Hungary’s governing party has proposed constitutional changes that could mean a ban on an annual march celebrating the LGBTQ community and the expulsion of citizens with dual citizenship if they are deemed to pose a threat to the country’s sovereignty.
Nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban has repeatedly criticized LGBTQ people and pledged to crack down on foreign funding of independent media and nongovernmental organizations in Hungary in recent weeks, after his ally, U.S. President Donald Trump, paused funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Trump’s steps prompted speculation that Orban would be emboldened and clamp down on media deemed to be unfriendly.
“The corruption network that rules the entire Western world of politics and media must be eliminated,” Orban told parliament on Feb. 24, adding that his government would “go to the wall” with the new laws.
The governing Fidesz party submitted its proposed amendments to the constitution late on Tuesday.
According to the proposed amendments, the constitution would add an amendment emphasizing the protection of children’s physical, mental and moral development over all other rights.
The new law could pave the way for a ban on the annual Pride March by LGBTQ communities as the event could be considered harming children and protecting their development would supersede the right to assemble.
Orban’s government is targeting the Pride March ahead of elections next year.
Another of the amendments states that Hungarian nationals who also hold a citizenship of another country can be expelled “if their actions pose a threat to Hungary’s national sovereignty, public order, territorial integrity or security.”
The changes will also enshrine in the constitution that Hungary will recognize only two sexes, male and female, an idea that Trump has also backed.
The proposed changes will also enshrine the right to cash payments in the constitution, embracing an idea the Hungarian far-right has backed because of a lack of trust in banks, draft legislation on the parliament’s website showed.
Orban, in power since 2010, faces elections in 2026 with the economy just moving out of an inflation crisis and with a surging new opposition party posing the strongest challenge yet to his rule.
City councilors in Boston voted 12-1 Wednesday to make Boston a sanctuary city for members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Councilor-at-Large Julia Mejia and District 9 Councilor Liz Breadon called on Boston to adopt the measure supporting transgender people, pointing to what they see as harmful rhetoric coming from President Donald Trump and the White House.
“Boston is not going to back down,” Mejia said Wednesday. “We’re seeing attacks on our trans loved ones, and here on the local level, a lot of folks are feeling helpless.”
City Councilor Ed Flynn was the only member of the body to vote against the measure.
“I would like to learn more about what this resolution does as it relates to sanctuary cities, the Trust Act, what impact it has on city services, what role the city departments will play,” Flynn said, according to The Boston Herald. “I don’t want to be disrespectful to anybody, but it’s just something I would like to have before I vote.”
Sam Whiting of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a group that describes itself as recognizing “the male and female sexes as a real and enduring part of a person’s created nature, not an imaginary social construct,” pushed back on the councilors’ framing of the Trump administration’s actions.
“We think it misrepresents the executive orders, and we do support these orders and the efforts to protect children from the harms of gender ideology,” Whiting told NBC10 Boston.
Mejia said the measure is critical.
“It’s really a love letter and an opportunity to set the groundwork for the legislation,” she said.
North Dakota lawmakers are on the verge of making their state the first to tell the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its decade-old ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Similar efforts — which would not have any direct sway with the nation’s top courts — have been introduced in a handful of states this year. North Dakota’s resolution passed the Republican-led House in February but still requires Senate approval, which is not assured.
“The original Supreme Court ruling in 2015 went totally against the Tenth Amendment, went totally against the North Dakota Constitution and North Dakota Century Code (state laws),” sponsor Republican Rep. Bill Tveit said. “Why did I introduce it? Every one of us in this building took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state.”
When the Legislature considers such resolutions, attorney and North Dakota National Guard member Laura Balliet said she wonders why she stays in her home state. The measure makes her feel unwanted, unwelcome and judged because of who she is, she said. She married her wife in 2020.
“I don’t know what this resolution does other than to tell people like myself, my friends and my family that we’re not welcome here, and I’m angry about that because I want to be welcome here. This is my home,” Balliet told the Senate panel that heard the measure on Wednesday — one in a stream of opponents who testified against it.
A push across states
Massachusetts-based MassResistance, which describes itself as an “international pro-family group” but has been labeled “anti-LGBTQ hate group” by the LGBTQ advocacy organization GLAAD, is pushing the resolution across the country.
Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage, in 2004. Over the next 11 years, most states began to recognize it through laws, ballot measures or court decisions before the Supreme Court made it legal nationwide.
Outside of Idaho and North Dakota, the measures have not progressed far, according to an analysis of legislation collected by the bill-tracking service Plural.
By contrast, there have been additional protections for same-sex marriage over the years, including a federal law in 2022. Since 2020, California, Colorado, Hawaii and Nevada have repealed old constitutional amendments that defined marriage as being allowed only between a man and a woman, and Virginia lawmakers advanced a similar measure this year. It could be on the ballot there in 2026.
Differing views
The North Dakota measure states that the Legislature “rejects” the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision and urges the U.S. Supreme Court “to overturn the decision and leave unaddressed the natural definition of marriage as a union between one man, a biological male, and one woman, a biological female.”
In the court’s 2022 ruling that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should reconsider its precedents in the marriage decision and other past cases.
Soon after the measure passed the North Dakota House last month, several Republican state reps who voted for it stated they meant to vote no or regretted voting yes.
Republican Rep. Matt Ruby said he wished he had voted against the measure, saying his yes vote was for a different intent he realized wasn’t going to happen. The vote sent a bad message “that your marriage isn’t valid and you’re not welcome,” Ruby said. He said he supports the right for same-sex couples to be married.
Republican Rep. Dwight Kiefert said he voted for the resolution because of his Christian faith and that the institution of marriage was established in the Bible in the Garden of Eden between Adam and Eve.
‘Slap in the face’
The measure is a slap in the face to North Dakotans who are happily married and invested in their state, said Democratic Sen. Ryan Braunberger, who is gay and sits on the Senate panel that heard the resolution. The measure sends a dangerous message as North Dakota wants to grow its population and expand economically, he said.
“We want to make sure that we bring everybody in the best of the crop, and that runs the gamut of all sorts of different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations through that,” Braunberger said.
The measure is a declaration, if passed, that lawmakers would want to define marriage through what is arguably a religious lens, which dangerously gets close to infringing upon the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, said Cody Schuler, advocacy manager for the American Civil Liberties Union’s North Dakota chapter.
“Marriage defined as ‘one man, one woman’ is a particular religious view. It is not held by all religions, all societies or by nonreligious people, and so therefore it is dangerous to be making that kind of statement because it puts legislators on record as to how they might vote on law, on a binding law versus this nonbinding resolution,” Schuler said.
Kentucky state Representative David Hale, a Republican, has introduced legislation aimed at overturning a 2024 executive order issued by Democratic Governor Andy Beshear that bans conversion therapy. This controversial practice, which attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, has been widely discredited by medical and psychological experts. Despite numerous opponents testifying against Hale’s bill, the lawmaker insists that his research supports the need for the legislation, although he declined to disclose the organizations that helped him draft the bill.
Governor Beshear’s Executive Order and Its Impact
In September 2024, Governor Beshear signed an executive order that outlaws conversion therapy for minors in Kentucky. The executive order not only prohibits state-funded programs from supporting the practice, but it also calls for licensing boards for counselors to consider disciplinary action against those who engage in conversion therapy. Beshear’s order aims to protect minors from a practice that has been shown to have detrimental effects on mental health.
At the time of signing the order, Beshear emphasized that conversion therapy “has no basis in medicine or science” and cited research linking the practice to increased rates of suicide and depression. “This is about doing what is right and protecting our children,” Beshear said in a statement. “Hate is not who we are as Kentuckians.”
Hale’s Proposed Bill and its Justifications
On February 15, 2025, Hale introduced House Bill 495, a measure designed to reverse Beshear’s executive order. Hale, who is known for his conservative stances, argues that his bill would protect counselors, therapists, and pastors who offer conversion therapy from government interference. He insists that parents should have the right to seek therapy that aligns with their beliefs and the needs of their children.
During a committee meeting, Hale claimed that his bill would protect mental health providers offering “therapy to relieve discomfort or distress caused by an individual’s sex or romantic or sexual attraction.” He further added that the bill would also safeguard practitioners who offer other forms of therapy, including pro-LGBTQ or gender-affirming care. Despite the claims, Hale did not specify which organizations assisted in drafting the bill’s language.
The bill, which was approved in a 15-4 party-line vote by the committee’s Republican members, is now one step closer to being debated by the full Kentucky legislature. Some Republicans on the committee argued that the bill would ensure mental health professionals could offer care that respects both LGBTQ+ individuals and those seeking therapy to change their sexual orientation.
Opposition Voices and Concerns
Numerous witnesses spoke out against Hale’s bill, citing the harm caused by conversion therapy and the damage it can do to vulnerable individuals. Eric Russ, a licensed clinical psychologist and executive director of the Kentucky Psychological Association, testified that the bill “directly threatens the trust between a mental health provider and our clients” by legitimizing practices that are widely considered harmful.
Rev. Brandon Long, an ordained minister and former victim of conversion therapy, shared his personal experience of being subjected to the practice after coming out as gay. He described how conversion therapy had attempted to alter his sexual orientation by blaming it on childhood trauma and demonic influence. “Conversion therapy weaponized sacred pastoral practices,” Long said, adding that it was “spiritual and psychological abuse.”
Chris Hartman, executive director of the Fairness Campaign, an LGBTQ+ rights group, questioned why the committee responsible for overseeing state government functions was involved in passing legislation related to mental health care.
Hale, who said he had found “no evidence” supporting the personal testimonies of those who spoke against his bill, went on to shake hands with several of the witnesses who had opposed it. Rev. Long refused to shake his hand, accusing Hale of dismissing their lived experiences and framing their testimony as lies.
Political Landscape and Future of the Bill
Hale’s bill is part of a broader culture war in Kentucky, where conservative lawmakers have made several attempts to restrict LGBTQ+ rights. In 2023, Kentucky Republicans successfully passed a ban on gender-affirming medical care, though it is currently on hold due to ongoing court challenges. While this ban focuses on medical care, it does not address gender-affirming psychological counseling.
Conversion therapy has been banned in 23 states, and the practice has faced widespread condemnation from major U.S. medical and psychological associations. Research has consistently shown that conversion therapy leads to increased emotional distress, including depression and suicidal thoughts, particularly among LGBTQ+ youth. According to the Trevor Project, nearly 21% of LGBTQ+ youth in Kentucky have reported being subjected to conversion therapy, with 83% of those experiences occurring before the age of 18.
A Divisive Issue for Kentucky’s Future
Hale’s bill comes at a time when Republicans hold supermajorities in both chambers of Kentucky’s legislature, which could threaten the future of Beshear’s executive order. If passed, the bill would reverse the protections set forth by Beshear, allowing the practice of conversion therapy to continue in the state.
As the bill moves through the legislative process, it is clear that the debate over conversion therapy is far from settled. Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights are committed to fighting the bill, while opponents argue that parents should have the freedom to choose therapeutic options that align with their values. With the state’s political climate increasingly polarized, Kentucky’s legislature is set to remain at the center of a larger national conversation about the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and the role of government in regulating mental health practices.
For those struggling with issues related to conversion therapy, several resources are available, including the Trevor Project (1-866-488-7386) and the Trans Lifeline (1-877-565-8860). These organizations provide safe, confidential support for LGBTQ+ youth and adults.
Trump posted an article to his Truth Social account this weekend featuring a deeply troubling image: a pink triangle—the Nazi-era symbol used to identify and persecute gay men in concentration camps—covered with a red prohibited sign. Historically, the LGBTQ+ rights movement reclaimed the pink triangle as a symbol of resistance, pride, and remembrance.
The article itself titled, “Army recruitment ads look quite different under Trump,” published by the Washington Times praises Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for refocusing the military on “lethality” and reversing Biden-era policies that embraced diversity, including ads featuring LGBTQ+ soldiers.
The image, placed in the context of military recruitment, strongly suggests a rejection of LGBTQ+ service members, at least in the terms of recruitment, under Trump’s leadership.
He has long opposed LGBTQ+ inclusion in the military, previously criticizing the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Now, under his leadership, Trump appears to be reinforcing the idea that LGBTQ+ individuals are unwelcome in the armed forces—not just through policy but through amplifying symbolic messaging with disturbing historical roots.
Trump’s amplification of a Nazi-era symbol to promote this shift sends a message signaling a return to exclusionary policies that many believed were left in the past.
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear a case regarding whether state bans on “conversion therapy” trying to change minors’ sexual orientation or gender identity are legal—a case that could carry billions of dollars in repercussions, as a 2022 study found conversion therapy carries an economic burden of approximately $9 billion annually for patients and their families.
Key Facts
The Supreme Court took up Chiles v. Salazar, a case challenging Colorado’s ban on LGBTQ “conversion therapy” for minors, which asks the justices to more broadly decide whether laws that “[censor] certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed” are constitutional.
LGBTQ “conversion therapy,” as it’s commonly known, refers to any practices—including both emotional efforts, like talk therapy, or physical efforts, like electroconvulsive therapy—that aim to influence a patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity, which are typically framed as efforts to “cure” homosexuality or being transgender.
Repeated studies have shown such efforts are ineffective at changing people’s sexual orientation or gender identity and carry a variety of harmful effects—such as elevated risks for suicide, drug abuse and mental health issues—which has led to bans on conversion therapy for minors being enacted in more than 20 states.
Conversion therapy and its negative effects also have an economic impact, as a 2022 study published in JAMA Pediatrics found conversion therapy and its “associated harms” result in an economic burden of approximately $9.23 billion per year.
Conversion therapy alone costs approximately $650 million for participants annually in the U.S., with individuals who undergo it paying an extra $97,985 for treatment as compared with people who don’t undergo any counseling, according to the study, which was based on data from LGBTQ youth ages 13-24.
There are also significant costs associated with knock-on effects from conversion therapy and the study estimates each conversion therapy patient pays an extra $83,366 on average to treat the “downstream consequences” associated with the procedure, which combined raise the total economic burden of conversion therapy to $9.2 billion.
What To Watch For
The Supreme Court will hear the case on conversion therapy at some point during its next term, which begins in October, so any ruling in the case is likely more than a year away.
What Did The Study Conclude?
The study, which was conducted by pro-LGBTQ rights organization The Trevor Project and research group Cytel, concluded there is a “high economic burden and high societal costs” that come along with conversion therapy, which the study refers to as sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts (SOGICE). Researchers analyzed the difference in costs between patients who underwent conversion therapy, LGBTQ youth who received no therapy and those who received therapy that affirmed their sexual orientation or gender identity. The study found conversion therapy carried the highest economic burden: In addition to the $650 million per year in total attributed to the therapy itself, there are also total annual costs of $190 million related to anxiety or “severe psychological distress” among those that underwent conversion therapy, $1.36 billion related to depression, $2.42 billion from suicide attempts, $1.17 billion from fatal suicides, $1.26 billion from alcohol use disorder and $2.18 billion from substance abuse. The likelihood of those negative outcomes was largely markedly higher among those who underwent conversion therapy as compared with other LGBTQ populations—except alcohol use disorder, where those without any therapy registered the highest number by one percentage point (42.26% among those with no intervention versus 41.26% among conversion therapy patients). As a result, the total costs incurred by conversion therapy patients were higher than the $4.85 billion in total annual costs among those who hadn’t received any treatment, and $3.04 billion among those who received affirmative therapy.
Contra
Researchers noted there were some limitations with the study’s methodology that may affect its results, such as being based on studies in which patients self-reported their experiences. That means it might not be fully representative of all LGBTQ patients, as many people may be unwilling to discuss their experiences. It also assumes the risks are the same across the LGBTQ population and for various types of conversion therapy, which may not be the case. Researchers argued they took a “conservative approach” with their findings, however, and noted the $9 billion figure is likely an underestimate of the total economic impact. The study only looked at adverse impacts from conversion therapy for three years after the treatment, for instance—though such effects could likely extend for much longer—and did not examine some other potential impacts, like post-traumatic stress disorder or medical consequences from various medications or electroconvulsive therapy.
Big Number
13%. That’s the share of LGBTQ youth who have either been subjected to or threatened with conversion therapy, according to a 2024 survey conducted by The Trevor Project among more than 50,000 Americans ages 13-24. That includes 5% who have been subjected to the therapy and 8% who were threatened with it. The 5% share is down from 10% who said in 2020 they were subjected to the therapy, though that number could rise again should the Supreme Court outlaw state bans.
Key Background
The Supreme Court case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado who said in a court filing “she believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.” Chiles objects to Colorado restricting her from counseling clients to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, claiming it violates her First Amendment rights and classifying state bans on conversion therapy as “silenc[ing] counselors’ ability to express views their clients seek on a topic of ‘fierce public debate.’” Chiles asked the Supreme Court to take up the case after a federal appeals court upheld Colorado’s policy restricting conversion therapy, ruling that it was regulating counselors’ professional conduct, rather than chilling First Amendment-protected speech. The case is the latest in a string of major cases related to LGBTQ rights the 6-3 conservative-leaning court has decided in recent years—such as cases over businesses being allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples or discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity—and the court is deliberating on a case this term over gender-affirming care for minors.
A group of students is suing the Texas A&M University System after a vote last week banned all drag performances from taking place on its 11 campuses.
The resolution and subsequent lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the Southern District of Texas, are the latest developments in a yearslong battle within one of the nation’s largest university systems over on-campus drag performances.
Texas A&M’s Board of Regents voted almost unanimously late last month in favor of a resolution that states drag events are inconsistent with the system’s “mission and core values, including the value of respect for others.”
The resolution says drag shows are “likely to create or contribute to a hostile environment for women” in violation of university anti-discrimination policies and Title IX, the federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. “These events often involve unwelcome and objectively offensive conduct based on sex for many members of the respective communities of the universities, particularly when they involve the mockery or objectification of women,” the resolution says.
The document directs the system’s chancellor and the president of each university to prohibit drag shows from taking place on campus, citing an executive order from President Trump that proclaims the government recognizes only two sexes, male and female, and broadly prevents federal funds from being used to promote what Trump and his administration have called “gender ideology.”
The resolution also acknowledges a Jan. 30 letter from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) commanding state agencies to implement Trump’s order.
“Given that both the System and the Universities receive significant federal funding, the use of facilities at the Universities for Drag Show Events may be considered promotion of gender ideology in violation of the Executive Order and the Governor’s directive,” the resolution says.
A federal lawsuit filed Wednesday by students at Texas A&M University, the system’s flagship institution, argues the resolution violates their First Amendment rights and the Texas Open Meetings Act, which requires governmental bodies to post a meeting’s location and agenda at least 72 hours in advance.
The resolution’s adoption means “Draggieland,” an annual drag competition at A&M, will need to find a new host. The event scheduled for March 27 had been set to take place at the school’s Rudder Theater.
“We refuse to let Texas A&M dictate which voices belong on campus,” the students, known collectively as the Queer Empowerment Council, said in a statement. “Drag is self-expression, drag is discovery, drag is empowerment, and no amount of censorship will silence us.”
A spokesperson said the A&M University System had received the lawsuit and was in the process of reviewing it.
“Public universities can’t shut down student expression simply because the administration doesn’t like the ‘ideology’ or finds the expression ‘demeaning,’” said Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney at the nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which is representing the Queer Empowerment Council in court.
The organization also represented students at West Texas A&M University in a 2023 lawsuit over the university president’s decision to cancel a charity drag show on campus. West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler argued drag performances degrade women and compared them to blackface.
“If other students dislike or disagree with Draggieland, the solution is simple: don’t go,” said Jeff Zeman, another FIRE attorney. “Or they could organize a protest, as students opposing drag have in the past. The First Amendment protects drag and the ability to criticize drag — and it forbids the government silencing the side it disagrees with.”
A Texas state law against drag performances was ruled unconstitutional in 2023. U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas David Hittner, a former President Reagan appointee, ruled that drag is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.
Last week, the Supreme Court turned away a case challenging similar restrictions on drag in Tennessee, leaving that law partially intact.
The Trevor Project, a nonprofit that provides crisis support for LGBTQ young people, surveyed almost 1,000 young LGBTQ Floridians about their mental health, and 48% felt the community they live in was accepting of their gender identity or sexual orientation.
But more than two-thirds, or 69%, say they or their family members have considered moving out of Florida because of LGBTQ-related politics and laws. It wasn’t clear where they considered moving.
“Florida might be free, but Florida is not welcoming,” said Sen. Shevrin Jones, D-Miami Gardens.
Since 2022, the Republican-led Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis have pushed multiple anti-LGBTQ laws in what they call the “Free State of Florida,” including banning “gender ideology” from K-12 schools, criminalizing trans people for using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity and restricting health care for trans people.
Florida’s Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of LGBTQ+ conservatives and allies within the Republican Party, did not respond to the USA TODAY Network-Florida’s request for comment in time for publication.
The Trevor Project also reported the following data about Florida’s LGBTQ youth. In the past year:
37% contemplated suicide
11% attempted suicide
67% reported experiencing symptoms of anxiety
54% reported experiencing symptoms of depression
24% were physically threatened or harmed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity
63% experiences discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity
Jones said the passage of the Parental Rights in Education Act, called “Don’t Say Gay” by critics, and the “Stop WOKE Act” created a hostile environment for minorities in Florida. “Don’t Say Gay” prohibits the teaching of classroom instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation, and the “Stop WOKE Act” restricts how race is discussed in schools, colleges and workplaces.
The legislation also prohibits any teaching that could make students feel they bear personal responsibility for historic wrongs because of their race, color, sex or national origin.
DeSantis inveighed against ‘oppressive ideologies’
“We believe an important component of freedom in the state of Florida is the freedom from having oppressive ideologies imposed upon you without your consent,” DeSantis said when he signed the bill in 2022. “Whether it be in the classroom or in the workplace. And we decided to do something about it.”
On Tuesday in DeSantis’ State of the State speech, he made fun of Canada’s travel boycott of the U.S. and of Canadians who say they are canceling their vacations over President Trump’s tariffs and policies.
“We continue to set tourism records; 2024 saw more than 142 million visitors come to the state of Florida. This includes 3.3 million visitors from Canada,” DeSantis said. “That’s not much of a boycott in my book.”
Staff and patients at the Department of Veterans Affairs say impacts of Trump administration changes to the agency go beyond erasing diversity programs and affect care for LGBTQ patients.
A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:
The Department of Veterans Affairs is planning to cut as many as 80,000 employees, which it says won’t affect healthcare or benefits. Still, VA staff and patients are concerned that a policy ending diversity programs will affect care for LGBTQ veterans. Here’s Steve Walsh with WHRO in Norfolk, Virginia.
STEVE WALSH, BYLINE: Mary Brinkmeyer put in her resignation after receiving emails from management in the wake of President Trump signing executive orders targeting DEI.
MARY BRINKMEYER: It was just a really upsetting and shocking change for me from feeling as if the program was supported to suddenly having people being told they have to take every Pride magnet out of their office. And it felt like that happened just overnight and without a lot of thought.
WALSH: Until recently, the psychologist was the LGBTQ+ veteran care coordinator for the Hampton VA. A few days after the inauguration, employees at her VA were told to take down any outward signs referencing LGBTQ veterans, including flyers printed by the VA.
BRINKMEYER: Less than 24 hours after everything had been taken out of the main hospital, I was speaking to a gay veteran who said, oh, I heard about how y’all took everything down. I guess that shows what they think of us.
WALSH: Rainbow-colored Pride lanyards, which say the VA serves all who serve, had been a strategy to make veterans feel safe. They were banned from the building, she says.
BRINKMEYER: A lot of LGBTQ veterans don’t feel safe coming to the VA because their experiences in the military were so unsafe.
WALSH: Brinkmeyer says she decided to resign when she said she was told to stop attending employee orientation. A large part of her job had been training other providers in ways to ask the right questions. A transformation is underway at the VA, but it’s unclear how large the change will be. VA Secretary Doug Collins announced the change to the VA’s flag policy.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
DOUG COLLINS: For all of us who served in uniform, that American flag is on our uniform. It’s what unites us. So we’ve changed the policy. At the VA, you’re only going to see the American flag and the POW flag. That’s what’s going to be flying in front of our facilities.
WALSH: John Rogers with the Hampton VA says they are working to execute the executive order, and there will be no changes to services and benefits for veterans and VA beneficiaries until a formal order is issued. Banners and posters advertising the VA’s outreach for LGBTQ+ veterans came down very quickly at the Hampton VA in Virginia. Amanda Volk is a patient at the Hampton VA. She served under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in 1995 and got out 18 months later after a sexual assault.
AMANDA VOLK: For those of us that lived through Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, we were there. We saw it. We marched. We fought. We thought we had our rights. And now it’s – you know, we’re back to the ’80s with people being scared.
WALSH: In New York state, one mental health practitioner says posters remain up at his VA, but he’s still seeing a chilling effect among veterans. NPR agreed to withhold his name as he fears retaliation.
UNIDENTIFIED HEALTH PRACTITIONER: I think, you know, veterans are kind of hesitant, and some veterans I know have decided they’re not willing to come in person. It’s more on the veteran side of things that there’s this uncertainty of kind of what care actually is going to look like.
WALSH: Adding to the tension, in late January, a transgender veteran killed themselves in the parking garage of the Syracuse VA Medical Center, wrapped in the transgender flag – an indication, he says, that this shift has a high potential to impact patient care at the VA.
For NPR News, I’m Steve Walsh.
MARTÍNEZ: If you or someone you know is in crisis, call or text 988 to reach the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
Two public school districts and several parents have sued the state in a bid to undo anti-discrimination protections for gay and transgender people in Pennsylvania, saying that the two-year-old regulation is illegal because it goes beyond what lawmakers intended or allowed.
The lawsuit, filed in the statewide Commonwealth Court late Thursday, comes amid a debate in Pennsylvania and nationally over the rights of transgender high school athletes to compete in women’s sports.
If the lawsuit is successful, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission would no longer be able to investigate complaints about discrimination involving sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. The plaintiffs’ lawyers also say a favorable ruling in court would bar transgender student athletes from competing in women’s high school sports in Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs include two districts — South Side Area and Knoch, both in western Pennsylvania — and two Republican state lawmakers, Reps. Aaron Bernstine and Barbara Gleim, as well as three parents and seven students.
The lawsuit names Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, which investigates complaints about discrimination because of someone’s race, sex, religion, age or disability in housing, employment and public accommodations.
Shapiro’s office said it had no immediate comment Friday and the commission did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the lawsuit Friday.
The lawsuit is aimed at the definition of sex discrimination that the commission expanded by regulation to include sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.
The regulation was approved in late 2022 by a separate regulatory gatekeeper agency, and it took effect in 2023.
The plaintiffs contend that the state Supreme Court has interpreted the term “sex” as used in the Pennsylvania Constitution to mean either male or female.
They also contend that the state Legislature never gave permission to the Human Relations Commission to write regulations expanding the legal definition of sex discrimination, making the regulation a violation of the Legislature’s constitutional authority over lawmaking.
The commission has justified the expanded definition by saying that state courts have held that Pennsylvania’s anti-discrimination laws are to be interpreted consistently with federal anti-discrimination law. The commission can negotiate settlements between parties or impose civil penalties, such as back pay or damages.
For years, Democratic lawmakers tried to change the law to add the terms sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression to the portfolio of complaints that the Human Relations Commission could investigate. Every time, Republican lawmakers blocked the effort.
You must be logged in to post a comment.