Category: Youth

Trump seeks to kill all medical care for trans youth by defunding hospitals that provide it

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seeks to end all Medicaid and Medicare funding for young people’s gender-affirming care (GAC), according to newly proposed rules shared by NPR. A trans activist said the rules would amount to a “de facto national ban” on GAC.

The proposed rules would prohibit all federal Medicaid and Medicare funding — as well as funding through the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — for any services at hospitals that provide GAC for trans youth.

“These would be proposals that would go out for public comment, it would take months for the Trump administration to issue a final rule, and then, if past is prologue, we would see litigation over whatever the final rules are,” Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University, told NPR.

Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, a right-wing think tank that has pushed national transphobia as an effective Republican political strategy, said of the proposed rules, “I think these restrictions are very good. It’s going to change the entire transgender industry, and it’s going to take away a lot of their funding streams.”

“This would be a de facto national ban,” wrote trans activist and civil rights attorney Alejandra Caraballo via Bluesky. “There would still be providers in blue states that don’t take federal funding but the large interdisciplinary teams of just a few years ago would be nearly impossible to maintain. The result is that the care that remains would largely be underground with worse support and likely outcomes.”

“They’ll never be able to fully ban this care,” Caraballo added. “There will always be providers willing to provide it like abortion. Even without access to providers, many trans youth will simply go DIY [do-it-yourself] like trans folks have done for decades. They’re not actually banning this care, they’re making it less safe.”

The administration’s “toxic” war on gender-affirming care

Though there is no federal law banning gender-affirming care, the current presidential administration has sought to eradicate the practice through a January executive order (that has since been blocked by several courts). The order instructed the DOJ to extend the time that patients and parents can sue gender-affirming doctors and to use laws against false advertising to prosecute any entity that may be misleading the public about the long-term effects of gender-affirming care (GAC).

In April, Bondi issued a memo to DOJ employees, telling them to investigate and prosecute cases of minors accessing gender-affirming care as female genital mutilation (FGM), even though hospitals don’t conduct such female genital surgeries. The memo threatened to jail doctors for 10 years if they provide gender-affirming care to young trans people.

The following June, the DOJ sent subpoenas to 20 medical providers who offer GAC to trans youth, demanding patients’ Social Security numbers, emails, home addresses, and information on the care they received, as well as other sensitive information dating back to January 2020. A federal judge blocked the subpoena in one instance and accused the DOJ of going on a “bad faith” “fishing expedition” to interfere with states’ rights to protect GAC within its borders, to harass and intimidate providers from offering such care, and to dissuade patients from seeking such care.

Fewer than 3,000 teens nationwide receive puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy, according to a 2025 JAMA analysis of private insurance data. Gender-affirming care is supported by all major medical associations in the U.S., including the American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, as safe and life-saving for young people with gender dysphoria.

One doctor interviewed by The Washington Post called the federal government’s crusade against gender-affirming care a “toxic plan” that will force some patients to detransition, potentially forcing them into adverse psychological and physical effects, including increased anxiety, depression, and the development of unwanted physical changes.

0

Republican official sued a Texas doctor for treating trans kids. She left the state.

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A Dallas pediatrician who became the first doctor to be sued under a Texas law banning gender-affirming care for minors has given up her license to practice in the state.

According to TownFlex, the Texas Medical Board confirmed that Dr. May Lau voluntarily surrendered her medical license. In a statement, Lau’s attorney, Craig Smyser, said that she has decided to move her practice to Oregon and sees no reason to maintain her license to practice in Texas.

Last year, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against Lau for allegedly providing gender-affirming care to minors in violation of S.B. 14. The state law, which went into effect in September 2023, bans doctors from prescribing hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers to minors, and from performing gender-affirming surgery on minors.

Paxton’s suit accused Lau of prescribing hormone replacement therapy to at least 21 minors between October 2023 and August 2024. It further alleged that Lau “used false diagnoses and billing codes to mask these unlawful prescriptions.”

Notably, Paxton’s suit falsely referred to gender-affirming care as “dangerous and experimental” and a press release from his office claimed that there is “no scientific evidence” to support the benefits of gender-affirming medication.

In fact, puberty blockers and hormone replacement drugs have for decades been used safely for the purposes of gender transition in trans minors and to treat other medical issues in cisgender children. Gender-affirming care, which encompasses a range of both surgical and nonsurgical treatments, has been endorsed by every major American medical association and leading world health authority as evidence-based, safe, and in some cases lifesaving for transgender minors. Gender-affirming surgical intervention is rarely performed on minors.

In his statement, Smyser said that Lau “continues to deny the Texas Attorney General’s politically- and ideologically-driven allegations,” according to TownFlex.

Paxton, meanwhile, said that Lau’s surrender of her medical license was “a major victory for our state.”

“Doctors who permanently hurt kids by giving them experimental drugs are nothing more than disturbed left-wing activists who have no business being in the medical field. We will not relent in holding anyone who tries to ‘transition’ kids accountable,” he said in a statement, according to TownFlex.

As the outlet notes, Paxton has filed similar lawsuits against two other Texas doctors. Last month, the Texas AG withdrew the state’s suit against Hector Granados after finding no evidence that he violated S.B. 14. However, a lawsuit brought against M. Brett Cooper is ongoing and expected to go to trial in May.

Equality Texas noted that the enforcement of S.B. 14 has led many doctors who provide gender-affirming care to leave the state — making it harder for trans adults to access care.

0

Cisgender male student kicked off boys’ basketball team due to birth certificate error in nightmarish ordeal

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

In Arizona last week, a cisgender male 8th grader was “physically removed” from tryouts for his school’s boys’ basketball team because an error on his original birth certificate incorrectly identified him as being born female.

It’s the latest episode in a “gender ideology”-inspired nightmare for the teenager, Laker Jackson, and his family.

“I’m sad for everybody that it’s come down to this,” mom Becky Jackson told KNXV News in Phoenix.

The Kafkaesque drama was inspired by a clerical mistake 14 years ago, when hospital staff mistakenly identified Becky Jackson’s newborn son as a girl. It was an error Laker’s parents never noticed.  

“I give him the birth certificate and they’re like, ‘Did you know this says female?’” Becky Jackson recalled about handing over enrollment paperwork to a school administrator last year.

“I was like, ‘What?’” Becky Jackson said. “I was like, ‘Oh man, that’s so funny.’ So we come home, everyone’s laughing.”

The busy mom of six said correcting the document wasn’t a priority.

“So we just put it in the drawer and moved on,” she said.

The mix-up didn’t cause issues until recently, she told AZ Family.

Last spring, school staff began treating Jackson as female, Becky Jackson said.

The district removed Laker Jackson from an all-boys gym class and mandated he use a separate restroom, despite the family’s assertion that their son is a cisgender boy, assigned male at birth.

Becky’s mom had already started work on changing Laker Jackson’s birth certificate, but “it’s not something that you can fix quickly. You have to have an affidavit signed,” she said.

In the meantime, the 14-year-old continued training to make the boys’ basketball team at his Mesa high school, a 7th to 12th-grade school in the Queen Creek Unified School District.

Becky Jackson said she received the corrected birth certificate over the summer and provided the district with the revised document, along with a doctor’s note confirming Laker’s sex.

But Queen Creek administrators said it wasn’t enough, standing by a rule stating that the school’s determination of a student’s sex would rely solely on an original birth certificate.

“They sent the athletic director of Eastmark High to physically remove Laker from the basketball tryouts in front of all of his friends, in front of the coach,” Becky Jackson said.

“I am a biological boy. I was born a boy,” said Laker Jackson, who heard from friends on the basketball team that “they were talking about it for the entire tryout and even the next day’s tryouts because they were really confused.”  

After the family continued to raise objections to Laker Jackson’s treatment, a letter from an administrator said genetic testing to confirm their claim that the child is a boy “could be considered.”

“They may consider changing it if we get chromosomal testing. They didn’t say they would,” Laker’s mom said. She estimated the cost at $1500.

“So who’s going to pay that?” she asked.

In a statement, the district said it was “committed to ongoing dialogue.”

Becky Jackson also said her son will try out for a girls’ team if that’s what it comes to.

The ordeal is a prime example of what activists have long warned: that anti-trans policies are bad for everyone. It’s also quite ironic, considering the very people who want to stop anyone assigned male at birth from playing on girls’ sports teams may wind up forcing a cisgender boy to do just that.

0

Anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes have risen around the world since 2020: report

Read more at The Advocate.

Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people are rising around the world as politicians target them through legislation and rhetoric.

Anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes have increased in the past five years across the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe, according to a new report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, with transgender and gender nonconforming people particularly affected. The spike may in part be attributed to world governments passing anti-LGBTQ+ policies, which has “escalated internationally in tandem with political rhetoric.”

Some of the high profile incidents cited in the report include the mass shooting at the LGBTQ+ bar Club Q in Colorado that left five dead, the 2023 murder of a woman in California who was not LGBTQ+ because she flew a rainbow flag in her store, and the arrests of 20 members of the white supremacist group Patriot Front in 2023 who intended to riot at a Pride event in Idaho.

“These threats come from across the spectrum of ideological extremism, but frequently from groups that also pose a threat to the state and are openly opposed to democratic norms,” the report notes.

In the U.S., hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people remained high despite an overall decrease in violent crime. Out of 11,323 single-bias incidents the FBI reported in 2024, 2,278 (17.2 percent) were based on sexual orientation and 527 (4.1 percent) were based on gender identity. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation were the third-largest category, with crimes based on race, ethnicity, or ancestry being first and religiously motivated crimes second. Gender identity bias was the fourth-largest category.

Threats and harassment against school board officials in the U.S. also increased by 170 percent from the previous year in November, 2024 to April, 2025, the ISD report notes. Many of these threats were explicitly motivated by an anti-LGBTQ+ bias, with the perpetrators objecting to age appropriate queer books or content in public schools.

“LGBTQ+ individuals, who gained unprecedented civil rights in previous decades, are now increasingly targeted by online and offline hate, political rhetoric, censorship and legislation,” the report states. “A series of actions have sought to exclude LGBTQ+ people and culture from public life, ranging from book bans to a spread of legislation restricting trans people. In tandem, terror attacks (or the threat of terror attacks), violent extremist activity, and hate crimes targeting LGBTQ+ individuals have increased or remained consistently high since 2020.”

0

‘They break you’: Colombia debates a ban on conversion therapy

Read more at NBC News.

Juan Viana recalls having a happy childhood in a Christian community in Bogotá but when he came out as gay at age 18, that all changed.

“Unfortunately, that community of support became a place of deep repudiation of who I really was,” said Viana, now 48.

His family took him to a center for ‘conversion therapy’ — aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity — on the advice of a psychologist.

“I was told that homosexuality was a disease, that it was caused by a demonic force that was going to destroy my family,” Viana said.

He said he went to the center willingly and stayed for months, thinking he was protecting his loved ones from destruction but found himself living in a nightmare.

“They break you in all senses: physically, mentally,” he said.

Several times he thought of taking his own life and tried once, he said.

“They were the darkest moments of my life,” he said.

Such traumatic experiences could become illegal in Colombia, where an estimated one in five LGBTQ people have undergone conversion therapy, according to the government’s Ombudsman’s Office.

Lawmakers are considering a bill to ban conversion therapy in the South American nation. Other countries where it is permitted include China, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

An unknown number of unlicensed rehabilitation clinics in Colombia and elsewhere in Latin America offer such therapy based on the idea that homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender identities are a mental illness that needs to be cured, rights groups said.

The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1990.

In Colombia, LGBTQ advocates have documented a range of conversion therapy practices that include humiliation, exorcism, food deprivation, electroshocks, waterboarding and rape of lesbian women.

The new legislation aims to criminalize the therapy in the conservative and Catholic country, where activists say faith is often used to mask the practices.

“We hope that more and more Colombians will understand that this is what the right to liberty, the right to intimacy and the right to having an identity looks like,” said Carolina Giraldo, a lawmaker for the center-left Green Alliance and a proponent of the bill.

Third time’s the charm?

Two previous proposed bans were defeated after conservative lawmakers and evangelical and Catholic groups mobilized in opposition.

They argued that a ban on conversion therapy could land priests and parents in prison, and some said LGBTQ groups wanted to turn children gay and trans.

Such a ban “infringes upon family autonomy by preventing parents from guiding their children,” said conservative senator Maria Fernanda Cabal after voting against last year’s bill.

From Brazil and Mexico to Spain and Vietnam, at least 17 countries have nationwide legislation in the works targeting the practice, according to ILGA-World, an international LGBTQ rights group.

LGBTQ activists in Colombia hope the third time is the charm.

“When we first started to talk about these practices, people just didn’t believe something like this could still happen in Colombia,” said Danne Belmont, executive director at GAAT, a Bogota-based trans rights group.

Belmont, a trans woman, said she was given testosterone as a child and underwent exorcisms in efforts to change who she was.

Advocates have altered their approach since the first bill was introduced in 2022, trying to broaden its appeal.

In the current rendition, the campaign is not only that LGBTQ people have “nothing to heal” but it asks their parents to “always love them,” Belmont said.

“This bill is aimed at Colombia’s families, at offering safe spaces where people can ask questions about their sexual orientation and gender identity,” she said.

Contrary to claims made by some Catholic lawmakers and ultra-Catholic groups, Father Carlos Guillermo Arias Jimenez of Colombia’s Bishop’s Conference said the latest bill does not contradict religious freedom.

“The church could not accept, nor has it ever taught, the practice of actions aimed at changing or reversing people’s sexual orientation,” he said.

Colombia’s Evangelical Confederation did not reply to several requests for comment.

In Congress, the bill passed its first reading in April with support from members of various political parties, but it must pass two more readings before next year’s elections.

Survivors, not victims

Belmont said trauma often prevents many LGBTQ people from realizing they have undergone conversion therapy until they hear stories from their peers.

A national network was set up in May of more than 50 people who have undergone conversion therapy to share their stories on social media and at events in hopes they will help others.

“Sometimes conversion therapy is a gradual, sophisticated process that mixes religion, spirituality and psychology that lays the ground,” David Zuluaga, 27, who was raised in the small town of Antioquia.

What started as manipulation and social isolation at age 12 turned into being hit in the stomach at age 14 to make him “vomit the spirit of homosexuality,” he said.

The conversion therapy lasted until he was 17, but it took him far longer to understand what had happened, let alone speak about it.

“Fear has to change sides. We used to be ashamed of having gone through this,” said Zuluaga, now an out gay man.

“But they should be the ones who are ashamed of having done this, of still doing this — mistreating, abusing and torturing people.”

According to research by the United Nations’ independent expert on LGBTQ rights, which has documented conversion therapy in at least 100 countries including Uganda, the Philippines and the United States, the practices leave deep physical and psychological traces.

“It broke my relationship with my family, with spirituality, with my body,” said Viana, who added that it has taken decades to rebuild bonds with his family, trust people and find love.

“Darkness needs to be total to exist. For light to exist, a single spark is enough,” he said.

“The work we’re doing is to multiply these sparks along the way… which we all light up together.” 

0

Only 0.03% Opt Out Of LGBTQ+ Education In Maryland After SCOTUS Gives Them A Right To

Read more at Erin in the Morning.

In June 2025, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling allowing parents to opt out of classes that teach material conflicting with their religious beliefs. The decision, which could affect lessons on everything from evolution to cultural diversity, was driven primarily by challenges to classroom instruction about LGBTQ+ people. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, originated in Maryland’s Montgomery County School District—the state’s largest—which had previously required lessons on LGBTQ+ inclusion without permitting opt-outs. The ruling was celebrated by far-right activists as a major victory in a deep-blue state. But months later, the results are in: of more than 160,000 students enrolled, only 43 families chose to opt out of LGBTQ+ education districtwide.

In a report released on October 2, the Montgomery County School District approved just 58 opt-out requests from 43 families—under 0.03 percent of the district’s 160,000 students. In other words, 99.97 percent of families, even when given the option, chose to let their children learn about LGBTQ+ people.

The books targeted by the handful of families include Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, about the marriage of two gay men; Intersectional Allies: We Make Room for All, which features a genderfluid character; and Planting the Rainbow: Places of LGBTQ+ History in Maryland, which teaches about key moments in the state’s queer history.

For the families choosing to opt out, their children will be placed in separate classrooms or given alternate assignments when LGBTQ+ topics arise. The arrangement underscores a point the school district made during the court fight: creating entirely new materials for such a vanishingly small group is disruptive to classrooms and burdens teachers with unnecessary extra work—all to accommodate the religious beliefs of a tiny minority. Still, because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, those accommodations will now have to be made.

Meanwhile, in Republican-controlled states, officials have taken a far more oppressive approach to LGBTQ+ education. Rather than offering families the option to opt out, many states simply ban the material outright. Under “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” laws—first popularized in Florida and now enacted in 19 states—teachers are prohibited from acknowledging LGBTQ+ people in class instruction at various grade levels. In Texas, several colleges have gone even further, barring professors from recognizing that transgender people exist at all. When contrasted with the minuscule number of families opting out when given the choice, these policies look less like a reflection of public will and more like a top-down morality ban—one that would almost certainly be rejected if parents actually had the freedom to decide for themselves.

Anti-LGBTQ+ school policies remain among the most unpopular measures pushed by Republicans in red states and by the Trump administration. A Navigator Research poll published in August 2023 found that fewer than 25 percent of Democrats and independents—and only half of Republicans—named “protecting children from being exposed to woke ideologies about race and gender in school” as a major priority. Book bans ranked even lower: 92 percent of respondents said such bans were concerning. A more recent Knight Foundation poll echoed those findings, with two-thirds of Americans opposing efforts to restrict books in public schools.

Respondents from Montgomery County, Maryland expressed frustration and vindication after hearing the results of the opt-out process. “Every single one of these ‘anti-woke’ lawsuits and headlines comes from one or a few people making a stink,” said one commenter in a local subreddit dedicated to the county. “Imagine living in Montgomery County and thinking you can opt out of cultural diversity,” said another.

“It looks like most were from elementary schools, but there’s a few from middle schools and two from a high school. Can you imagine what these students’ classmates will think of them?” added a third.

The Supreme Court’s decision is just the latest example of how religious exemptions are being weaponized to roll back civil rights under the guise of “freedom.” Each new ruling gives a single person the power to disrupt an entire classroom, claiming that their beliefs are incompatible with learning about LGBTQ+ people, racial diversity, or any worldview outside their own. These carve-outs have already spread far beyond schools—empowering business owners to deny service to queer customers and pharmacists to refuse medication. But the data out of Montgomery County, Maryland makes one thing unmistakably clear: this crusade is not a mass movement. It’s the obsession of a vanishingly small minority, inflated by a Republican Party that has turned resentment of diversity—and especially of LGBTQ+ people—into the centerpiece of its politics.

0

Massachusetts foster parents lose license after refusing to sign gender affirming policy: “We simply can’t agree to go against our Christian faith”

Read more at CBS News.

A couple from Woburn, Massachusetts has lost their license to foster children after they refused to sign a gender affirming policy form from the Department of Children and Families (DCF).

Lydia and Heath Marvin have three kids in their teens, but they have fostered eight different children under the age of 4 since 2020. Their most recent foster child was a baby with complex medical needs who stayed with them for 15 months.

“Our Christian faith, it really drives us toward that. James says that true undefiled religion is to care for the fatherless,” said Heath.

The couple said they were prepared to care for more foster children until DCF pulled their license to foster in April.

Foster parents cite religious beliefs

That’s because the Marvins refused to sign the agency’s LGBTQIA+ Non-Discrimination Policy because of their Christian faith. Starting in 2022, the policy said that foster families must affirm the LGBTQIA+ identity of foster children.

“We asked, is there any sort of accommodation, can you waive this at all? We will absolutely love and support and care for any child in our home but we simply can’t agree to go against our Christian faith in this area. And, were ultimately told you must sign the form as is or you will be delicensed,” Lydia said.

The Marvins appealed the loss of their license, but lost. They’re considering their options but two other Christian foster families are plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts Family Institute and Alliance Defending Freedom against DCF.

The lawsuit alleges the policy forces parents to “accept[ ] a child’s assertion of their LGBTQIA+ identity”, “address[ ] children by their names and pronouns,” and “support[ ] gender-neutral practices regarding clothes and physical appearance.”

“There is a speech component and also a religious liberty component to the lawsuit,” said Sam Whiting, an attorney with the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Letter from Trump administration

Last week, the Trump administration sent a letter to DCF, addressing the lawsuit and specifically mentioning the Marvins.

“These policies and developments are deeply troubling, clearly contrary to the purpose of child welfare programs, and in direct violation of First Amendment protections,” wrote Andrew Gradison, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families.

LGBTQ+ advocates argue the policy was developed to protect kids. Massachusetts foster parents also receive a monthly stipend.

“The state has an obligation to children to make sure that they’re safe and well protected. And foster parents, they’re not parents. Foster parents are temporary. They’re a stop gap to make sure children can safely go back to their families of origin,” said Polly Crozier, Director of Family Advocacy at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders.

Data collection by DCF is poor but a report by the Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ youth suggests that roughly 30 percent of foster children in the state could identify as LGBTQ, similar to data collected in California and New York.

The Marvins argue that DCF has been flexible about child placements in the past for a number of reasons.

“We would love and care and support any child but if there was an issue where we knew that we would have a different position than DCF, we would just be open and talk to them about it,” Heath said.

A DCF spokesperson said in a statement to WBZ-TV, “The Department does not comment on matters related to pending litigation.” 

0

20-year-old targeted by MAGA for political beliefs and trans identity

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A student activist at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge says her arrest at a campus public hearing was a targeted attack based on her political views, and alleges police became menacing when they learned she’s transgender.

Gabriela Juárez, 20, was swarmed by campus police after she exceeded her allotted speaking time of three minutes at a campus presidential search forum last week.

At least a dozen other students leapt from their seats in support of Juárez as LSU cops dragged her from the room, Louisiana Illuminator reports.

Six other students were charged with misdemeanors and released from the campus police station after they blocked the police car taking Juárez away.

Juárez was charged with resisting arrest and “interference with educational process,” which is a felony. She was taken to East Baton Rouge Parish Prison.

All of the students involved are members of the LSU chapter of Students for a Democratic Society. The group claims Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) is secretly steering the process to hire the university’s next president to align with the governor’s far-right, Trump-inspired political agenda, while disenfranchising campus leaders, faculty and students. 

Several students at the forum wore T-shirts with the slogan “No MAGA President.” 

LSU cops initially referred to Juárez as “she” or “her,” the activist said in an interview, but began treating her differently when she shared her legal name. Then they turned hostile and referred to her as “he” and “him,” she said. 

At the parish prison, Juárez was strip-searched and forced to stand naked while officers discussed where she should be kept.

“They said to the officer, ‘I have someone here who is bottom parts male but up top fully female,’” Juárez recounted. “And so they had no idea what to do with me.” 

Juárez said she was put into a cell by herself and given a women’s uniform, along with a warning she’d be sexually assaulted anywhere else. Other cops interrogated Juárez about her gender and loudly referred to her as a man, she said.

Juárez said she was denied the opportunity for a phone call after her arrest, but fellow SDS members were able to post a $1000 bond to obtain her release late the same night.

The meeting that led to Juárez’s arrest was chaotic.

She and six other members of SDS made public comments, eviscerating the 20 search committee members and calling them illegitimate.

Several made profane comments, including Juárez, who alleged the only criteria for serving on the committee was to “be a millionaire and suck off the governor.”

“Don’t f**king touch me,” Juárez shouted as the first LSU cop grabbed her arm. 

“Am I being detained?” she shouted as two officers dragged her out of the room and fellow SDS members shouted down cops and committee members in her support.

“Shame on you!” they shouted after Juárez was removed. Those students were also ejected from the meeting.

Outside, as her fellow SDS members and other students shouted and aimed their phones at officers, Juárez was searched, handcuffed, and placed in the back of an LSU Police cruiser.  

Juárez says she was targeted.

“In a moment where they are actively cultivating a panic around the presence of Latinos and the presence of trans people, and especially transgender women,” Juárez said, “I do believe that that – combined with the fact that I have a high profile on campus – led to them wanting to make an example out of me, and wanting to intimidate me specifically, and to use me as a show of force to scare other students into being silent.”  

The 20-year-old has political enemies, she said.

In September, Juárez was called out by the Louisiana Republican Party, which demanded that LSU discipline the activist for comments critical of slain conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk.

Juárez shared an Instagram story that referred to Kirk as a “world famous fascist” with the caption “rejoice.” 

0

Loudoun (VA) School Board approves LGBTQ proclamation despite opposition

Read more at Loundon Times-Mirror.

Loudoun County School Board proclamations are typically noncontroversial, but a proclamation recognizing October as LGBTQ+ History Month drew three no votes at the board’s Sept. 30 meeting.

Language in the proclamation says it honors the “history, achievements, and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people” and celebrates “the strength, resilience, and impact of the LGBTQ+ community, whose contributions have enriched the cultural, educational, and civic life of Virginia and the world.”

The proclamation — whose approval comes as some 600 Republican-sponsored, anti-LGBTQ bills, including 17 in Virginia, have been proposed around the nation — includes a repudiation of discrimination.

“We reject discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression, and instead affirm kindness, acceptance, and respect as the foundation of our learning community,” the proclamation states. “Our school division is stronger when every student and staff member can live authentically and feels a true sense of belonging, and when we embrace the full diversity of our community.”

April Chandler, Algonkian; Linda W. Deans, Broad Run; board Vice Chair Anne P. Donohue, At Large; Arben Istrefi, Sterling; board Chair Melinda M. Mansfield, Dulles; and Sumera Rashid, Little River, voted yes.

Deana L. Griffiths, Ashburn; Karen “Kari” LaBell, Catoctin; and Lauren E. Shernoff, Leesburg, voted no.

The proclamation was initially included in the board’s consent agenda, which has items that are approved en masse.

However, Griffiths, who typically has abstained from voting on proclamations since taking office in 2024, wrote in an email that she moved the proclamation to the regular agenda, so she could speak about why she was voting against it.

“There is a meaningful difference between formally recognizing a group in history and promoting that group for its lifestyle to our students,” Griffiths said at the meeting. “It crosses the line into advocacy and raises serious concerns under the (Trump) executive order protecting our children from inappropriate content in our schools.

“Our communications must remain age appropriate and leave conversations about sensitive information to parents. Schools exist to teach children how to read, write, and think critically. Not engage them in conversations about sexuality at any age where they are far too young to process it.”

The January executive order from President Donald J. Trump that Griffiths referred to says people cannot identify as the opposite sex they were born as. It says the administration will “enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality,” including cutting federal funding used to “promote gender ideology.”

The Trump administration said in August it was suspending or terminating funding to Loudoun County Public Schools over its policy allowing transgender students to choose which bathroom or locker room they use. Federal money accounts for about $47 million of the current $2 billion LCPS budget.

Shernoff wrote in an email that some constituents complained to her after she voted for the proclamation last year about the way LGBTQ+ History Month was celebrated in schools. Specifically, their complaints were about how “certain spirit days” were celebrated and the effect on young students.

“I did some research into it and that in conjunction with knowing that LCPS also proclaims LGBTQ+ Pride Month in June, I decided to not support this,” Shernoff said. “I did however support the anti-bullying proclamation which specifically names and protects students based on their gender identity. I remain committed to ensuring all students are protected, safe, and can achieve to their fullest potential.”

LaBell said in an interview that she supported the proclamation last year because it was on the consent agenda and voting against it would’ve meant voting against everything on the agenda.

She said she opposed the proclamation because some of the issues it raises are “too political”  to promote in school and might be inappropriate for young students to discuss.

Like Shernoff, LaBell said she voted for the Pride Month and anti-bullying proclamations, but believes one proclamation related to LGBTQ issues annually is enough.

“You want history? Put it in Pride Month,” she said. “It just seems to me it’s being pushed more so than anything else in our school system at this point in time. And it’s a family issue. It shouldn’t be a political issue in our schools.”

Two groups that support LGBTQ rights criticized the rationale of Griffiths, LaBell and Shernoff.

Candice Tuck, an Equality Loudoun board member, said the proclamation isn’t about promoting sexuality.

“There have been many brave queer pioneers throughout history who have fought for civil rights, who have been inventors, and who have moved our democracy forward,” Tuck said in an interview. “There is no reason that the queer community cannot be recognized for those accomplishments without individuals in our community perverting their history.”

Meredith Ray, the head of Loudoun4All, noted in an email that Griffiths previously said she wouldn’t vote for any proclamations, but chose to single out the LGTBQ+ proclamation for criticism.

Ray called Griffiths’ decision “malicious” and said her remarks were “ignorant commentary” on the issue.

“Recognition of history is not ‘promotion of a lifestyle.’ LGBTQ+ students, staff, and families exist in Loudoun and deserve the same dignity as everyone else. Griffiths’ attempt to frame recognition as ‘inappropriate content’ is harmful, especially to young people who already face higher rates of bullying and mental health struggles when leaders stigmatize them,” Ray said. “In fact, decades of research show that inclusive education that teaches respect and representation is one of the most effective ways to prevent bullying and improve school climate.”

0

Appeals court rules for Colorado and LGBTQ rights and against Catholic parishes in state preschool case

Read more at KUNC.

Preschoolers with LGBTQ parents or who identify as LGBTQ can’t be shut out of religious preschools that are part of Colorado’s state-funded preschool program, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The decision, which upholds a key part of a lower court decision, represents a major win for the state and a defeat for the two Denver-area Catholic preschools at the center of the case.

Tuesday’s decision provides the latest answer to a question being asked in several cases percolating in state and federal courts: Can private religious schools that accept public education dollars refuse to enroll certain kids based on religious principles?

Along with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal, a Maine federal district court and a Utah state court are among those who have said no.

It’s possible the U.S. Supreme Court could eventually weigh in, though it’s not clear which case will advance to the high court.

In its 54-page ruling, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that it found no proof that the Colorado Department of Early Childhood took actions that “evidence religious hostility” as the two Catholic preschools claimed.

The state’s universal preschool program “went to great effort to be welcoming and inclusive of faith-based preschools’ participation,” the decision said.

The three-judge panel also found that the early childhood department, which runs the preschool program, had applied its nondiscrimination policy in a neutral way to both religious and non-religious preschools.

The policy bars preschools from discriminating based on a variety of factors, including sexual orientation and gender identity. State officials cited the policy in denying the Catholic preschools a waiver that would have allowed them to keep LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families from enrolling.

In a statement Tuesday, Gov. Jared Polis said, “We are building a Colorado for all, where every student is free from discrimination and this voter-approved initiative continues to enroll approximately 70% of all eligible four-year-olds each school year and many faith based and secular providers are operating terrific preschools that serve parents and children well.”

Tuesday’s ruling essentially upholds the status quo in the universal preschool program, meaning that participating preschools can’t shut out LGBTQ children or children with LGBTQ parents.

The three appeals court judges who ruled Tuesday were Gregory Phillips, Veronica Rossman, and Richard Federico. Phillips was appointed by President Barack Obama, and Rossman and Federico were appointed by President Joe Biden.

Nick Reaves, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Catholic preschools in the case, sent Chalkbeat a short statement about the ruling.

“Colorado is punishing religious schools and the families they serve for following their faith. The Tenth Circuit’s decision allows the state’s anti-religious gamesmanship to continue. We will keep fighting to ensure that every preschooler in Colorado can access quality, affordable education.”

Conflict arose as state preschool program rolled out

The Colorado case began in 2023 as the state was launching its new universal preschool program, which provides tuition-free preschool to 4-year-olds statewide. The $349 million program serves more than 40,000 children and allows families to choose from public, private, or religious preschools.

Of more than 2,000 preschools participating in the program this year, about 40 are religious.

St. Mary Catholic Virtue School in Littleton and Wellspring Catholic Academy in Lakewood wanted to join the program when it started, but didn’t want to admit LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families.

They asked for an exemption from state rules banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but the Colorado Department of Early Childhood refused. The two preschools never joined the program, and in August 2023, the parishes that ran the preschools sued the state. (Wellspring Catholic Academy closed in December 2024.)

In June 2024, a federal district court judge appointed by President Jimmy Carter largely ruled in the state’s favor.

He wrote of Colorado’s non-discrimination rules: “The purpose of the requirement is not to invade religious freedom but to further the implementation of a strongly embraced public value.”

The parishes quickly appealed.

Unfolding alongside the Catholic preschool case is a separate lawsuit over universal preschool brought by an evangelical Christian preschool in southern Colorado. Unlike the Catholic preschools, that school, Darren Patterson Christian Academy, joined the universal preschool program when it launched.

While officials there never sought to keep LGBTQ children or families out, their lawsuit said state non-discrimination rules could force the preschool to hire employees who don’t share its faith or to change school policies related to restrooms, pronouns, and dress codes.

In February, a federal judge appointed by Donald Trump ruled in favor of Darren Patterson Christian Academy.

The state appealed the ruling in March. The case is ongoing.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑