A surge of grant cancellations hit researchers focused on the health of gay, lesbian and transgender people last week, as the Trump administration continues to target what it describes as ideologically driven science.
Last week the U.S. government terminated at least 68 grants to 46 institutions totaling nearly $40 million when awarded, according to a government website. Some of the grant money has already been spent, but at least $1.36 million in future support was yanked as a result of the cuts, a significant undercount because estimates were available for less than a third of grants.
Most were in some way related to sexual minorities, including research focused on HIV prevention. Other canceled studies centered on cancer, youth suicide and bone health.
Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon said the agency is “dedicated to restoring our agencies to their tradition of upholding gold-standard, evidence-based science.” The grants were awarded by the National Institutes of Health, an agency under HHS.
One canceled project at Vanderbilt University had been following the overall health of more than 1,200 LGBTQ people age 50 and older. Most of the money has been spent from the grant funding the project, but it was up for renewal in April, said Tara McKay, who leads Vanderbilt’s LGBTQ+ Policy Lab.
She said the grant won’t be renewed because of the termination, which jeopardizes any long-term results. Still, the Vanderbilt project had already generated two dozen published papers, including work used to train doctors to provide better care to LGBTQ people, increasing the likelihood of cancer screenings and other preventive care.
“That saves us a lot of money in health care and saves lives,” McKay said.
Insights from minority populations can increase knowledge that affects everyone, said Simon Rosser, who studies cancer in gay and bisexual men at the University of Minnesota.
“We now no longer have anywhere studying LGBT cancer in the United States,” said Rosser, who saw his grants canceled on Friday.
“When you decide to cancel all the grants on sexual minorities, you really slow down scientific discovery, for everyone,” Rosser said. Young researchers will lose their jobs, and the field as a whole will suffer, he added.
“It’s a loss of a whole generation of science,” Rosser said.
Termination letters seen by The Associated Press gave as reasons that the research was “unscientific” or did “nothing to enhance the health of many Americans.”
That language felt personal and stinging, McKay said.
“My project’s been accused of having no benefit to the American people. And, you know, queer and trans folks are Americans also,” McKay said.
Several hundred people crowded into the parking lot between Cathedral of Hope and Resource Center on Sunday afternoon for a short rally before pouring out onto Cedar Springs Road and marching to The Crossroads.
The March for Queer & Trans Liberation, organized by a coalition of more than 20 local organizations with GLAAD’s Texas representative and communications director for Texas Latino Pride Jacob Reyes, was held in response to the ongoing wave of anti-LGBTQ legislation and policies coming out of Washington, D.C., and state Capitols around the country, including Austin where Texas lawmakers this session have introduced a record number — 205 — of anti-LGBTQ bills, especially focusing on anti-trans efforts.
In explaining the reasons last week for the march, Cece Cox, CEO for Resource Center which was one of the organizations behind the march said, “The Queer & Trans Liberation March sends a message to all in Dallas and across Texas that when we stand up and show up for our communities, we move closer to reclaiming justice.’
*The below is part of a larger report from Ohio’s NBC4.
Nearly $2.2 million worth of grant funding for university research was cancelled earlier this month by the NIH at the behest of DOGE. The majority of the funding dealt with the LGBTQ community. The remainder was specific to structural racism.
The report of course stems from a post on X by DOGE “itself”. The news article does confirm the cancellation of the cannabis use study funding. Others have not been independently verified as having been cancelled.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 201-166 today to advance a bill that would strip rights of LGBTQ+ residents of the Granite State, with particular harm to transgender people.
HB 148 would roll back some of the gender discrimination protections passed in 2018, opening the door to discrimination in public spaces, including bathrooms. The bills now move to the Senate. In 2018, New Hampshire became the first U.S. state to pass an update to its anti-discrimination law to include transgender people through a fully Republican-controlled House, Senate, and Governor’s office. A bill similar to HB 148 ( HB 396 ) to roll back gender discrimination protections was vetoed by Governor Sununu last year.
Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights, public education, and child welfare issued the following statements:
Linds Jakows, founder of 603 Equality, said: Make no mistake: The majority of New Hampshire state representatives said loud and clear today that they intend to use the law to keep transgender and gender non-conforming people out of public life. This was never about bathrooms or parental rights. It is about using the power of the state to deny basic freedoms and control our bodies and lives. Transgender and gender non-conforming people are powerful and loved, and the overwhelming majority of witnesses and New Hampshire residents who signed to oppose these bills will continue to fight for freedom and safety.
Heidi Carrington Heath, executive director of NH Outright, said: LGBTQ+ youth in New Hampshire have the right to access all the spaces and places they need to thrive. They deserve to hear loud and clear from government that they are valued citizens of the Granite State. Transgender youth are a deeply vulnerable population, and today’s vote on HB148 only causes them further harm. This is not the way to live free or die. To our LGBTQ+ youth, especially transgender youth, we will continue to fight and work for a New Hampshire that reflects their inherent worth and dignity.
Chris Erchull, senior staff attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), said: “ It is disheartening that members of the House of Representatives voted to strip away important protections for the Granite State’s LGBTQ+ community, especially for transgender residents, who are our friends, neighbors, and coworkers. Senators should reject this mean-spirited bill, which is part of a broader effort by local and national governments to prevent transgender people from simply being able to go about their daily lives. Lawmakers should work to improve the lives of all New Hampshire residents instead of passing an unnecessary law that discriminates against already vulnerable people and makes them even more unsafe. Respecting New Hampshire’s values of liberty and justice means we cannot tolerate any legislation that attacks people simply for who they are and declares them unworthy of protections from discrimination.”
Courtney Reed, policy advocate for the ACLU of New Hampshire, said: “ It is unacceptable to allow discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in New Hampshire legislation, but that is precisely what HB 148 would do. We urge the Senate to oppose this dangerous bill, which would undermine the right to equal protection under the law for transgender people. Our state has a proud tradition of respecting the rights of LGBTQ+ people, and it is time to make that clear once again.”
Devan Quinn, policy director for the New Hampshire Women’s Foundation , said, “Transgender, non-binary, and intersex people deserve equal treatment in schools, sports, correctional facilities, and every other aspect of public life. These laws will roll back the progress New Hampshire has made in recognizing transgender people in anti-discrimination legislation. Transgender women are women, and trans girls are girls. Like all women and girls, they deserve fair treatment in every aspect of their lives.”
Louise Spencer, Kent Street Coalition , said, “Transgender, non-binary, and intersex people are residents of the Granite State and deserve the same rights, freedom, and opportunities as anyone else here in the Live Free or Die state. For a majority of lawmakers to vote for a bill that denies our neighbors, friends, and families equality under the law is a betrayal not only of what New Hampshire stands for, but more importantly, a betrayal of the people and communities who deserve our unconditional support and respect. We urge the Senate to oppose this bill, which violates the humanity and dignity of LGBTQ+ people.”
A bill introduced by Republican lawmakers in Arkansas aims to intimidate anyone who supports or affirms young people’s social transition.
Earlier this month, Arkansas state Rep. Mary Bentley (R) introduced H.B. 1668, the “Vulnerable Youth Protection Act,” and Republican state Sen. Alan Clark introduced the Senate version. As the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas and local advocacy group Intransitive note, the anti-trans bill does not actually criminalize anything. Arkansas law banning gender-affirming care for minors was already struck down by a federal judge in 2023.
Instead, H.B. 1668 “weaponizes civil enforcement by permitting lawsuits against any person who supports trans young people by providing or helping to receive gender-affirming care or by affirming young people in their transition,” according to the ACLU of Arkansas. Minors or their parents can sue for minimum damages of $10,000 and up to $10 million in punitive damages for certain forms of medical care. The bill also allows Arkansas parents to sue people or medical providers outside of the state who help Arkansas youth access gender-affirming care.
Sadly, in 2025, state laws aimed at preventing minors from receiving gender-affirming healthcare — which every major American medical association has long been endorsed as evidence-based, safe, and in some cases lifesaving for trans and gender-nonconforming youth — are nothing new. But Arkansas’s proposed law goes an alarming step further in targeting anyone who might support or affirm a young person’s social transition.
The bill defines social transitioning as “any act by which a minor adopts or espouses a gender identity that differs from the minor’s biological sex … including without limitation changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name.”
As the ACLU of Arkansas notes, if enacted, H.B. 1668 could lead to frivolous lawsuits against “hairdressers who cut a trans teen’s hair, teachers who use a student’s chosen name, and nonprofits that offer support.” Such lawsuits, the organization says, would be unlikely to hold up in court, as the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech and free expression.
However, the law is clearly meant to chill support for trans and gender-nonconforming young people with the threat of costly lawsuits. Describing the bill as “state-mandated bullying,” the ACLU of Arkansas writes that “H.B. 1668 fosters a climate of fear, where doctors, teachers, and even parents risk financial ruin simply for supporting transgender youth. It is a blatant overreach of government power, attempting to control private decisions and to circumvent our constitutional rights, including free speech, religious exercise, due process, and equal protection.”
During a Tuesday, March 18, hearing before the Arkansas House Judiciary Committee, a representative from the state attorney general’s office expressed concern that, as written, H.B. 1668 could not be legally defended, citing the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
“Particularly as it comes to the conduct that other individuals are allowed to have towards minors that can be deemed to be aiding in their social transitioning — things like a haircut, even clothing, or even the use of pronouns,” he said, “That’s all speech. And so our concern there is that when you are criminalizing or, in this case, providing a civil cause of action for certain forms of speech, that has to pass a very, very high constitutional bar, and we have to be able to defend that in court. And we think of this bill as it currently is, we can’t do that.”
The well-being of LGBTQ+ young people suffers not because of who they are but due to mistreatment and stigmatization, a leading suicide-prevention organization contends.
The Trevor Project has released a state-by-state analysis of the mental health of LGBTQ+ teens and young adults. The survey of 18,000 LGBTQ+ young people ages 13 to 24 examines suicide risk, access to care, discrimination, bullying and the impact of anti-LGBTQ+ policies, among other factors.
The Trump administration has impacted support and awareness for LGBTQ+ students across colleges and universities. A recent Dear Colleague letter has demanded institutions to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which usually house support for LGBTQ students. GOP lawmakers across Florida, Texas and Iowa have also targeted academic programs related to gender studies.
Young people made the following statements about where they live:
I live in a community that is accepting of LGBTQ+ young people.
Arkansas: 36%
Hawaii: 88%
Idaho: 31%
Puerto Rico: 60%
Washington, D.C.: 97%
I or my family have considered leaving for another state because of LGBTQ-related topics politics and laws.
Connecticut: 19%
Kentucky: 56%
Montana: 53%
Texas: 58%
West Virginia: 46%
Percentage of LGBTQ+ youth who have seriously considered suicide in the past year:
Arizona: 39%
Colorado: 41%
Louisiana: 32%
Michigan: 37%
Vermont: 44%
LGBTQ+ young people were physically threatened or harmed:
Alaska: 16%
New York: 22%
Rhode Island: 17%
South Carolina: 25%
Wyoming: 29%
LGBTQ+ youth who reported experiencing symptoms of depression:
Alabama: 56%
Kansas: 49%
Maryland: 48%
Tennessee: 57%
Utah: 53%
LGBTQ+ young people who wanted and received mental health care:
Ohio’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors is unconstitutional and should be tossed out, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The three-judge panel on the Tenth District Court of Appeals overturned a decision by a Franklin County judge that allowed the law to take effect last year. The GOP-controlled Legislature voted in early 2024 to override Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto of House Bill 68, but advocates quickly sued on behalf of two transgender girls and their families.
“It is difficult to understand why our legislature believes adults are equipped to make decisions about gender-affirming medical care for themselves but not for their minor children,” Judge Carly Edelstein wrote in the decision.
House Bill 68 prevents doctors from prescribing hormones, puberty blockers or gender reassignment surgery before patients turn 18. It also bans transgender girls and women from playing on female school sports teams, although the lawsuit didn’t target that piece of it.
The law allows Ohioans younger than 18 who already receive hormones or puberty blockers to continue, as long as doctors determine stopping the prescription would cause harm. It does not ban talk therapy, but mental health providers must get permission from at least one parent or guardian to diagnose and treat gender dysphoria.
The American Civil Liberties Union argued the law violates the right of transgender Ohioans to choose their health care under the Ohio Constitution.
“The state’s ban is discriminatory, baseless and a danger to the well-being of the same Ohioan youth lawmakers claim to want to protect,” said Harper Seldin, an attorney for the ACLU. “It’s also part of a sweeping effort to drive trans people out of public life altogether by controlling our health care, our families and our lives.”
Republican Attorney General Dave Yost, who is running for governor in 2026, pledged to appeal the decision.
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.
Check out this slideshow put together and posted to MSN.
While some places still make same-sex marriage complicated (or even illegal), others celebrate it fully, offering welcoming venues and stunning locations for your big day. If you’re looking for somewhere unique, safe, and unforgettable to say “I do,” these destinations offer the perfect mix of charm, romance, and friendliness toward the queer community.
The cities mentioned in the slideshow are:
Amsterdam Netherlands
Queenstown New Zealand
Toronto Canada
Cape Town South Africa
Reykjavik Iceland
Barcelona Spain
Valleta Malta
Sydney Australia
Mexico City Mexico
Copenhagen Denmark
Each town on the slide deck has a short excerpt about why the author included them. Be sure to read it.
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.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.