California must do everything in our power to protect the transgender community, and I’m confident that the Governor will continue his longstanding leadership on trans issues,” Wiener said in a statement on Thursday after the bill passed.
The California Senate voted 30-10 on Wednesday to pass Wiener’s bill, which the state Assembly passed earlier this week. A spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) declined to comment, saying the governor’s office does not typically remark on pending legislation.
Newsom must sign or veto the measure by Oct. 13.
The vote on Wiener’s bill comes after the Justice Department announced in June that it had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics “involved in performing transgender medical procedures on children” in investigations of alleged health care fraud and false statements. A subpoena sent to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia that was made public in a court filing last month requested patients’ birth dates, Social Security numbers and home addresses, as well as “every writing or record of whatever type” from doctors related to the provision of gender-affirming care to adolescents younger than 19 years.
The subpoena requested information dating back to January 2020, more than a year before transition-related care was banned anywhere in the U.S.
On Tuesday, a federal judge blocked an effort by the Trump administration to subpoena medical records of transgender patients who received gender-affirming care at Boston Children’s Hospital, calling the Justice Department’s investigation improper and “motivated only by bad faith.”
In an email on Friday, a spokesperson for Wiener said Senate Bill 497, if signed, would “strengthen the case for any medical provider who wishes to fight Trump’s vicious assault on the transgender community.”
President Trump and administration officials have broadly sought to ban gender-affirming care for minors. A Jan. 28 executive order states that the U.S. “will rigorously enforce” laws that ban transition-related care for anyone younger than 19.
Laws adopted by more than half the nation since 2021 ban gender-affirming care for minors, which major professional medical groups say is medically necessary and often lifesaving for transgender youth and adults. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that states can ban treatment for minors, finding that Tennessee’s prohibition on puberty blockers, hormones and rare surgeries for adolescents does not constitute sex discrimination.
Ready to call Spain your new home? Join the thousands of Expats who have successfully relocated to Spain with our expert advice, resources, insider knowledge and handpicked network of service providers.
We ran into Alastair & Alison Johnson through the Expatsi organization. Find out everything you need to know about moving to Spain in this informative talk from people who know! Check them out at https://movingtospain.com/
Thinking about moving to Spain to escape political extremism in the U.S.? As part of the Flee Red States project, we sit down with Alastair Johnson of MovingToSpain.com , who has lived in Spain for many years with his wife and adult son.
In this interview, Alastair shares his first-hand experiences about:
🏳️🌈 The acceptance and visibility of the LGBTQ community in Spain
🏥 Easy access to Spain’s public healthcare system
🏡 Lifestyle, culture, and why Spain is a welcoming choice for American expats
🌞 The benefits of living abroad in a progressive, inclusive country
If you’re considering moving to Spain from the USA, becoming an American expat in Europe, or simply curious about LGBTQ rights in Spain, this video gives you practical insights and inspiration.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton withdrew the state’s lawsuit against pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Hector Granados on Thursday after finding no evidence that he violated the state’s ban on gender affirming care for trans youth.
Paxton sued Granados in October 2024, accusing him of providing puberty blockers and hormones to patients as young as 12 in treatment for gender dysphoria. Paxton accused Granados of falsifying medical and billing records to mislead pharmacies and insurance providers into covering the care.
Paxton initially called Granados a “scofflaw who is harming the health and safety of Texas children,” and Granados wasn’t notified before the lawsuit’s filing, in worries that he might try to destroy relevant records, The Hill reported.
However, Granados said he stopped providing gender-affirming care in May 2023, after the state’s legislature passed the law. Now that Paxton’s office has dropped its charges against him, Paxton’s office will now “focus on other ongoing cases against doctors who illegally provided harmful ‘transition’ treatments and drugs to children,” an attorney general spokesperson said, according to The Hill.
The state has also sued May Lau and M. Brett Cooper, two medical providers from the University of Texas’ Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. If found guilty, both could possibly lose their medical licenses and face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
Despite Paxton’s claim about gender-affirming care being “harmful,” the medications used in such care have been used safely in children for decades for the purposes of gender transition and to treat other medical issues in cisgender children as well. In fact, Texas’ law stands in opposition to the best care practices for treating gender dysphoria recommended by every major American medical association. These associations agree that such care is safe, effective, and essential for the overall well-being of trans people.
Six months into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Lilia Khvylka had a decision to make.
The transgender Ukrainian, who grew up on the Crimean Peninsula, was already living under Russian occupation; Vladimir Putin invaded and annexed that Ukrainian territory in 2014.
Now Khvylka was under house arrest for posting pro-Ukrainian messages on social media, she told Mezha, an independent Ukrainian news outlet.
“They opened a case against me under Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. This is a very serious crime, which they classify as terrorism. They were going to set a preventive measure for me literally in the coming days.”
Khvylka had already been outfitted with an ankle bracelet to monitor her movements.
She recalled taking part in the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, which ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and restored the 2004 Constitution of Ukraine.
The same year, Putin invaded Crimea.
“When the Russian authorities arrived, freedom of speech completely disappeared. Ukrainian activists and journalists immediately began leaving or disappearing,” Khvylka said.
At the same time, Khvylka was navigating her transition.
“At 16, I already knew I would undertake a transgender transition, because I am a girl. But I was very afraid to go to doctors in Russia or talk to anyone about it.”
In Crimea, she was forced to hide her identity; there, she was known as Illya Gantsevskyi.
Facing the prospect of 15 years in prison for her posts and terrified her true identity would come to light, Khvylka fled. The so-called head of the Republic of Crimea, Sergey Aksyonov, had already declared war on LGBTQ+ people.
“I cut off my bracelet and ran away,” she said.
Khvylka left the peninsula through Russia and Belarus, holding only a Ukrainian birth certificate. Volunteers, whom she found online through an underground network of supporters, helped in her getaway.
With her flight to freedom, Khvylka avoided a fate that other LGBTQ+ Ukrainians have been unable to escape.
“This included torture, torment, public humiliation, bodily injuries, and sexual violence,” said human rights lawyer Karolina Palaychuk.
Documented testimonies from people in the Kherson region, occupied by Russia for nine months at the start of the war, confirm the terror inflicted on LGBTQ+ people in the Russian-occupied territory.
“One of the people who gave these testimonies said that he was stopped at a checkpoint, his phone was checked, they saw the relevant content, and they immediately threw him into a basement,” said Iryna Yuzyk, manager for the Center for Human Rights, ZMINA. “There, they beat him, forced him to wear a red dress, took him to interrogations in a red dress, naked, they tormented him. He was lucky to survive.”
Another captive was Diana, a 24-year-old lesbian.
“She used to work as a shop assistant. She had colorful hair; they drew attention to her. They came with searches to her home, found a rainbow flag, and also threw her into the basement, where there were another 15 people. Then they lined them up and shot them at random. Only four survived.”
Human rights advocates are advising all LGBTQ+ Ukrainians — in particular activists who have a history of advocacy in conflict with Russia’s 2023 Supreme Court ruling declaring the LGBTQ+ community a “terrorist organization” — to leave the occupied territories, where protection under Ukrainian law no longer applies.
According to NGO Prozhektor, at least 50 people who’ve left the occupied territories have endured torture and violence due to their LGBTQ+ identity.
Seven victims have filed statements; thirteen are witnesses to other crimes.
The U.S. Supreme Court said Wednesday that South Carolina cannot enforce its anti-trans bathroom ban against one transgender student while his challenge to the law moves through the courts.
The law, which went into effect in 2024, requires students in South Carolina public schools to use bathrooms that align with their “biological sex … as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics existing at the time of birth.”
Last year, a 13-year-old transgender boy identified in court documents as John Doe was suspended for using the boys’ restroom at his Berkeley County school. Despite none of his peers objecting to his use of the boys’ restroom, when Doe returned from suspension, school staff were instructed to police his bathroom use, and teachers began dividing students into “boys” and “girls” lines before restroom breaks to enforce the policy.
Faced with constant harassment by teachers and the threat of another suspension, Doe’s parents withdrew him from the school and enrolled him in an online program.
The following November, Doe’s family, along with LGBTQ+ advocacy group Alliance for Full Acceptance, filed a class action suit challenging the South Carolina law. As MSNBC notes, a district court judge in the state halted the case in July after the Supreme Court announced it would hear two cases related to transgender women’s participation in sports. Doe appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which issued an injunction in the boy’s favor in August, preventing the state, the school district, and other defendants from enforcing the law against him while the appeal proceeds through the courts.
According to MSNBC, the three-judge panel cited the court’s 2020 ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Boardthat trans students are entitled to use restrooms aligned with their gender identity. However, George W. Bush-appointee Steven Agee stipulated that the Grimm decision was the only reason he sided with Doe and expressed hope that the Supreme Court would overturn that case, which he described as having been decided wrongly.
That same month, South Carolina asked the Supreme Court to lift the Fourth Circuit’s injunction, arguing in its emergency relief application that Grimm was wrongly decided and that the Fourth Circuit should have considered the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s restrictions on gender-affirming care for trans youth. The state argued that it, the school district, and students were “suffering actual, ongoing, material harms” due to Doe being allowed to use the boys’ restroom at school.
On Wednesday, a six-justice majority denied South Carolina’s request, with Republican appointees Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch saying they would have sided with the state, according to HuffPost.
In its order, the Court wrote that its denial of South Carolina’s application was “not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation.” Rather, the justices wrote, “it is based on the standards applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court.”
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.