News

GLAD Welcomes New Members to Board of Directors

Experienced advocates bring expertise to GLAD’s work facing down unprecedented wave of anti-LGBTQ attacks

Boston—GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) announces three new members joining its Board of Directors: DEI consultant and leader Jamie Bergeron, criminal defense and employment attorney Inga Bernstein, and non-discrimination advocate and real estate attorney Rachel Goldberg.

“We’re thrilled to have Jamie, Inga, and Rachel bring their substantial expertise to GLAD as we embark on an exciting year of hiring our next permanent executive director, expanding our legal team and deepening our regional and national impact for the LGBTQ+ community and people with HIV,” said Board President Shane Dunn. “As we face down unprecedented attacks on the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans to live with dignity, equality, and authenticity, these three strategic thinkers and driven leaders are invaluable additions to GLAD’s board.”

“Our new board members bring varied and valuable professional expertise and a proven track record of advancing equity, inclusion, and LGBTQ+ equality,” said Interim Executive Director Richard Burns. “Jamie, Inga, and Rachel further deepen the board’s skillset, and provide crucial experience we will leverage at this pivotal moment for our community and our country.”

Jamie Bergeron (she/her) is an experienced diversity, equity, and inclusion leader, practitioner, and consultant. She serves in the Americas Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness Center of Excellence at Ernst & Young, LLP, a global professional services firm. She holds a Master of Education (M.Ed.) from the University at Buffalo with a specialization in Inclusive Leadership Practice, and a B.A. from State University of New York at Brockport in Spanish Literature, where she became the first in her family to earn a college degree. She is the daughter of two lesbian mothers, originally from Cortland, NY, and has called Boston home for over 10 years. A lifelong advocate, Jamie is very involved in her local community, serving on the board of Pride in Our Workplace and Trans Can Work, as board advisor for COLAGE, and working closely with numerous organizations seeking to align their mission and vision with the principles of equity and justice for LGBTQ+ people and their families.

Inga S. Bernstein (she/her) is a partner at the Boston litigation boutique firm Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP. She is an experienced trial lawyer who focuses her practice on criminal defense and employment law. Following law school, Inga started her law career as a clerk to the Honorable Douglas P. Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. She has been recognized as being among the top 50 Women Lawyers and among the Top 100 Lawyers in Massachusetts from 2019-present. Inga and her partner married in May 2004, receiving their marriage license on the first day same-sex couples in Massachusetts were allowed to do so, celebrating the victory that GLAD fought so hard to achieve. They are parents to two fabulous young adults. She became a lawyer to fight for justice and fairness and is glad to lend her energies to help support GLAD’s important work for justice and fairness.

Rachel Goldberg (she/her) maintains a private law practice that is focused on real estate development and consulting on matters of gender identity employment discrimination. Until her retirement in February of 2017, Rachel had served for 35 years as General Counsel for the City of Stamford’s Urban Redevelopment Commission, managing some of the Commission’s most successful real estate and development activities. She is currently President Elect of the National LGBTQ+ Bar Foundation and a James W. Cooper Life Fellow of the Connecticut Bar Foundation. Rachel has served on the Connecticut Law Tribune’s Editorial Board and the Lambda Legal National Board of Directors. Rachel has worked for decades to ensure and enforce nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity and expression, advocated for modernizing Connecticut’s standard for allowing transgender and intersex people to correct the gender designation on their birth certificates, and was part of the coalition to pass a Hate Crimes bill that included targeting based on disability and gender identity or expression.

Meet the rest of GLAD’s Board Members.

The Board of Directors is leading a national search for GLAD’s next Executive Director. More information is forthcoming.

News

Home

Protecting Access to Health Care in Maine

With politicians around the country denying essential medical care to transgender people, it is critical that Maine take steps to protect access to health care and the providers who deliver that care. We thank Rep. Osher for starting this process even though LD 1735 is not moving ahead. We know that Maine people, state leaders and many legislators understand the importance of passing the right bill as quickly as possible. We look forward to working with the legislature to move forward on a bill to support transgender people and their families, protect health care providers from hostile out-of-state laws, and ensure continued access to care for all in Maine.

News

Home

Advocates Respond to Arguments in Federal Challenge to NH Classroom Censorship Law

“Banned Concepts” Law Creates Unconstitutional Barrier to Discussions of Race, Gender, Disability, and LGBTQ topics in Schools and Public Workplaces

Today the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of New Hampshire heard arguments in the lawsuit challenging New Hampshire’s classroom censorship law, which discourages public school teachers from teaching and talking about race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity in the classroom.

The Court heard a motion for summary judgment in AFT-NH/Mejia/Philibotte/NEA-NH et al v. Edelblut et al, during which the ACLU of New Hampshire argued on behalf of two New Hampshire school administrators who specialize in diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as the National Education Association – New Hampshire (NEA-NH). These plaintiffs are represented by lawyers from a broad coalition of organizations and law firms, including the NEA-NH and National Education Association, the ACLU, the ACLU of New Hampshire, Disability Rights Center – New Hampshire, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Nixon Peabody LLP, Preti Flaherty, and Shaheen & Gordon, P.A. AFT-New Hampshire also made arguments against this classroom censorship law today, as this is a consolidated lawsuit.

The plaintiffs argued that the law is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment and violates the First Amendment. Depositions and case documents revealed how the law is actively discouraging public school teachers from teaching and talking about race, gender, disability, and LGBTQ+ identities inside and outside the classroom.

“This unconstitutionally vague law disallows students from receiving the inclusive, complete education they deserve,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. “New Hampshire’s classroom censorship law is an attack on educators who are simply doing their job, and through vagueness and fear it erases the legacy of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people, women and girls, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities.”

Last year, the federal court denied the state’s motion to dismiss the litigation, making it the fourth legal challenge to a “banned concepts” law in the U.S. that reached a similar finding. Laws banning similar concepts in other contexts in Florida were preliminarily enjoined on vagueness grounds in two cases, here and here, which followed another federal judge deeming impermissibly vague former President Trump’s “divisive concepts” Executive Order.

In that January 2023 ruling, the Court concluded that the law does “not give teachers fair notice of what they can and cannot teach,” adding, “[g]iven the severe consequences that teachers face if they are found to have taught or advocated a banned concept, plaintiffs have pleaded a plausible claim that the amendments are unconstitutionally vague.”

Plaintiffs Christina Kim Philibotte and Andres Mejia, who are New Hampshire school administrators, said, “As educators we know the value of nurturing an equitable and inclusive school environment where all students feel seen and heard—including in the books they read and the classroom discussions they participate in—and their humanity is recognized. This law hinders efforts to create more inclusive educational experiences, making it harder for students to comfortably speak and share their experiences on complex, relevant topics.”

“This vague and confusing law is so clearly unconstitutional that we hope the court will grant summary judgment striking it down and let New Hampshire educators teach honestly about history, gender, race or identity,” said AFT-New Hampshire President Deb Howes. “The divisive concepts law has forced teachers to look over their shoulders and fear that a lesson or conversation may cross some undefined line and jeopardize their career. Let’s put an end to silencing inquiry and discussion in our public schools and return to active learning that will enable students to become engaged citizens in the real world.”

“The truth matters and purposefully vague laws like this one are aimed directly at stopping educators from teaching the truth,” said Megan Tuttle, NEA-New Hampshire President. “Our students deserve an education that will help them better understand the lives, cultures, and experiences of others. But when the politicians who are writing the laws don’t value the experiences of people who are different from them, we get laws like this. Parents and teachers want to give kids the best education they can without politicians limiting what history they can learn or what books they can read. We hope the court agrees this law is unconstitutionally vague and strikes it down.”

“New Hampshire’s public school teachers work hard every day to ensure students develop the knowledge and critical thinking skills they need to be successful and contribute to their communities,” said Chris Erchull, attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). “Teachers can’t do that effectively when they are subject to this vague law, with no guidance, that forces them to limit class discussions and avoid certain important topics altogether. LGBTQ+, BIPOC, and students with disabilities are being especially harmed, but the chilling effect of this law does a severe disservice to all students because their teachers can’t provide them with the complete and factual understanding of history and the people and world around them.”

Learn more about the lawsuit.

News

Home

11th Circuit Order Allows Alabama Transgender Adolescent Medical Ban to Take Effect

Today the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order allowing Alabama’s ban on medical care for transgender adolescents to take effect. This order grants a request by the state of Alabama to stay the trial court’s 2022 decision blocking the law from being enforced while the challenge against it proceeds.

Lawyers representing parents of transgender adolescents who are challenging the ban issued the following statement:

“Alabama’s transgender healthcare ban will harm thousands of transgender adolescents across the state and will put parents in the excruciating position of not being able to get the medical care their children need to thrive. The district court issued its preliminary order blocking the ban after hearing days of testimony from parents, doctors, and medical experts about the devastating impact of this ban and the lack of any medical justification for it. Today’s ruling will hurt parents and children in the state. We will continue to challenge this unlawful ban and to support parents and their kids in pushing back against the dangerous reality of being denied access to necessary, best practice medical care.”

On August 21, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit reversed the district court’s May, 2022 decision preventing the ban from taking effect. In a request for rehearing filed in September 2023, the plaintiffs argued the full court should review the panel decision because it conflicts with Supreme Court and 11th Circuit precedent dictating that all laws discriminating based on sex should be subjected to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, and because the ban violates parents’ longstanding right to make medical decisions for their children, rather than cede that power to the state. That request for rehearing en banc is still pending. A full trial on the constitutionality of the ban is planned to take place in federal district court in August 2024.

Plaintiffs in Boe v. Marshall are represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). They are joined in the litigation by co-counsel King & Spalding LLP and Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC.

Alabama families looking for support can reach out to www.southernequality.org/ALresources

Blog

Home

In December, police showed up at a Great Barrington middle school to search a classroom and question a teacher over an award-winning coming-of-age memoir about a nonbinary author.

GLAD and ACLU of Massachusetts took swift action, condemning this unwarranted and unauthorized intrusion into the classroom. In a letter to local law enforcement officials, we made our message clear: Law enforcement should not be policing educational material. The letter also underscored the importance of protecting the constitutional right to learn free of censorship.

The incident in Great Barrington is shocking, but the abuse of power arose from the current political climate.

Over the past few years, we have seen escalating censorship efforts, attacks on LGBTQ+ people and families in public schools, and attempts to shut down young people’s freedom to learn across the country.

Get updates on the fight against school censorship

We are working in the courts and communities to defend positive school policies and with partners in states including Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and beyond to combat book-banning efforts.

Our ongoing lawsuit, with ACLU-NH, Mejia v. Edelblut, challenges a dangerous New Hampshire law that not only bans the discussion of honest history but also actively discourages public school teachers from addressing topics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity.

Efforts to censor learning and dismantle policies supporting students not only violate U.S. and state constitutional rights but also create harmful and hostile learning environments. This undermines a fundamental purpose of our public schools—to provide a safe and inclusive space for education.

It’s on all of us to defend academic freedom and protect the rights of both students and educators.

We must protect access to inclusive education – where students can see themselves and their families represented and can learn about different perspectives and experiences.

You can make a difference today by staying up-to-date on the latest challenges and ways to take action, and by contributing to GLAD’s work. With your support, we can ensure that LGBTQ+ youth, and our entire community, can live and learn freely.

Donate to GLAD today

Get updates on GLAD’s work to defend the freedom to learn:

News

Home

New Hampshire House passes two bills attacking LGBTQ+ rights; LGBTQ+, public education, and child welfare advocates respond

For the first time in years, N.H. House passes dangerous anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and sends it to N.H. Senate

CONCORD, N.H. – The New Hampshire House of Representatives today voted on four bills relating to LGBTQ+ rights, and for every bill, voted against protecting LGBTQ+ rights.

Two of the bills (HB 368 and HB 264), positive measures that would have streamlined affirmative birth certification and protected LGBTQ+ youth seeking certain health care in New Hampshire, failed. The other two bills (HB 396 and HB 619), dangerous attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, passed and are being sent to the New Hampshire Senate. These two bills would undermine the right to equal protection under the law for LGBTQ+ people by giving a license to discriminate against and segregate LGBTQ+ people in schools and other settings, as well as make it more difficult for trans teenagers and their families to access appropriate health services supported by every major medical association.

LGBTQ+ rights, public education, and child welfare advocates reacted to the votes:

Linds Jakows, co-founder of 603 Equality, said, “Today’s failure by the N.H. House to protect LGBTQ+ rights is a shameful beginning to 2024 in a state that has historically made overwhelmingly clear that it supports and respects LGBTQ+ identities. Trans kids and their families need to make private healthcare decisions that are best for them, and they shouldn’t be discriminated against and segregated in schools, carceral settings, or other spaces. We will continue to fight to ensure the rights of LBGTQ+ people are not violated by these dangerous, discriminatory bills as they make their way through the legislative process. When today’s anti-transgender bills get to Governor Sununu’s desk, he should promptly veto them, because ‘it’s the right thing to do,’ as he said when he signed New Hampshire’s transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination law in 2018.”

Courtney Reed, Policy Advocate at the ACLU of New Hampshire, said, “Today is an especially grim day in New Hampshire: one where, instead of listening to transgender Granite Staters, medical providers, and clear medical evidence, New Hampshire lawmakers voted against LGBTQ+ rights on four separate bills. The two bills passed today undermine the right to equal protection under the law for LGBTQ+ people – and we urge all State Senators to oppose these dangerous bills that raise serious constitutional concerns this legislative session. Our state has made clear time and again that LGBTQ+ people belong, and after today’s shameful votes, it’s more important than ever to make the message louder and more clear than before that the Granite State respects the rights of LGBTQ+ people–and that our rights are not up for debate.”

Chris Erchull, Attorney, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), said, “All New Hampshire residents deserve to live with dignity and free from discrimination, harassment, and violence—including LGBTQ+ Granite Staters. Today the House took extreme and unprecedented action to undermine the ability of an already vulnerable group of people to live safely and freely in our state. By passing legislation attacking access to medical care for transgender youth and to roll back critical, established non-discrimination protections to exclude transgender people from public accommodations and school sports among other restrictions, legislators abandoned New Hampshire’s values of fairness and freedom for fear-mongering and discrimination. The Senate must vote down these mean-spirited attempts to divide our communities and needlessly single out transgender people for unfair treatment.”

Heidi Carrington Heath, Executive Director, Seacoast Outright, said, “Today is a hard and painful day for the LGBTQ+ youth of New Hampshire and their families. To say we are disappointed is an understatement. Today, their House of Representatives voted against the thriving, personhood, and appropriate medical care of some of our most vulnerable youth. Our core value as Granite Staters is that every person deserves to live free as exactly who they are. We are thankful for every legislator who voted in support of LGBTQ+ youth and their families. We continue to invite our elected officials to join us in working for a brighter future where everyone is understood, valued, and protected.”

Liz Canada, Advocacy Director, Planned Parenthood New Hampshire Action Fund, said, “Let’s be clear: today the House of Representatives failed to represent the people of New Hampshire. While we are deeply disappointed in today’s votes, we are so grateful for the unwavering commitment of so many elected officials, from both sides of the aisle, who continue to act in the best interest of all Granite Staters, particularly LGBTQ+ youth, no matter what.”

Grace Murray, Political Director, New Hampshire Youth Movement, said,“It’s extremely disappointing to see the results of today’s floor votes. The House of Representatives failed the LGBTQ+ community by passing HB619 and HB396 and it’s even worse knowing that elected officials we trusted voted against trans rights. This is a ridiculous step backward for New Hampshire and our LGBTQ+ community deserves better. Young trans people deserve to get the care they need and those choices belong to them and their doctors, not state legislators. We are deeply grateful for all of the legislators who have been fighting and continued to fight until the last minute for these bills. NHYM remains committed to our vision of a New Hampshire where everyone is free to make their own medical and personal choices.”

News

Home

Federal Trial Concludes in Challenge to the First State Law Attempting to Deprive Transgender Adults of Healthcare, Florida’s SB 254

Multiple days of powerful testimony highlight the danger and lack of justification for the first law in the country that would seek to deprive transgender adults of healthcare in addition to banning care for adolescents

A three-day federal trial in Doe v. Ladapo, the legal challenge to Florida SB 254 and related Boards of Medicine (BOM) rules that restrict access to medical care for transgender adults and criminally ban medical care for transgender adolescents, concluded Thursday in Tallahassee. While some other states have restricted medical care for transgender adolescents, many of which have been enjoined by federal courts, Florida has taken this to new extremes by targeting healthcare for transgender adults.

Over multiple days of testimony, plaintiffs described the harms of depriving them or their adolescent transgender children of medically necessary care. Parents explained how being able to obtain doctor-recommended care has made their children’s lives better and resulted in happier, healthier kids, and described the intense suffering that SB 254 has caused them. Plaintiff Lucien Hamel testified that SB 254 has prevented him from being able to access necessary care for himself as an adult anywhere in Florida.

The new law imposes a web of restrictions that effectively require most transgender adults to leave the state to obtain care. As Hamel testified, this is not a possibility for many Floridians. “The only answer I kept hearing from the community and others was, ‘Just leave Florida,’” he told the court. “I can’t leave Florida. This is my home. I’ve lived here my entire life. This is my son’s home, and for various reasons, I can’t just up and uproot my family and move across the country.”

Statements from plaintiffs

Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and her daughter Susan Doe (proceeding anonymously):

My worst nightmare is having to watch my child suffer because I can’t get her what she needs. We saw how our daughter Susan suffered before we were able to consult with our team of doctors to understand what she was experiencing and make the most informed decisions about her care. She is a happy, confident child now, but if we can’t get her the medical care her doctors recommend I know that’s going to go away. Seeing Susan’s own fear about what will happen to her because of this ban has been one of the hardest experiences we’ve endured as parents. Nobody with a heart could ever do this to her.

Gloria Goe, on behalf of herself and her son Gavin Goe (proceeding anonymously):

If you have children, you will do anything and everything to protect them, to provide what they need. SB 254 is prohibiting my ability as a parent to do that. My son Gavin is one of those children who simply stands out. He’s big-hearted. He is full of zest. He’s always smiling. But I am unable to get him the care he needs in Florida and am greatly concerned about what that means for his mental health and his overall well-being.

Lucien Hamel, on behalf of himself:

Being forced to abruptly stop my medical care this summer has been devastating for both me and my family. I received my care from a competent medical provider that I really trusted. Then I was told that Florida law suddenly won’t let APRNs and Nurse Practitioners provide the care I need. I can’t get an appointment with a physician anywhere in the state. There’s no medical basis for this change – it’s just preventing transgender Floridians like me from getting care. I’m scared and frustrated because I know my health will continue to decline the longer I have to wait, putting incredible stress on me, my wife, and our child.

Multiple medical experts also testified about the well-established standards and guidelines for transition-related care for adolescents and adults, the decades of clinical evidence proving its safety and efficacy, and the damaging impact of the state’s unjustified restrictions on adult patients and providers and, in the case of adolescents, complete ban on care, including criminal penalties for doctors and other health care providers.

The well-established standards of transgender medical care for adolescents and adults have been endorsed and adopted by every major U.S. medical and mental health association.

Medical experts providing testimony

Dr. Aron Janssen MD, Vice Chair of Clinical Affairs, The Pritzker Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health and Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
Dr. Daniel Shumer MD, Pediatric Endocrinology Specialist, Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatric Endocrinology, University of Michigan;
Dr. Dan Karasic MD, Professor Emeritus, Psychiatry, University of California San Francisco Weill Institute for Neurosciences;
Dr. Loren Schechter MD, Plastic Surgery Services, RUSH University Medical Center, Chicago IL
Dr. Kenneth Goodman, PhD, FACMI, FACE, Director, Institute for Bioethics and Health Policy; Director, UM Ethics Programs
Dr. Vernon Langford, DNP, Autonomous APRN, FNP-C, President of the Florida Association of Nurse Practitioners;
Dr. Brittany Bruggeman MD, Pediatric Endocrinologist, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Florida

Plaintiffs’ attorneys from GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRC), National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Southern Legal Counsel (SLC), and Lowenstein Sandler LLP presented evidence that SB 254 and the BOM rules were motivated by the state of Florida’s disapproval of transgender people, have no rational justification, and deny Florida transgender individuals and parents of transgender individuals equal treatment as guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

Statements from attorneys

Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders

It’s been a privilege to be able to stand up and represent transgender Floridians and their families. The record could not be more clear. SB 254 and the related Boards of Medicine rules reflect invidious discrimination against transgender people. There is no legitimate purpose for these extraordinary restrictions, which do nothing but create suffering for parents, families, and transgender people across the Sunshine State.

Shannon Minter, Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights

As the testimony presented in this trial overwhelmingly showed, there is no medical basis for this dangerous and unprecedented law, which has taken the extreme step of restricting medically necessary care even for adults and imposing criminal penalties on doctors and other health care professionals simply for doing their jobs. This is massive government overreach, and it should be permanently enjoined.

Simone Chriss, Director of Transgender Rights Initiative, Southern Legal Counsel:

The rules and law challenged in this case are part of an orchestrated campaign by the state of Florida seeking to deny fundamental rights and basic healthcare to its transgender citizens. After putting the state’s justifications for the cruel bans and restrictions on trial, we hope to have demonstrated to the court and the public that discriminatory measures such as these cannot survive constitutional muster. We stand with every transgender individual in the state of Florida and their right to make healthcare decisions free from government interference.

Sarah Warbelow, Legal Director, Human Rights Campaign Foundation:

Despite living in a state that has shown blatant discriminatory intent toward transgender people, the families and plaintiffs involved in this case have put their bravery, resilience and humanity center stage. This trial showed that there is no sound reason to deprive people of the ability to make best-practice, medically-necessary healthcare decisions for themselves—especially when the trade-off is the heartache and distress of children and parents.

Thomas Redburn, Lowenstein Sandler LLP:

We believe we presented a compelling case that demonstrates the severe harm to Floridians by allowing the healthcare restrictions in SB 254 to proceed. As we await the court’s decision, we’re hopeful for a ruling in favor of an individual’s ability to make informed decisions about their own, personal medical treatments without discrimination by the State.

About Florida’s ban on transgender medical care

Florida’s adolescent transgender healthcare ban was first enacted in March 2023 through the adoption of rules by the state Board of Medicine and state Board of Osteopathic Medicine, at the urging of the Governor, Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, and the state Department of Health. SB 254, which was passed by the legislature, signed by the governor and took effect in May 2023, cemented into state law the ban on essential medical care for transgender minors, subject to a narrow continued-use exception for minors who had started treatment before the ban. SB 254 also created felony criminal and civil penalties for medical providers.

In addition, SB 254 added severe restrictions that effectively block access to essential medical care for transgender adults and transgender minors who would be eligible for the continued-use exception, including requiring that care be provided exclusively by physicians, barring telehealth, and requiring patients to complete unique, onerous and misleading consent forms.

The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Florida on December 13, 14, and 21. The Court has certified two plaintiff classes in the case: all transgender adults in Florida who seek gender-transition medical care and all transgender minors in Florida who seek gender-transition medical care, and the parents of those minors. The Court also certified a subclass of the second class consisting of all transgender minors in Florida who are totally prohibited from receiving treatments because they did not initiate them before the effective dates of SB 254 and the BOM rules (and thus were not “grandfathered”), and are prohibited by state law from obtaining such care during puberty and adolescence.

Learn more about the case, Doe v. Ladapo

Blog

Home

Taking on Florida’s Transgender Healthcare Ban in Federal Court

When politicians target vulnerable people, civil rights lawyers are on the front lines. Since its founding, GLAD has gone to court to build a factual record to ensure that constitutional guarantees of freedom and equality extend to all of us in the LGBTQ+ community.

Today, Florida is ground zero for a campaign targeting LGBTQ+ people’s right to be ourselves – and three days from now, we’ll be back in a federal courthouse in Tallahassee challenging one of the most restrictive and hostile anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the country, SB 254.

The scope of SB 254 is breathtaking. Brandishing terms like “diabolical,” “evil,” and “bloodsuckers,” Florida legislators cemented into law criminal prohibitions against parents seeking to secure the healthcare transgender adolescents need. The law also, for the first time anywhere in the country, imposed medical restrictions on transgender adults getting the healthcare they need.

The fact is, the Governor, state officials, and legislators who pushed this law wanted to stop transgender people from being transgender. That can’t and won’t happen, but SB 254 is causing many people to suffer.

Members of the team defending transgender rights in Florida posing outside of the federal courthouse — Members of the team defending transgender rights in Florida

At the trial last week, three of our plaintiffs gave powerful, moving testimony about the law’s impact on transgender people and their families.

Lucien Hamel hasn’t been able to get medical care anywhere in Florida since June because of SB 254. He described the sense of dread he felt when the law passed. “I was left with no answers, no support, nothing. And as days continued to pass, my fears grew. How would our care continue? What would we do?”

Parent Jane Doe shared the fear and heartbreak she has for her daughter, Susan, if she can’t continue to provide the care that has allowed Susan to flourish as a happy, healthy, and secure child. “[N]obody with a heart could ever do this to her,” Jane said on the stand, telling the court that SB 254 is “devastating” to her family.

Gloria Goe described how being able to transition also allowed her son Gavin to thrive. “He’s big-hearted. He is full of zest. He’s always smiling.” But as GLAD attorney Chris Erchull asked her to explain how the law has impacted her family, she tearfully shared how fearful she is that SB 254 will take all that away. “If you have children, you will do anything and everything to protect them, to provide what they need,” she said, but “[SB 254] prevents that.”

No parent should have to be put on a witness stand and literally cross-examined in order to get the healthcare her child needs. Standing up for parents, and for transgender people all across Florida who are harmed by this law has been a tremendous honor and privilege.

In the face of political actors who label us “evil” and a federal judiciary that has shifted far right in recent years, the work of civil rights lawyers defending democracy on the front lines has become more essential than ever.

Today, we are experiencing some of the most difficult battles in our decades-long fight for the equal rights of LGBTQ+ people – in Florida and across the country. GLAD is stepping up to the challenge. We won’t back down.

We will do everything in our power to see SB 254 and other laws targeting our community overturned. And we will never stop striving to ensure we can all realize the freedom and equality guaranteed by our constitution.

Blog by Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights

Learn more about the case

News

Home

ACLU-NH and GLAD Warn School Library Book Removals Would Violate Free Speech and N.H. Constitution

Criticize Department of Education suggestions of book banning, in letter to Commissioner Edelblut

Urge school superintendents in second open letter to resist unconstitutional calls to remove books from school libraries

View letters here

The ACLU of New Hampshire and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) today sent a letter to Frank Edelblut, the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Education (DOE), warning that his department’s communications with the Dover School District are “alarming and extraordinary,” and that the DOE’s insinuations that the District should consider whether or not to ban two books as “developmentally inappropriate” could create First Amendment concerns if such a ban occurred.

Earlier this year, the Commissioner suggested that the Dover School District consider whether or not to ban the books Boy Toy and Gender Queer from its high school library on the basis of “developmental inappropriateness” (though Gender Queer was not actually available at that library). This suggestion came after the DOE released an unworkable, unclear, and overly broad “Objectionable Material Policy” in September 2023. The policy targets any material on “social” and “cultural” “perspectives on human sexuality,” which could result in the removal of a broad swath of books from the classroom, and in particular could target books referencing same-gender relationships.

“Any suggestion that books be banned frays the bonds of trust and cooperation among parents, schools, and students,” the two groups state in the letter. “They track politicized and partisan narratives in the larger culture, and regularly target books that discuss or depict the experiences and history of members of LGBTQ+ communities and/or communities of color. Concessions to these demands—including even moving requested titles to segregated locations or making them only available behind a librarian’s desk—undermine diversity and inclusion in our schools and raise serious legal questions.”

In the first two parts of the letter, ACLU-NH and GLAD raise concerns about the DOE’s “Objectionable Material Policy” and its correspondence with the Dover School District, laying out U.S. and state constitutional issues, and highlighting invalid and alarming segments of the DOE’s and Edelblut’s communications and policies.

The third part of the letter to the Commissioner serves as a right-to-know request to Commissioner Edelblut, requesting all documents and communications between the DOE and third parties (including school districts and parents) and internally at the DOE in several areas, including those pertaining to Gender Queer and Boy Toy, those pertaining to books that may be considered “developmentally inappropriate,” and those pertaining to the “Objectionable Material Policy.”

The two groups also sent a separate open letter to the superintendents of New Hampshire’s school districts, urging them to take a stand against censorship and protect student access to an equal and safe environment by resisting calls to remove books from school libraries.

“We applaud the New Hampshire schools and communities that have resisted these demands, have stood with students who deserve to have their experiences represented, and have preserved our National tradition of libraries as places for all young people to learn, imagine, grow, and explore,” ACLU-NH and GLAD wrote to the superintendents. “For those who may be considering future challenges, we urge such districts, in light of the issues detailed below, to reject these politicized efforts and allow age-appropriate and enriching reading materials to remain accessible on library shelves.”

The letter explains how students having access to these books not only helps educate all students about the experiences of others, but also creates a more inclusive and supportive environment for students whose history and experiences are reflected. For example, for LGBTQ youth who are isolated at home, in school, or in their community, access to LGBTQ representation or information in books and literature can be a refuge. Similarly, the removal of books documenting the experiences of people of color exacerbates the unacceptable situation in which students of color are already disproportionately subject to ostracism, and it deprives them of the right to an equal educational experience. Removing books that reflect students’ experiences not only removes a form of support, but it also tells a student that they and their community are not accepted by their teachers and peers.

Read the letter to the Department of Education

Read the letter to New Hampshire superintendents

Blog

Home

This Native American Heritage Month, we celebrate the advocacy of leaders who are building visibility and justice for Native and LGBTQ2+ communities.

Elva Guerra (they/she)

Elva Guerra is a Two-Spirit actor who stars in the hit Hulu show “Reservation Dogs.” At 19 years old, Elva already has held multiple prominent roles in film and TV. These roles have allowed them to represent the Two-Spirit community on a large scale. They hope that their presence in an industry with so much homophobia and transphobia will shine a light on those struggles and, in turn, help queer Indigenous kids who are struggling with their identities.

Oren Lyons (he/him)

Oren Lyons was born and raised on the Onondaga and Seneca tribal reservations in upstate New York. After serving in the U.S. Army and attending Syracuse University, Oren moved to New York City to pursue a career in commercial art. In the 1960s, Oren joined the “Red Powers movement,” a group of Native American activists fighting for Indigenous rights. His activist work led him to the United Nations, where he helped establish the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples in 1982. In addition to his international work, Oren served as a professor at SUNY-Buffalo, published many notable books such as “Exiled in the Land of the Free,” and continues to fight for Indigenous rights around the globe.

Sean Snyder (they/them)

Sean Snyder is an Indigenous, Two-Spirit dancer and activist. Sean dances at many powwows on Turtle Island with their partner, Adrian Stevens. They have been competing for years at traditional dance competitions with their partner and have built a large following on social media. Sean believes competing is a way to uplift other Two-Spirit people.

Bobby Sanchez (she/they)

Bobby Sanchez is an Indigenous Two-Spirit singer, performer, and slam poet. Their song, “Quechua 101 Land Back Please” quickly turned into a TikTok sensation as an anthem of Indigenous solidarity. Her work focuses on intersections of decolonization, Indigeneity, and queerness. Bobby makes music, sells paintings, runs writer’s workshops, and advocates for many causes relating to Indigeneity and decolonization.

Kairyn Potts (he/him)

Kairyn Potts is a Two-Spirit activist, comedian, and actor from Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation. Kairyn co-hosts the Snapchat series “Reclaimed” with Marika Sila. The series explores Indigenous culture and social issues from a Gen Z point of view. Outside of the podcast, Kairyn raises awareness about Two-Spirit identity and mental health through a variety of his social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram.

Barbara May Cameron (she/her)

Barbara May Cameron was an author and activist for Native American and LGBTQ+ rights. She was raised on Standing Rock Reservation by her grandparents before she studied photography and film at the American Indian Art Institute in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Barbara began to make a name for herself in LGBTQ+ activist spaces after her move to San Francisco in 1973 before she co-founded Gay American Indians, the first Native American LGBTQIA+ group.

Barbara went on to hold many prominent roles, such as Executive Director at Community United Against Violence, and appointed member of the Citizens Committee on Human Development and the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Outside of her organizing work, Barbara published many writings and speeches about queer Indigeneity and how that looks in our society.

Madonna Thunder Hawk (she/her)

Madonna Thunder Hawk is an Indigenous activist. She is a principal in the Warrior Women Project, a collective for the development of scholarship and activism around Indigenous women’s stories. Madonna has been involved in activism for over five decades and has been a prominent force in many organizations. Madonna’s involvement in activism ranges from co-founding Women of All Red Nations to being a delegate to the United Nations.