Category: Youth

Charlotte LGBTQ groups condemn Atrium ending gender-affirming meds for youths

Read more at the Charlotte Observer.

Atrium Health recently stopped providing gender-affirming medication for people 18 and younger, a move that transgender rights and other LGBTQ organizations around the Charlotte region immediately decried. They claimed that the Charlotte area’s largest health care provider buckled under political pressure.

Four LGBTQ rights groups issued a blistering statement on Facebook late last week condemning the move. The statement was on the page for Time Out Youth, a Charlotte nonprofit providing resources for LGBTQ+ people ages 13 to 24. The group was joined by Charlotte Trans Health, the Gender Education Network, and PFLAG Charlotte. The groups said Atrium and its parent company, Advocate Health, are making a decision “based on fear of retaliation by hostile federal agencies or funding cuts.”

Atrium refused to make anyone available for an interview with The Charlotte Observer. Instead, it emailed a statement from parent company Advocate Health confirming it no longer provides or prescribes gender-affirming care medications for patients younger than 19. That’s a departure from a 2023 state law, which restricted gender-affirming care for minors, defined as people younger than 18. In January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order limiting youth access to gender-affirming care nationwide. It defines individuals under 19 as “children” and directs federal agencies to take action to restrict care. Advocate Health said it has been closely following the evolving health care regulatory environment, and acknowledged a “changing federal environment.”

“We recognize that this is a deeply complex issue, and this decision was made after a multi-disciplinary team spent numerous hours carefully considering the options and outcomes,” Advocate Health stated. “This new policy allows our hospitals, clinics and pharmacies to continue caring for all patients’ health needs in the changing federal environment.” Advocate leaders announced the policy change to Atrium-affiliated clinicians and pharmacists during what they called a “difficult” Microsoft Teams meeting on July 31. A doctor associated with Atrium Health who was in that meeting provided an audio recording of it to The Charlotte Observer, and asked not to be named because they were not authorized to share the recording. “We understand the complexity of this, we understand the emotion, the real concern around it. We share it, which is why there has been so much time and so many people weighing in on this,” Dr. Scott Rissmiller, chief clinical officer of Advocate, said on the recording. “And at the end of the day, ultimately, it is to protect our clinicians, our patients and our organization as we move forward.” The Justice Department also issued a new policy memo that could have significant implications for healthcare professionals, Advocate leaders said during the meeting.

It suggested that doctors and other clinicians who provide specific types of gender-affirming care, both medical and surgical, to individuals under 19 may face criminal charges. The memo also includes provisions that encourage and protect whistleblowers who report violations within their healthcare organizations. Atrium Health had not previously provided surgical gender transition procedures for minors under age 18, the company told the Observer. About gender-affirming care Advocate Health defines gender-affirming care as services including social, psychological, behavioral or medical interventions (including hormonal treatment or surgery) designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity. That’s according to the draft of a policy shared with physicians in July and provided to the Observer by the doctor associated with Atrium Health. Advocate reviewed protocols for gender-affirming care and considered the potential impacts of federal actions on patients, clinics and employees before deciding to end the medications for people younger than 19, according to the draft policy. “Gender-affirming care is medical care,” the advocacy groups stated. “It is endorsed by every major medical and behavioral health association. It saves lives.”

Gender-affirming care is a supportive form of health care, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That may include medical, surgical and mental health services as well as non-medical services for transgender and nonbinary people. Atrium’s policy change wasn’t just about Trump’s executive order, but also took into consideration actions coming from the Federal Trade Commission, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare, and other “elements,” according to Advocate officials on the audio recording. While health care companies may face regulatory threats, executive actions and other risks, the LGBTQ groups said “the real harm will fall on young people who already face disproportionate rates of depression, anxiety and suicidality when affirming care is withheld.” Advocate Health physicians have been reaching out to patients affected by the policy change so they are aware of what it means for their care and to provide support, according to the company. In its statement to the Observer, Advocate said it recognized “that this will be difficult news” for patients affected by the policy change, and created a 24/7 hotline to assist them, focusing on providing personalized counseling that might be needed.

‘Operating out of fear’ Dr. Holly Savoy, executive director for Charlotte Trans Health, an advocacy group for transgender people, expressed concern and disappointment over Atrium’s decision.

“One of the biggest challenges for trans people is stigma and discrimination,” Savoy said. “(Atrium) is operating out of fear, rather than standing up for evidence-based care,” Savoy said. “It’s not standing behind the science of gender-affirming care and their values of being an organization that says that they support health care for all.” Advocate Health will focus on alternative, non-invasive care, such as behavioral health and peer support for patients, health care officials said at the July meeting. The company is the third-largest nonprofit health system in the U.S. It serves about 6 million patients. More than 155,000 employees work in 68 hospitals and more than 1,000 locations. Novant Health is the second largest health care provider in the Charlotte region. The Winston-Salem-based company did not respond to an Observer request about the status of gender-affirming care for youths.

Concerns over resources LGBTQ advocates feared that Atrium’s decision could make it harder for patients to find new care in the area. “Our kids are now having to suffer because they are struggling now to find care that they’ve had at Atrium, some of them for a couple of years now,” said Joshua Jernigan, founder of the Gender Education Network, a nonprofit providing support and resources to transgender and gender-diverse children. “And it’s just very, very sad to us.”

The state law enacted in 2023, N.C. House Bill 808, prohibits puberty blockers and surgical gender transition procedures for minors who had not already started treatment as of Aug. 1, 2023. And it created penalties for doctors who perform those procedures or who prescribe, provide or dispense puberty-blocking drugs or cross-sex hormones to a minor. Atrium Health hasn’t provided surgical gender transition procedures for minors under 18 since the law passed and has followed the law, Advocate Health told The Charlotte Observer. Advocate’s medication changes went into effect Aug. 4, and also impacts patients previously grandfathered in to receive gender-affirming care services under the N.C. law, according to the draft policy. Gender-affirming care medications can still be prescribed for patients 19 and older, according to the policy. For patients under 19, these same medications can be prescribed for other medical reasons, such as post-chemotherapy needs, tumor removal surgery or to treat precocious puberty (when a child goes through puberty too early). Jernigan said transgender patients deserve access to care, regardless of age. “I would hope that major medical systems would treat their patients first and not act like the patient’s medical needs are not important,” Jernigan said.

Joshua Dumas, a board member of PFLAG Charlotte, said Advocate Health’s decision to cut gender-affirming care medication is a business decision based on the current political climate. The four advocacy groups want Atrium to rescind its decision. “To every trans and gender-diverse young person and their families: You are not alone,” they said. “We are fighting for you. And we will not stop.”

0

NC Dems’ defection fuels the passage of several harmful Republican bills

Read more at NC Voices.

Four North Carolina Democratic lawmakers broke with their party in voting to override Governor Josh Stein’s veto of eight bills, a move that helped push several harmful measures into law.

The four Democrats who voted with state Republican lawmakers on one or more of the override votes were:

  • Cecil Brockman (D-Guilford) – Helped override 2 bills
  • Carla Cunningham (D-Mecklenburg) – Helped override 5 bills
  • Nasif Majeed (D-Mecklenburg) – Helped override 2 bills
  • Shelly Willingham (D-Edgecombe) – Helped override 6 bills

In both of the state’s legislative chambers, a 60% threshold is required to override a governor’s veto of a bill. Due to the four democratic lawmakers going against their party, House Democrats were unable to sustain Governor Stein’s vetoes on eight bills, including House Bill 805, House Bill 318, Senate Bill 266, and House Bill 193.

Here is a breakdown of the bills and how the four lawmakers voted:

Senate Bill 266 is a harmful bill that will raise utility bills for North Carolinians, roll back clean energy progress, and shift costs onto working families so that large corporations pay less. 

The veto override passed 74-46, with Cunningham, Majeed, and Willingham being the deciding votes.

House Bill 193 is a dangerous policy that allows nearly anyone with minimal training to carry a concealed firearm at a private school, creating a serious safety risk for students, teachers, and school support staff. 

The Republican veto override passed 72-48, with Willingham being the deciding vote.

In an interview with Bryan Anderson, Willingham stated that Governor Stein personally called him on Monday night to ask him to sustain his vetoes of several harmful bills. 

Willingham declined, saying, “Governor Stein, he’s just getting to know me. I think now he knows that whatever I say I’m going to do, that’s what I’m going to do. So he could take that to the bank.”

“They say, ‘Well, we want you to sustain the governor’s veto,’” Willingham said. “My thing is I sustain my vote.”

House Bill 805 was originally a bipartisan bill that would have helped people who appeared in sexually explicit photos and videos online to have them removed. However, state Republicans changed the bill to attack transgender North Carolinians along with other controversial provisions. 

In his veto statement, Governor Stein said that while he agreed with the portions of House Bill 805 protecting women and minors  from sexual exploitation on websites, the attacks towards transgender North Carolinians are “mean-spirited.”

Governor Stein wrote, “My faith teaches me that we are all children of God no matter our differences and that it is wrong to target vulnerable people, as this legislation does.”

Ultimately, state Republicans overrode Governor Stein’s veto, 72-48, with Majeed being the deciding vote.

House Bill 318 is an anti-immigration measure that will force sheriffs to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

In a statement following his veto of HB 318, Governor Stein stated, “My oath of office requires that I uphold the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, I cannot sign this bill because it would require sheriffs to unconstitutionally detain people for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released. The Fourth Circuit is clear that local law enforcement officers cannot keep people in custody solely based on a suspected immigration violation. But let me be clear: anyone who commits a serious crime in North Carolina must be prosecuted and held accountable regardless of their immigration status.”

Despite the bill setting up a dangerous precedent, state Republicans overrode Stein’s veto, 72-48.

Rep. Carla Cunningham, who was the deciding vote, gave a speech on the House floor defending her action to help Republicans override Gov. Josh Stein’s veto of the anti-immigration bill. 

In what Rep. Cunningham referred to as sharing her “unapologetic truth”, the Mecklenburg lawmaker went on to state, “First, as a people, we need to recognize that it’s not just the numbers that matter, but also where the immigrants come from and the culture they bring with them to another country. As the social scientists report, all cultures are not equal.”

 “Some immigrants come and believe they can function in isolation, refusing to adapt,” Cunningham stated. “They have come to our country for many reasons, but I suggest they must assimilate, adapt to the culture of the country they wish to live in.”

She added, “It’s time to turn the conveyor belt off.”

North Carolina Democratic Leaders Push Back

Several Democrats decried the override vetoes on the eight bills, including the Duke Energy bill, attacks towards transgender North Carolinians, and allowing concealed carry on private school grounds. 

On the floor, Rep. Marcia Morey, D-Durham, a former judge, pushed back against Cunningham’s remarks, stating, “We all agree we want safe communities. That’s no longer the issue with this bill — it is scapegoating. It is scapegoating immigrants.”

“Research has shown us that the immigrant community is less likely to commit crimes than the US citizen. That is a fact. We need to work towards finding solutions, not creating divisiveness and ignoring community concerns. This is furthering an anti-immigrant agenda no matter the cost. And when police act as immigration agents, witnesses or victims of crime are going to be less likely to report crime.”

According to the News & Observer, Senate Democratic Leader Sydney Batch called Cunningham’s remarks “absolutely uncalled for.”

“The very fact that you would say that not all people, or not all immigrants, are equal, is just – one, it’s contrary to our Constitution. It’s contrary to how this country was formed. This country was formed because of Native Americans, Blacks that were enslaved, and immigrants, including every single person that was here other than Native Americans,” Batch told reporters. 

“To say that we are not equal goes and flies in the face of anything that a Democrat, in my opinion, believes and holds, near and dear.”

In a statement last week, the Young Democrats of North Carolina joined Democratic members in condemning Cunningham’s remarks, saying that the lawmaker “disgraced her office with a hate-filled speech attacking the very immigrant communities she was elected to serve.”

“You will be held accountable by your community,” the group stated. “Good luck.”

0

‘Just trying to be kids’: Students, families speak out against federal ruling against schools’ transgender policies

Read more at the Prince William Times.

Fearful. Aggravated. Hurt. That’s how 16-year-old Ellie Bowling said she felt after the U.S. Department of Education told the Prince William County school division it must change its inclusive transgender policies or risk losing federal funding.

Ellie, who is trans, is a rising junior in Colgan High School’s Center for the Fine and Performing Arts. She’s excited to soon be driving and loves to be onstage. Last spring, she performed in the school’s production of “Guys and Dolls” and recently earned the role of “Candy” in the school’s fall production of “Zombie Prom.”

“I’m currently thriving in this environment; they created a great learning experience for me,” Ellie said of Prince William County schools.

Ellie was 11 when she started her transition. Since then, her parents, Adam and Erin Bowling, have legally changed her name and gender on government and school documents. After obtaining medical and psychological signoffs, Ellie began receiving gender-affirming hormone therapy at Children’s National Hospital in D.C.

At Colgan High, like all other Prince William County schools, transgender students use the bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identities in accordance with a regulation that guides how transgender and gender nonconforming students are treated in schools.

“I know that Colgan is a good place for me. I fit in well there, and that’s partially because these policies help me fit into this school and be able to find my place,” Ellie said. “Without these policies — I don’t know.”

The Bowlings are one of likely hundreds of Prince William County families facing uncertainty as the new school year approaches in less than two weeks. The schools are wrestling with the education department’s determination that its policies violate Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in educational settings that receive federal funding.

On July 25, the education department told five Virginia school divisions — Prince William, Fairfax, Loudoun, Arlington and Alexandria — they had 10 days to change their policies that allow transgender students to use the facilities that match their gender identities “or risk imminent enforcement consequences, including referral to the U.S. Department of Justice.”

School board has yet to act

The education department said its decision was based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for minors. The Northern Virginia school policies are based on an earlier case involving Virginia teen Gavin Grimm, who successfully sued Gloucester County schools in federal court to allow students to use restrooms that match their gender identities. In 2021, the U.S. Supreme court declined to review the case.

Babur Lateef, the Prince William County School Board chairman, called a special board meeting this week to receive legal advice on the decision, which will mostly be held in closed session. He declined further comment.

School board member Tracy Blake said he told parents to expect no changes when school begins on Aug. 18.  

“Trans students and families do not need to worry about coming back to school on the first day because there will be no disruptions for trans students or any students,” he said in an interview on Friday, Aug. 1.

Blake said he believes removing the regulation would be wrong.

“We can’t discriminate against one person,” he said. “Once you let one thing go, what happens then? Then it’s the next thing. We’ve already seen this in history, and all of our students have to feel safe.”

Ruling adds to challenges for transgender youth

The move by the U.S. Department of Education wasn’t unexpected because trans people have been targeted by the Trump administration, said Lisanne Boddye, a mother of seven, including a transgender teen and a gender expansive teen who both attend Potomac High School. Boddye is also a special education teacher at Potomac High and the wife of Prince William Supervisor Kenny Boddye. 

“My children, like thousands across the country, deserve to walk into their schools knowing they are respected, affirmed and protected,” Lisanne Boddye said. “When leaders target transgender students for exclusion or erasure, they send a chilling message — not just to those students, but to every family who believes in fairness, decency, and the right to learn without fear.”

About 3.3% of U.S. high school students identify as transgender, and about 2.2% of high school students are questioning their gender identity, according to a 2023 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey. That means about 1 in 20 high schoolers are either transgender or questioning their gender, or about 1,200 of the 24,000 students enrolled in Prince William County’s 13 high schools.

Delta Boddye, 16, a rising senior, rows on the Potomac High School crew team. She began transitioning two years ago and said her teachers have always used her correct name and “made sure they are affirming (her).”

“I’ve just been planning on just living as myself, just trying to be a kid, trying to be a student,” she said about returning to school.

But revoking the school’s policy could change that, she said. No matter the policy, Delta said she will insist that her correct name and pronouns are used at school.

The possible change in the school division’s policy comes on top of other challenges. Delta was considering joining the military but now can’t because of the recent ban on transgender troops. The Bowlings learned the Youth Pride Clinic at Children’s National Hospital, where Ellie is a patient, will no longer prescribe gender-affirming medications as of Aug. 30 due to “escalating legal and regulatory risks” to the hospital and its providers.

“This is supposed to be her happiest year, her senior year, and all of the horizons are supposed to be endless, and now most of them are not,” said Lisanne Boddye, who is an Army special operations veteran.

Both the Bowlings and Boddyes say they are speaking out not only for the safety and mental health of their own children, but for their trans classmates who may not have the same family and community support.

Equality Prince William, a nonprofit that advocates for the LGBTQIA+ community, sponsored a campaign urging the school board “to hold firm in their support for transgender and gender diverse students.” As of Aug. 5, 1,700 letters had been sent. 

“Title IX exists to prevent exactly this kind of discrimination,” said Glorya Jordan, a registered nurse who is on the board of Equality Prince William and is the mother of a transgender adult. “The attempt to rescind protections for transgender youth is not only illegal but deadly. Trans youth already face staggering rates of bullying, depression and suicide.”

“Let’s stop hurting our children because of what we are afraid of and do not understand,” said the Casa BruMar Foundation, a nonprofit based in Gainesville that provides resources for the LGBTQIA+ community. “Let’s allow our children to know that being different is not dangerous.”

Adam Bowling hopes people realize there is so much more to his daughter Ellie than just being trans and she deserves to be her authentic self at school. 

“Demonizing this group of people is just so wrong,” he said. “I just hope the majority of people hear stories like Ellie’s and realize that there are human beings that these decisions are affecting and it’s a life-or-death situation for some of them.”

Ellie wants people to know that she is a normal teenager.

“I hate how politicized trans youth is, because I am not a monster,” Ellie said. “There’s so much misinformation out there obviously for fear-mongering reasons. I’m not this predator who goes into women’s spaces just to, like, spy on them. I am a woman who is living her life.”

0

“Merciless”: New Hampshire bans all gender-affirming care for trans minors

Read more at LGBTQ Nation .

New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) signed a gender-affirming care ban into law on Friday that bans anyone under 18 from using puberty blockers or hormone treatments for gender transition care.

H.B. 377 – the first of its kind in New England – also prohibits minors from receiving gender-affirming surgery, despite the fact that it is already almost never performed on trans kids under 18.

Starting January 1, 2026, providers are barred from providing hormone care and puberty blockers only “if the performance or administration of the procedure or medication is for the purpose of altering or attempting to alter the appearance of or affirm the minor’s perception of his or her gender or sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex.”

The ban does not hold medical providers criminally liable for violations, but rather subjects them to administrative disciplinary action by the state board of medicine. It also allows minors already receiving treatment to continue doing so. Minors and their parents can also sue medical providers for violating the law.

Ayotte also signed a second bill specially preventing minors from having top surgery except for “procedures needed to treat malignancy, injury, infection, or malformation and those needed to reconstruct the breasts after such procedures.”

“Medical decisions made at a young age can carry lifelong consequences,” Ayotte said in a statement, “and these bills represent a balanced, bipartisan effort to protect children.”

Despite Ayotte calling the legislation bipartisan, the bills passed overwhelmingly along party lines. Only two Democrats voted for H.B. 377, and only one voted for the top surgery bill.

While expressing support for the bill, State Sen. Kevin Avard (R) called trans identity a “craze” that “seems almost a cult-like following.”

“I do believe biology speaks volumes,” he said, according to NBC Boston.

Courtney Reed, policy advocate at the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, called the laws “merciless, cruel, and painful for transgender young people, their families, and their doctors.”

Chris Erchull, senior staff attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, said the legislation “epitomizes extreme government intrusion into the private lives and personal decisions of New Hampshire families.”

“The best way to protect the health and well-being of young transgender people is to ensure they have continued access to necessary, age-appropriate medical care provided by licensed physicians practicing in accordance with established standards of medical care,” he said.

Ayotte signed the bills despite the fact that earlier this Month, she vetoed several anti-LGBTQ+ bills, including an anti-trans bathroom bill, a book-banning bill, and a ban on teachers giving students “get to know you” questionnaires without parental permission. State Republicans lack the two-thirds majority needed in both the House and Senate to override the governor’s vetoes.

0

See where gender identity care is restricted and where it’s protected across the US

Read more at CNN.

The US Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Tennessee’s ban on gender identity care for transgender minors earlier this summer has fueled ongoing polarization around LGBTQ issues and controversial policies across the nation. The high court has also agreed to take on more cases dealing with trans rights in its next session that begins in October.

Twenty-seven states have passed laws limiting access to gender identity health care for transgender children and teenagers, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy think tank. An estimated 40% of trans youth ages 13 to 17 live in these states.

VIEW GRAPHIC IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE.

There have already been more anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures so far this year than in any full year since at least 2020, a CNN analysis of American Civil Liberties Union data found. These bills span various aspects of everyday life, including bathroom access, school sports and identification documents.

CNN is tracking where these laws are being passed and where these bills are being introduced. This story will be updated.

Gender identity care includes medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned sex— the one the person was designated at birth — to their affirmed gender, the gender by which one wants to be known.

Most of the states limiting gender identity care for trans minors adopted their bans in 2023, a record-breaking year for such laws. So far this year, one state — Kansas — has passed a ban, prohibiting the use of state funds to provide or subsidize health care for transgender youth.

Not all laws are currently being enforced, however. The ban in Arkansas has been permanently blocked by a federal court, though the state said it would appeal the ruling. Montana’s ban is also permanently blocked, according to KFF. Though Arizona has a 2022 law on the books banning surgical care for transgender minors, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs signed an executive order in 2023 ensuring access to gender identity health care.

VIEW GRAPHIC IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE.

Another record year for anti-LGBTQ bills

Nearly 600 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced into state legislatures as of July 11, which is already more than any other year on record, according to the ACLU.

Education and health care continue to be key targets. There were more bills restricting student and educator rights — enforcing school sports bans and targeting students’ access to facilities consistent with their gender identities, for example — than any other category of bills, according to a CNN analysis of ACLU data.

VIEW GRAPHIC IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE.

Legislators in Texas have introduced 88 anti-LGBTQ bills so far this year, more than double the number of bills being considered in any other state. Four of those — including one that limits changes to gender markers on state medical records — have been passed into law.

In late July, Texas lawmakers are reconvening for a 30-day special session. On the agenda is a transgender bathroom bill.

Lawmakers in every state, except for Vermont, have filed at least one anti-LGBTQ bill in 2025, according to a CNN analysis. Twenty-two states have signed those bills into law.

VIEW GRAPHIC IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

0

A school district just banned rainbow flags. It may soon remove protections for LGBTQ+ students too.

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The school board of Johnston County, North Carolina, voted 4-2 to ban district schools from displaying rainbow Pride flags on Tuesday. The ban is just the latest in a long line of conservative efforts to ban the LGBTQ+ flag from schools and government property.

According to The Raleigh News & Observer, the newly approved policy states: “Principals and teachers shall limit displays in the classrooms, school buildings, ball fields, school grounds, and buses, such as signs and flags, to materials that represent the United States, the state of North Carolina, Johnston County, the school name, mascot, post-secondary institutions, school-sponsored events, sponsorships, military flags, family photos, student art and/or the approved curriculum.”

One board member who voted against the measure, Kay Carroll, said, “It’s important that they know when they see somebody wear a human rights pin or a rainbow pin, the message is that this is a safe place for people in the LGBTQ+ community…. It’s comforting to see these symbols of acceptance and tolerance. When they see these symbols — which are signals — they know they are safe to be their authentic selves. We’re just treating human beings decently.”

The school board claimed that it will continue to support “all students and school employees.” However, the board is currently considering removing sexual orientation and gender identity from its anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies. The board will re-vote on the removal soon after failing to advance the measure in a 3-3 tie vote last Tuesday.

Numerous school districts nationwide have banned the display of Pride flags, with conservative school board members claiming that the flags are a “divisive” form of “indoctrination.”

However, recent polling by the Trevor Project suggests that LGBTQ+ students may benefit from visible displays of support, considering that 39% of LGBTQ+ young people and 46% of trans and nonbinary young people reported attempting suicide in the past year, and 49% of respondents between ages 13 to 17 said they experienced bullying in the past year. Young people who were bullied were also significantly more likely to have attempted suicide in the past year.

Earlier this year, both Utah and Idaho became the first U.S. states to pass laws restricting the flying of Pride flags in schools and on government property. The move led the capital city governments of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Boise, Idaho, to designate the Pride flags as official city flags, so they can still fly them under the bans.

0

Virginia agrees not to fully enforce state law banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ minors

*This is reported by NBC News.

 Virginia officials have agreed not to fully enforce a 2020 law banning conversion therapy for minors as part of an agreement with a faith-based conservative group that sued over the law, authorities said earlier this week.

The Virginia Department of Health Professions, represented by the state’s office of the attorney general, entered into a consent decree with the Founding Freedoms Law Center last month, saying officials will not discipline counselors who engage in talk conversion therapy.

Shaun Kenney, a spokesperson with the Virginia Attorney General’s Office, said on Tuesday his office was satisfied with the consensus.

“This court action fixes a constitutional problem with the existing law by allowing talk therapy between willing counselors and willing patients, including those struggling with gender dysphoria,” Kenney said in a statement. “Talk therapy with voluntary participants was punishable before this judgment was entered. This result—which merely permits talk therapy within the standards of care while preserving the remainder of the law—respects the religious liberty and free speech rights of both counselors and patients.”

A Henrico Circuit Court judge signed the consent decree in June. Two professional counselors represented by the law center sued the state’s health department and counseling board last September, arguing that the law violated their right to religious freedom.

The term “conversion therapy” refers to a scientifically discredited practice of using therapy in an attempt to convert LGBTQ people to heterosexuality.

The practice has been banned in 23 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ rights think tank.

The practice has been a matter of dispute in several states. A ruling is expected any day from the Wisconsin Supreme Court over whether a legislative committee’s rejection of a state agency rule that would ban the practice of “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ people was unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in March to take up a case from Colorado to determine whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ children.

According to the law center, the Virginia consent decree applies not only to the two counselors but to all counselors in Virginia.

“We are grateful to the Defendants in this case and to the Attorney General, who did the right thing by siding with the Constitution,” the law center said in a statement.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, who backed the 2020 bill, blasted the decree.

“This was a statute that was enacted to save lives,” he told reporters during a Zoom session on Tuesday. “All the research, all the professional psychiatric organizations have condemned conversion therapy. They say it doesn’t work, and they say it’s counterproductive.”

0

SCOTUS rules parents have a right to prevent their kids from reading books with LGBTQ+ characters

*This is reported by LGBTQ Nation.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the case brought by parents who said that their First Amendment rights were violated when schools used books that included LGBTQ+ characters.

The decision was 6-3 along ideological lines, with the Republican-appointed justices siding with the religious parents who wanted to opt their children out of reading books like Prince & Knight and Uncle Bobby’s Wedding in the Montgomery County, Maryland, school system.

“The Court does not accept the Board’s characterizations of the LGBTQ+-inclusive instruction as mere ‘exposure to objectionable ideas’ or as lessons in ‘mutual respect,’” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “The storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.”

“Regardless, the question in cases of this kind is whether the educational requirement or curriculum at issue would ‘substantially interfere with the religious development’ of the child or pose ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child.”

“Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes ‘contrary to the religious principles’ that parents wish to instill in their children,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. “Exposing students to the ‘message’ that LGBTQ people exist, and that their loved ones may celebrate their marriages and life events, the majority says, is enough to trigger the most demanding form of judicial scrutiny.”

The case involved several sets of Christian and Muslim parents who objected to their kids reading books that mentioned LGBTQ+ people. The district had an opt-out policy that they later rescinded because, the district claimed, the opt-outs were becoming “unworkable.”

Some parents in the district protested to get the opt-out policy reinstated, while others protested in favor of learning about LGBTQ+ people.

“The books geared to younger kids are just showing a diverse range of families,” said Christina Celenza, a mother of a student in the district, during one of the 2023 protests. “We have a two-mom household, so my wife and I are really proud and out, and, of course, my kid in kindergarten or pre-K is going to probably talk about his family and his two moms.”

The district didn’t budge, so several parents sued. Two lower courts denied them a preliminary injunction, but the Supreme Court just granted them one.

The parents want the courts to ultimately order teachers to notify them of every possible discussion where LGBTQ+ people may come up so that they could opt their children out, lest their kids learn that LGBTQ+ people exist. They claimed that knowing that LGBTQ+ people exist is contrary to their religious beliefs and violates their right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

Public education advocates warn that the ruling could lead to even more requests for opt-outs of public education on wide-ranging topics including Earth Day, critical thinking, and anti-drug programs.

Free speech and LGBTQ+ advocates denounced the ruling.

“This ruling is a deeply disappointing blow to the right to read under the First Amendment,” said U.S. Free Expression Programs staff attorney for PEN America Elly Brinkley in a statement. “It is a fundamental betrayal of public schools’ duty to prepare students to live in a diverse and pluralistic society. By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools.”

“While religious liberty is fundamentally important, it should not force public schools to exempt students from lessons that don’t align with their families’ personal religious or cultural beliefs,” said Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang in a statement. “LGBTQ+ themed books are already among the most banned and challenged in school districts and libraries across the country. Today’s decision will make it even harder for these books to find their way into the hands of students who simply want to read — and who may find validation and acceptance in the process.”

“Today’s ruling does not change schools’ obligation to prepare students to interact with and thrive in a diverse and ever-changing world,” said GLAD Law’s Mary L. Bonauto. “LGBTQ+ people and families exist, students in our public schools have LGBTQ+ parents, and books that include LGBTQ+ people should not be treated differently than those without LGBTQ+ people.”

“The Court’s decision does not require our schools to abandon these efforts. Parents, students, educators, and neighbors can encourage opportunities for learning about diverse people and families by staying involved with school districts, school boards, and in our local communities.”

0

Christian extremists in Georgia get librarian fired for displaying book about transgender child

*This is reported by LGBTQ Nation

Lavonnia Moore, a 45-year-old library manager, had worked at the Pierce County Library in Blackshear, Georgia, for 15 years. She was ultimately let go when a Christian extremist group filed a complaint to the library after Moore approved the display of a children’s book about a transgender boy.

According to Moore, the display (entitled “Color Our World”) included the book When Aidan Became a Brother (by trans male author Kyle Lukoff), a story about a family accepting a trans child named Aiden while also preparing for the birth of Aiden’s sibling. Library volunteers created the display as a part of a regional-wide summer theme featuring books that celebrate diversity.

“I simply supported community involvement, just as I have for other volunteer-led displays. That’s what librarians do — we create space for everybody… I did not tell the parents and children what they could or could not add to the display, just as I do not tell them what they can or cannot read,” she wrote in a statement.

However, the book caught the attention of a group calling themselves the Alliance for Faith and Family (AFF), not to be confused with the anti-LGBTQ+ legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. The AFF had previously been in the public eye for demanding the removal of a mural in the Waycross-Ware County Public Library, which included a Pride theme declaring, “Libraries Are For Everyone.”

The AFF campaigned on Facebook, urging their followers to pray and take a few moments out of their day to email the Three Rivers Library System and Pierce County Commissioners to “put a stop to this and show them the community supports them in taking a stand against promoting transgenderism at our local library,”

In an update post, the group wrote, “The display has been removed, and LaVonnia is no longer the Pierce County Library Manager. Please thank the Pierce County Commissioners and Three Rivers Regional Library System for quickly addressing our concerns.” 

Moore and her sister Alicia confirmed that LaVonnia Moore had been fired. A statement to The Blackshear Times from the Three Rivers Library System Director Jeremy Snell explained that the library board leadership decided to move to new leadership for the Pierce County Library. He specifically cited the display of an “inappropriate” book as his reasoning.

“The library holds transparency and community trust in the highest regard,” Snell said.

“Instead of investigating, talking to me or my team, or exploring any kind of fair process, they used the ‘at-will’ clause in my contract to terminate me on the spot. No warning. No meeting. No due diligence. Just the words ‘poor decision making’ on a piece of paper after 15 years of service,” Moore claimed.

“I am just heartbroken,” she said of her dismissal.

According to Moore’s sister Alicia, “She messaged the family group and said ‘I was just fired.’”

“I don’t think she’s doing emotionally good, because imagine having to pack up 15 years in two days,” Alicia Moore told First Coast News.

“She’s heartbroken that a place she gave so much of herself to turned its back on her so quickly. And yes, she’s still in disbelief. She didn’t expect to be punished for doing her job with integrity and love for all patrons — especially children.” the sister explained.

The sisters are currently seeking legal counsel, and Alicia is urging people to reach out to the library board and county commissioners.

“I’m hoping the same method will be useful to get her justice,” Alicia said.

0

US supreme court upholds Tennessee ban on youth gender-affirming care

*This is reported by The Guardian

A Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand, the US supreme court has ruled, a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children.

The case, United States v Skrmetti, was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care. In oral arguments, the plaintiffs – as well as the US government, then helmed by Joe Biden – argued that Tennessee’s law constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Under Tennessee’s law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs.

Tennessee, meanwhile, has argued that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed “experimental” medical treatment. During arguments, the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to that concern, although every major medical and mental health organization in the US has found that gender-affirming care can be evidence-based and medically necessary. These groups also oppose political bans on such care.

All six of the supreme court’s conservative justices joined in at least part of the decision to uphold the law, although several also wrote their own concurring opinions. In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the ruling primarily rested on the justices’ finding that the law did not violate the equal protection clause, rather than on an ideological opposition to trans rights.

“This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,” Roberts wrote. He added: “We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

In recent years, the question of transgender children and their rights has consumed an outsized amount of rightwing political discourse. Since 2021, 26 states have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors, affecting nearly 40% of trans youth in the US. Twenty-six states have also outlawed trans kids from playing on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.

Many of these restrictions have been paused by court challenges, but the supreme court’s decision could have vast implications for those lawsuits’ futures. A study by the Trevor Project, a mental health non-profit that aims to help LGBTQ+ kids, found that anti-trans laws are linked to a 72% increase of suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, alongside Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Because the law discriminates on the basis of sex, Sotomayor argued in her dissent, it should face higher legal scrutiny than the majority decided to give it.

“Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,” Sotomayor wrote. “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.”

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑