The GOP couldn’t get its act together before a key legislative deadline.

Two bills deemed transphobic in the Mississippi legislature failed to advance after Republican legislators couldn’t reconcile their differences before a Monday cutoff, as per the Associated Press. One bill aimed to mandate that transgender individuals use facilities in public establishments corresponding to the gender assigned on their birth certificates. The other sought to affirm the binary notion of sex, stipulating that sex is determined solely at birth and consists of either male or female genders.

The Republican factions in the state House and Senate had previously approved distinct iterations of both bills. However, they failed to reach a consensus on a unified version of each bill to present to Gov. Tate Reeves (R). Reeves had previously endorsed laws prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in competitive sports teams corresponding to their gender identities and banning transgender minors from accessing gender-affirming healthcare.

State Rep. Joey Hood (R) argued that the bills, now defunct, were crucial “to ensure boys utilize boys’ bathrooms and girls utilize girls’ bathrooms.” The proposed bathroom legislation would have empowered individuals to file lawsuits against transgender individuals using bathrooms or changing areas aligned with their gender identity. However, the bill included exemptions for children under 12, emergency medical personnel, custodial staff, janitors, and individuals requiring assistance, as per the AP. Stay engaged with your community.

State Representative Zakiya Summers (D), who is Black, drew parallels between the bathroom bill and discriminatory legislation from the Jim Crow era, which imposed restrictions on which bathrooms Black people were permitted to use.

Summers remarked, “It brought to mind the struggles my ancestors faced when they were barred from using certain bathrooms and wouldn’t even consider dipping a toe in a pool.”

The second bill, now defunct, titled the “Mississippi Women’s Bill of Rights,” aimed to define gendered terms such as “woman,” “man,” “mother,” “father,” “female,” “male,” and “sex” based on the sex assigned by doctors at birth. This legislation would have hindered transgender individuals from altering the gender designation on their official government documents.

In March, when Reeves signed the prohibition on gender-affirming care into law, he was accompanied at the signing event by anti-trans filmmaker and Daily Wire columnist Matt Walsh, along with activists from Alliance Defending Freedom and Madison County Moms for Liberty, two organizations known for their opposition to LGBTQ+ rights.

A statement from The Spectrum Center, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group in Hattiesburg, characterized Reeves’s approval of the bill as “an act of violence,” asserting that he and the legislators advocating for it are deliberately disregarding the specific requirements of transgender youth, obstructing their access to medical treatment, and conveying a stigmatizing and exclusionary message.

Professional medical organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association, among others, have unequivocally supported gender-affirming care, deeming it safe, effective, and vital for the overall health of transgender individuals. Research indicates that gender-affirming care significantly enhances the mental well-being of transgender youth.

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

They assert that the recently implemented Title IX regulations, which prohibit harassment and discrimination, infringe upon the rights of parents.

Four Southern states, in collaboration with four conservative organizations, have filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration regarding a recent regulation prohibiting discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community in education.

Earlier this month, the Department of Education (DOE) introduced new Title IX regulations aimed at addressing the needs of LGBTQ+ students. These regulations interpret Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education, as providing legal protection against anti-LGBTQ+ school policies.

The argument posits that discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity inherently involves considering sex, a legal reasoning previously employed by the Supreme Court in its 2020 Bostock v. Clayton Co. decision regarding workplace discrimination.

The new regulation stipulates that any educational institution receiving federal funding must refrain from discriminating against LGBTQ+ students. This could impact states and school districts with policies that either disclose LGBTQ+ students’ identities to parents or restrict transgender students’ access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity. Additionally, the regulations could offer students facing discrimination a legal recourse through federal courts.

Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia are contesting the Biden administration’s authority to enact this rule, arguing that it exceeds the original scope of Title IX, as reported by CBS News. These states are joined in the lawsuit by the Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, Speech First, and the Independent Women’s Law Center.

Nicole Neily, president of Parents Defending Education, criticized the rule, stating, “The role of Cabinet agencies is to interpret laws as written by Congress – not to redefine the meaning of words to suit a fringe group of activists.” She further argued that the rule undermines parents’ rights and freedom of speech.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody emphasized the need to protect biological females and claimed that the rule deviates significantly from the original intent of Title IX.

The lawsuit alleges that the rule clashes with state laws governing various aspects of education, including harassment, bathroom policies, sports participation, and parental rights.

Notably, the new rules do not address transgender student-athletes and their eligibility for sports teams. The Department of Education is reportedly planning to issue a separate rule specifically addressing this matter.

In a separate lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton challenged the new rule, arguing that Biden misinterpreted Title IX. Paxton claimed that the Supreme Court’s Bostock ruling, which interpreted Title VII, differs from Title IX’s language and scope.

Governor Greg Abbott of Texas directed the Texas Education Agency to disregard the new Title IX rules, echoing similar actions taken by other states such as Louisiana, Florida, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. Paxton asserted that the Biden administration’s actions endanger women’s legal protections and vowed to oppose what he described as “extremist, destructive policies.”

This blog originally appeared at THE HILL.

Texas Attorney General files lawsuit against Biden administration regarding Title IX regulations broadening protections for transgender students.

On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) initiated legal action against the Biden administration, challenging the newly established federal nondiscrimination safeguards for transgender students. This lawsuit targets alterations made to Title IX by the Education Department, which, after more than a year of postponements, recently solidified comprehensive amendments. Scheduled for implementation on August 1, these revisions encompass protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, provoking discontent among certain conservative circles.

Paxton, in a press release announcing the lawsuit, vehemently opposed what he termed Joe Biden’s arbitrary alteration of Title IX, alleging it compromises legal safeguards for women in favor of an extreme fixation on gender ideology. He characterized this endeavor as patently unlawful, undemocratic, and detached from reality.

Notably, the Education Department refrained from immediate comment on the matter.

The lawsuit was filed in the Amarillo Division of the Northern District of Texas, where U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is likely to preside. Kacsmaryk, the sole federal judge in the division, has publicly voiced opposition to laws safeguarding LGBTQ individuals, including the Equality Act, which endeavors to designate sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.

Before his appointment to the federal bench in 2019 by former President Trump, Kacsmaryk submitted a brief in support of the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia in 2016. This brief contested a lawsuit filed by Gavin Grimm, a transgender student who was denied access to the boys’ restroom at his school, alleging discrimination under Title IX.

In his brief, Kacsmaryk advocated against interpreting “sex” in Title IX to include gender identity.

In the lawsuit filed on Monday, Paxton criticized the Biden administration’s new Title IX regulations as ambiguous and excessively broad, contending they misconstrue the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. He asserted that these regulations wrongly conflate discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity with sex discrimination.

The Biden administration frequently cites the landmark 2020 Supreme Court ruling as a basis for fortifying federal protections for transgender individuals. A recent rule finalized by the Health Department that enhances the Affordable Care Act’s ban on sex discrimination similarly relies on this precedent.

Paxton, alongside America First Legal, raised concerns in the lawsuit about the adverse impacts of the final Title IX rule, arguing that expanding the definition of sex discrimination to encompass gender identity will detrimentally affect women and girls. Moreover, Republican-led states, including Louisiana, have vowed to challenge the administration’s new Title IX rules, asserting they will penalize individuals who decline to use a transgender person’s preferred name or pronouns.

Louisiana, joined by Montana, Idaho, and Mississippi, filed a lawsuit on Monday, contending that the new regulations significantly weaken Title IX. It’s worth noting that all federally funded schools must adhere to these final regulations to receive government funding.

Additionally, the Biden administration has yet to finalize a separate rule regarding athletics eligibility. A proposal disclosed by the Education Department last April seeks to prevent schools from implementing policies that outrightly bar transgender student-athletes from participating in sports teams aligned with their gender identity.

This blog originally appeared at TRUTHOUT.

“Maryland takes a bold step forward in safeguarding the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ youth and educators.”

On Thursday, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) enacted HB 0785, known as the Freedom to Read Act, into law, prohibiting libraries that receive state funding from banning books.

“Schools should be working to build inclusive environments that reflect the diversity of their student body and community. It is especially critical that state leaders like Governor Moore rise up for policies that foster inclusive learning when resources and supports for LGBTQI+ youth continue to be targeted by extremists across the country,” GLSEN’s Executive Director Melanie Willingham-Jagger said in a statement emailed to Truthout.

HB 0785 safeguards the autonomy of libraries that receive state funding by prohibiting the censorship of books based on the creator’s background, origin, or viewpoints, as well as partisan disapproval. The bill also ensures protection for school and public library staff who adhere to the state library standards outlined in the bill, shielding them from retaliation. Violation of these provisions could result in the loss of state funding for libraries.

“This session, I wanted to put some safeguards and best practices in place to prevent intolerance and hate from taking further root in our state institutions and schools,” said Speaker Adrienne Jones (D), one of the sponsors of the bill.

In the previous year, Maryland witnessed 148 book challenges in both public schools and libraries, placing the state among the 17 nationwide to exceed 100 contested titles. According to the Maryland State Library Agency, there has been a 133 percent surge in formal challenges to library collections since 2019. The agency’s research revealed that 53 percent of librarians felt hesitant about acquiring specific books, despite believing they would benefit students, while 52 percent expressed that book challenges have added complexity to their roles.

“We are protecting libraries, librarians and literature,” said state House Delegate Dana Jones (D).

According to the American Library Association, nearly half of the challenged titles in 2023 revolved around themes involving LGBTQ+ individuals or Black, Indigenous, and other people of color. Banning books with these themes leads to the “othering” of students who share these identities, advocates say.

“Our public schools should help our children pursue their dreams, learn new ideas, and understand different perspectives. That means giving students an honest and accurate education without banning books and politically motivated censorship,” the Maryland State Education Association said in a statement. “At a time when we’re seeing record levels of attempted book bans, which are all too often motivated by extremist politics, it’s time to take a stand for an honest and accurate education by supporting the Freedom to Read Act.”

Moore also signed HB 1386, a bill requiring anti-bias training for all school employees, into law. The bill mandates the implementation of a program developed in consultation with the State Department of Education and the Professional Standards and Teacher Education Board. These guidelines must be culturally sensitive and inclusive, meeting the diverse needs of educators and students. Additionally, school boards are tasked with providing training to public school employees who frequently interact with students as part of their duties.

“With Governor Moore’s signature on HB785, the ‘Freedom to Read Act,’ and HB1386, instituting vital anti-bias training for school employees, Maryland takes a bold step forward in safeguarding the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ youth and educators,” Willingham-Jagger said.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

Following this crime, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel strongly criticized the state legislature for its failure to designate LGBTQ+ individuals as a protected class.

Michigan State University police have pinpointed seven suspects linked to an assault on two university students inside the school library on Monday. The group reportedly made derogatory comments regarding the victims’ sexual identity before the attack occurred.

“The suspects assaulted two victims, with indications suggesting they targeted the victims due to their sexual orientation,” stated MSU Police and Public Safety in a release on Tuesday.

University officials confirmed that “none of the suspects are affiliated with MSU” and stated they will request prosecutors to press charges once the investigation concludes.

The victims faced harassment near the library’s entrance on the first floor, as reported by MSU spokesperson Emily Guerrant. “The two MSU students then retreated to the third-floor study area to meet with some other friends,” Guerrant told MSU radio station WKAR, detailing how the group of high school-age boys pursued them upstairs. “An altercation ensued at that point,” Guerrant added.

MSU’s library remains open to the public until 6:00 p.m., and the attack occurred at 5:50 p.m. on Monday. Although school officials did not specify the extent of the victims’ injuries, a disturbing video shared on an anonymous message board depicts the altercation amid the library stacks.

Officials emphasized the significance of the attack happening during MSU’s LGBTQ Pride Month. “Discrimination or harassment, including hate crimes, based on protected identities can have a significant impact,” stated school administrators, asserting that everyone deserves to feel safe and respected.

Currently, Michigan state law only considers racial bias for hate crime classification. Legislators have debated expanding these protections to include other groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals, but no proposal has reached Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s desk.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel highlighted the inability of prosecutors to charge the suspects with a hate crime solely based on anti-LGBTQ+ bias. “It’s not an included class under the Ethnic Intimidation Act,” Nessel explained at a press availability on Tuesday, advocating for legislative action to address this gap.

Nessel criticized proposed bills in the Democrat-controlled Michigan House and Senate as insufficient, particularly regarding sentencing guidelines for hate crime convictions. “Two years is nothing,” Nessel remarked, expressing her dissatisfaction with the proposed penalties.

Last year, Michigan lawmakers passed an “institutional desecration” bill targeting hate-motivated vandalism to various institutions, including those related to the LGBTQ+ community. However, this law only covers anti-LGBTQ+ bias in specific contexts.

As of now, twenty-two states and jurisdictions have LGBTQ+-inclusive hate crime laws, while eleven have laws protecting “sexual orientation” but not “gender identity.”

This blog originally appeared at THEM.

LGBTQ+ advocates persist in urging for an autonomous inquiry into Benedict’s passing.

Tulsa County District Attorney Stephen Kunzweiler announced this week that no criminal charges would be pursued in the case of Nex Benedict’s death, referring to the altercation leading to Benedict’s demise as “mutual combat.” Benedict, a 16-year-old high school sophomore, passed away on February 8 following a confrontation with three alleged bullies the previous day, during which Benedict reported experiencing a momentary loss of consciousness. Kunzweiler, in a press release Thursday using Benedict’s former name, stated that after reviewing police reports, both Benedict and the assailants had been engaging in mutual antagonism for several days prior to the altercation, making juvenile charges untenable.

The District Attorney further referenced the pending report from the state Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, indicating that the autopsy did not reveal any internal injuries consistent with causing Benedict’s death. Instead, Kunzweiler reiterated the preliminary determination that Benedict died from a combined overdose of diphenhydramine and fluoxetine, commonly known as Benadryl and Prozac respectively. While medical experts acknowledge such overdoses are rare, they are not without precedent.

Despite Kunzweiler’s stance, LGBTQ+ advocates and Benedict’s family remain skeptical as more details emerge. The Benedict family’s legal representation, Biby Law Firm, released a statement last week containing additional autopsy findings, including injuries contradicting claims that the assault on Nex was insignificant. These injuries reportedly include lacerations, hemorrhages, and bruising across Benedict’s body.

Amid mounting concerns, suspicions over the credibility of the official autopsy escalated following revelations about the unaccredited status of Oklahoma’s Chief Medical Examiner’s Office since 2009. Advocates have also criticized state Superintendent for Public Instruction Ryan Walters, alleging his anti-trans stance and support for controversial figures created an unsafe environment for LGBTQ+ students in Oklahoma.

GLAAD president and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis condemned various authorities involved in the case, calling for an independent investigation into Benedict’s death and holding leaders accountable for serving their communities with fairness and compassion.

This blog originally appeared at ABC NEWS.

Last year, Governor Laura Kelly vetoed a comparable bill.

Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, a Democrat, rejected a measure aiming to prohibit gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors within the state.

In her statement on Friday, Kelly denounced the proposed legislation as divisive, asserting that it unfairly targets a small segment of Kansans and imposes governmental interference in parental decision-making regarding child-rearing and healthcare. “I do not view this as a conservative principle, nor does it align with the values of Kansas,” she affirmed.

This isn’t the first time Governor Kelly has stood against such legislation. Almost a year prior, she vetoed a similar bill, citing the adverse economic consequences of discriminatory measures. “Corporations have unequivocally expressed their reluctance to engage with states endorsing discrimination against employees and their families,” she emphasized.

Kelly further emphasized that such bills not only strip away the rights of Kansans but also expose the state to costly legal battles, ultimately undermining its economic prosperity and potential for securing new business ventures.

State GOP legislators are poised to challenge Kelly’s veto, potentially overriding it through legislative means.

To achieve this, the legislature must secure a two-thirds majority vote, equivalent to 84 votes in the House and 27 in the Senate. While the Republican-sponsored bill has garnered sufficient support in the Senate to surpass the threshold required for an override, the situation in the House is more nuanced. In addition to existing support, two House Republicans who were previously marked as absent must also cast their votes in favor of the bill to tip the balance and override the governor’s decision.

The legislation in question places limitations on the use of puberty blockers, a medical intervention utilized by transgender minors to delay the onset of gender-specific characteristics associated with puberty. It’s important to note that puberty blockers are reversible and commonly employed for children undergoing premature puberty.

The bill also places restrictions on hormone therapy, which older minors may utilize to achieve desired changes in certain gender-specific characteristics, such as their body shape, hair distribution, or voice pitch. Unlike puberty blockers, the effects of hormone therapy are less reversible. Additionally, the bill imposes limitations on surgeries, which medical professionals assert are rare for minors and typically only performed in severe cases.

Nevertheless, the legislation provides exceptions for these procedures for minors who are intersex, possess ambiguous sex characteristics, or suffer from disorders of sex development.

Healthcare providers found in violation of these provisions could face civil repercussions and potential revocation of their licenses if the bill becomes law.

Moreover, the bill prohibits state employees or facilities from facilitating a minor’s social transition, which encompasses changes in pronouns, names, attire, and other aspects.

Advocates of gender-affirming care bans argue that such treatments are detrimental to minors. Some proponents advocate for transgender youth to delay accessing gender-affirming care until they reach adulthood.

Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, a Republican, lauded the legislation’s advancement through the legislature, stating, “The Senate took a firm stand in support of helping and not harming children by making it clear that radical transgender ideology and the mutilation of minors is not legal nor welcome in Kansas.”

Conversely, critics of the gender-affirming care ban characterized the bill as “more extreme and misinformed than similar bills in other parts of the country.” The ACLU of Kansas, in a statement urging Governor Kelly to veto the bill, argued, “In addition to depriving parents and families of medical freedom, this bill actually punishes teachers, doctors, nurses, and more for just doing their jobs by respecting and supporting Kansas kids, including transgender kids.”

Transgender youth, often subjected to gender-related discrimination and experiencing gender dysphoria, are at heightened risk of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation and attempts, as per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moreover, a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that hormone therapy can positively impact the mental health of transgender adolescents and teenagers.

Restrictions on transgender youth’s access to gender-affirming care have been enacted in a minimum of 23 states, with some facing legal contests asserting that these bans infringe upon the rights of the youth, their families, and their healthcare providers. While gender-affirming care bans have been successfully challenged in court in states like Arkansas, Idaho, Florida, and Montana, they have been upheld in others.

The ACLU reports that over 480 bills targeting the LGBTQ community have been introduced nationwide. Of these, at least 135 bills have ceased advancing through state legislatures, as per the ACLU’s findings.