News

Federal Court Blocks First State Law Restricting Health Care for Transgender Adults; State of Florida Loses Federal Challenge as Court Blocks Law Targeting Adults and Adolescents

Ruling in Doe v. Ladapo, permanently blocks adult and minor health care restrictions in Florida SB 254 and finds that Florida unlawfully targeted transgender people, in challenge brought by GLAD, NCLR, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Southern Legal Counsel, and Lowenstein Sandler

June 11, 2024 (TALLAHASSEE) — A federal district court has permanently blocked Florida from enforcing a law that bans medical care for transgender adolescents and restricts it for transgender adults. The ruling in Doe v. Ladapo found that Florida SB 254 and the related Boards of Medicine (BOM) rules were motivated by disapproval of transgender people and violate the equal protection rights of transgender individuals and parents of transgender minors in Florida. Florida was the first state to pass a law restricting access to health care for transgender adults. Today’s ruling permanently blocks those restrictions as well as the ban on care for adolescents, which the Court preliminarily blocked last June.

In issuing its ruling the Court found the health care restrictions in SB 254 to be motivated unlawfully by disapproval of transgender people, not by science, writing:

“Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs. But they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender. In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished. To paraphrase a civil-rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

“In the meantime, the federal courts have a role to play in upholding the Constitution and laws. The State of Florida can regulate as needed but cannot flatly deny transgender individuals safe and effective medical treatment—treatment with medications routinely provided to others with the state’s full approval so long as the purpose is not to support the patient’s transgender identity.“

Florida restricted medical care for transgender people in 2023 along with enacting a host of other anti-transgender laws. In addition to completely banning medical care for transgender adolescents, Florida restricted health care even for transgender adults, marking the first time any state passed such an extreme law.

At a three-day trial in December 2023, plaintiffs presented extensive expert testimony that these restrictions have no medical basis. The court heard testimony from experts in psychiatry, endocrinology, medical ethics, and pediatric medicine regarding the well-established standards for providing this medical care, the decades of evidence proving its safety and efficacy, and the severe harms caused when care is denied.

Plaintiff parents also described how being able to obtain doctor-recommended care has benefitted their children and the suffering Florida’s ban has caused them. Adult Plaintiff Lucien Hamel testified that he has been unable to get the medical care he needs anywhere in Florida since SB 254 went into effect.

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

“This ruling means I won’t have to watch my daughter needlessly suffer because I can’t get her the care she needs. Seeing Susan’s fear about this ban has been one of the hardest experiences we’ve endured as parents. All we’ve wanted is to take that fear away and help her continue to be the happy, confident child she is now.”

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

“This ruling lifts a huge weight and worry from me and my family, knowing I can keep getting Gavin the care he needs and he can keep being the big-hearted, smiling kid he is now. I’m so grateful the court saw how this law prevented parents like me from taking care of our children.”

Lucien Hamel, on behalf of himself:

“I’m so relieved the court saw there is no medical basis for this law—it was passed just to target transgender people like me and try to push us out of Florida. This is my home. I’ve lived here my entire life. This is my son’s home. I can’t just uproot my family and move across the country. The state has no place interfering in people’s private medical decisions, and I’m relieved that I can once again get the healthcare that I need here in Florida.”

The plaintiffs in Doe v. Ladapo are represented by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRC), National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Southern Legal Counsel (SLC), and Lowenstein Sandler LLP.

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

“Today’s ruling is a huge win for transgender people and their families. It confirms that health care access must be based on principles of good medicine, not politics. The court today found there is no legitimate purpose for the extraordinary restrictions Florida has put on transgender people’s ability to obtain needed medical care. The decision will no doubt bring huge sighs of relief across Florida by transgender people and those who love them.”

Shannon Minter, Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights:

”As today’s decision clearly holds, the Constitution does not permit Florida or other states to selectively deny medical care to transgender people. We are grateful to the court for protecting our clients and other transgender people in Florida from this dangerous law, and we hope this decision will deter other states from seeking to impose similar restrictions.”

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

“The federal court saw Florida’s transgender minor healthcare ban and adult restrictions for what they are—discriminatory measures that cannot survive constitutional review. Today’s ruling blocks the state of Florida’s cruel campaign to deny fundamental rights and basic healthcare to its transgender citizens. We are so proud of our brave plaintiffs, without whom we could not have achieved this victory for the state of Florida.”

Sarah Warbelow, Vice President of Legal, Human Rights Campaign Foundation:

“The state of Florida has shown blatant discriminatory intent toward transgender people, and today’s ruling makes clear that is not permissible. 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:

“The federal court recognized the severe harm to Floridians caused by the healthcare restrictions in SB 254 and the related Boards of Medicine rules. Today’s ruling affirms the principle that individuals should be able 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 minor transgender healthcare ban was first enacted in March 2023 through the adoption of rules by the Florida Board of Medicine and Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine, at the urging of the Governor, Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, and the Florida 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 Florida medical providers.

Later, SB 254 added severe restrictions that effectively blocked 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 Northern District of Florida on December 13, 14, and 21.

Additional information about the case, Doe v. Ladapo, is available at www.glad.org/ladapo

News

Home

1st Circuit Court Affirms School’s Right to Prohibit Anti-Transgender Apparel

The 1^st Circuit Court of Appeals in L.M. v. Town of Middleborough has upheld a lower court’s final ruling in favor of a Massachusetts public middle school which prohibited a student from wearing a t-shirt reading “THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS” on the grounds that it disrupted learning by harmfully targeting transgender and gender nonconforming students.

The Court, understood the message as striking negatively at the core of identity for students who are transgender or gender nonconforming and found that the school was within its right to keep the student from wearing the t-shirt. The Court affirmed that, while students have a right to free expression, public schools are permitted to prohibit messages that will cause a substantial disruption to the school learning environment.

GLAD submitted a friend-of-the-court brief alongside the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents in support of the Middleborough school to emphasize (1) the school’s authority to address issues and behavior that can reasonably be predicted to cause substantial disruption to the school learning environment and (2) the harmful impact on student learning for all students when transgender and nonbinary students are targeted for exclusion.

Learn More

News

Home

Motion to Dismiss Denied in Transgender Worker’s Discrimination Case Against Turbocam, Inc., and Two Harvard Pilgrim Companies

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire yesterday denied a motion to dismiss Bernier v. Turbocam, in which GLAD represents Lillian Bernier, who is suing her employer Turbocam, Inc. for denying her necessary healthcare coverage related to her gender transition.

The lawsuit alleges that the exclusion of insurance coverage for Bernier’s healthcare violates federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sex and disability and New Hampshire state law prohibiting discrimination based on sex, gender identity, and disability.

In denying Turbocam’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Chief Judge Landya B. McCafferty rejected the company’s argument that it did not violate federal employment law prohibiting discrimination against transgender people, on the grounds that Turbocam ignored the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County ruling that employment discrimination based on an individual’s transgender identity violates Title VII, as well as cases relying on Bostock to specifically hold that categorical exclusions of gender transition medical care violate Title VII.

Judge McCafferty also rejected Turbocam’s assertion that they are not in violation of federal disability laws in denying coverage for Bernier’s medical care, lifting up some of GLAD’s critical legal work on the issue, including Doe v. DOC and Williams v. Kincaid.

“Lillian Bernier is simply asking to receive the same health care coverage as her Turbocam co-workers, and we’re grateful that the Court recognized her right to pursue that outcome through this lawsuit,” said GLAD Attorney Chris Erchull, Bernier’s co-counsel. “Lillian is a dedicated employee who is paying into the company’s employee health plan, and she deserves to be treated with the same dignity, humanity, and fairness as other employees.”

GLAD filed the lawsuit on Bernier’s behalf in November 2023. Health Plans, Inc. (HPI) and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of New England, Inc. are also named in the complaint because together they developed, administer, and operate Turbocam’s health benefits plan.

Turbocam, Inc. provides healthcare coverage to workers as part of employee compensation. Bernier has worked as a machinist at Turbocam since 2019, including continuous work through the COVID pandemic. When Bernier sought coverage for doctor-recommended healthcare, she learned that the company’s self-funded health plan does not cover any treatment related to gender transition. Such an exclusion has no medical basis.

Now that the motion to dismiss has been denied, the case will proceed to discovery and final resolution.

“Denying equal employment benefits to someone simply because they are transgender is wrong, and it violates the law,” said GLAD Senior Director of Litigation Ben Klein, co-counsel for Bernier. “Lillian Bernier deserves her day in court, and now she will have it.”

Learn more about Bernier v. Turbocam and read case documents o n our website.

Blog

Home

The New Hampshire legislature passed several bills singling out LGBTQ+ people, especially targeting transgender adolescents. These bills are now on their way to the Governor’s desk. This is your chance to stop them from becoming law.

Contact Governor Sununu today and tell him to veto these bills.

HB 1205 bans transgender girls from playing on girls’ sports teams from ten years old until they graduate high school, and could require any girl to undergo an invasive physical examination in order to play.

HB 1312 is a confusing and unnecessary bill that equates any material relating to gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to objectionable material, requiring educators to provide two weeks’ notice before such material is used in the classroom.

HB 1660, constricts access to vital health care for transgender youth, limits parents’ choices for how to care for their child, and alarmingly bans doctors from even providing a referral for care in circumstances where they know it to be necessary and helpful for their patient.

Remind Governor Sununu that he did New Hampshire proud by supporting comprehensive nondiscrimination protections for transgender people in 2018. His obligation is to uphold New Hampshire values and protect all Granite Staters, including LGB and transgender youth.

Use our action form to urge the Governor to veto HB 1205, HB 1312, and HB 1660 as soon as they land on his desk.

Let’s remind Governor Sununu that these harmful, controlling bills are not what the people of New Hampshire want. Singling people out is wrong and unfair – “Live Free” means all of us, including LGBTQ+ youth.

Take action:

Blog

Home

The Need to Protect Access to Health Care Grows More Urgent

As part of the wave of anti-LGBTQ+ state legislation, 24 states have passed transgender health care bans. As GLAD and others challenge these bans in court, shielding access to care in non-ban states and protecting the providers who deliver it is becoming more urgent.

Health care professionals who provide care for transgender children and adolescents follow well-established standards that have been developed through decades of clinical study. It is age- and developmentally appropriate treatment requiring informed consent of the young person’s parents and informed assent by the patient, and involves in-depth screening by a multidisciplinary care team.

Every major U.S. professional medical association, representing 1.3 million doctors, recognizes this as safe, best practice, and the only proven effective care for transgender adolescents and teenagers suffering from gender dysphoria.

Parents have testified in statehouses and courthouses around the country about how receiving the doctor-recommended care their children need has enabled their young people to live happier, healthier lives – and about their distress over the harmful impact of taking that care away.

Despite all of this, as of March 2024, 24 states have passed laws banning standard-of-care medical treatment for transgender adolescents. 36% of transgender youth aged 13-17 now live in states where the doctor-recommended health care they need has been made illegal. At least two states – Florida and Ohio – have made moves to restrict how transgender adults can access health care as well.

These bans have been pushed by politicians, not doctors or parents. They do not make health care safer for anyone. They do nothing to support parents as they navigate the best options to aid their children’s physical and mental wellbeing. These are blanket bans that take away parents’ ability to make important decisions about their kids’ health care and deny transgender adolescents treatment that has helped them thrive.

GLAD is directly challenging two of these bans in federal court – in Alabama and Florida – and supporting our partner legal organizations in several other states. When judges have heard the full facts – heard testimony from medical experts, parents, and transgender people – they have ruled against these bans. But as states have pursued appeals into appellate courts that are receptive to backtracking on a range of civil rights protections, including for transgender people, we are starting to see the impact of some of these laws taking effect.

A row of thirteen professionally dressed lawyers. — GLAD Attorneys Jennifer Levi and Chris Erchull, and the rest of the legal team from Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., the Human Rights Campaign, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights representing Florida transgender people and families at *Doe v. Ladapo* trial in December

The cost to families

Imagine being a parent whose child needs medical care that has been shown to work, is covered by health insurance, and is the widely accepted standard of care. And imagine there is suddenly nowhere in your home state you can get them that care, because some politicians have decided they don’t like it. For many families, the only answer is to travel or in some cases move.

As a recent report from Campaign for Southern Equality shows, there are huge costs to these options. Families across the South and Midwest where these bans have taken effect may now need to spend up to 18 hours driving, or pay for airfare and hundreds of dollars in related travel costs, in addition to time off work and school, to make one health care appointment for their child. That’s in addition to costs associated with starting at a new health care practice, and the time it may take to find and secure an appointment. Moving incurs its own costs of course, and means uprooting your and your children’s lives – something most families would rather not do, and shouldn’t have to simply to ensure their child can get health care.

Diminishing access to care

Imagine being a healthcare provider, talking with a family, knowing there is treatment that can help their child – treatment you are trained to provide – and being powerless to help. Providers are wrestling with this every day in states with active bans, where hospitals and practice groups have been forced to shut down care, clinics have closed, and some pharmacies have stopped filling prescriptions.

This is devastating for families and transgender individuals, and the harmful impacts are not limited to states where care has been completely banned. Increased demand in states where care remains available leads to longer wait times, and uncertainty about the reach of bans is also causing a chilling effect for providers and health care institutions. In Florida, where GLAD is challenging restrictions that prohibit well-qualified nurse practitioners from delivering transgender health care for adults but ostensibly allow doctors to continue to do so, one clinic director told the Washington Post recently that he has been unable to hire physicians, because the new law “made most doctors too nervous to commit.”

Some states with bans are also attempting to track the health care residents receive elsewhere. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, for instance, has sought the medical records of Texas transgender youth who received care from a Seattle hospital. Such efforts are clearly aimed at intimidating families seeking care for their children, as well as the providers who serve them.

The good news is that 13 states and DC have now passed laws to shield providers of transgender health care – as well as reproductive health care which is under attack by the same political forces – from the hostile reach of harmful bans. Another 3 states have Executive Orders protecting care, and 6 states have protections for reproductive health care alone.

GLAD has worked alongside providers and state LGBTQ+ community and reproductive equity advocates to pass such laws in Massachusetts and Vermont, including working this session on bills in Rhode Island and Maine.

While the specifics may vary, shield bills are carefully drafted to align with constitutional requirements, federal law, and a given state’s statutory structure. They do several important things to protect access to care:

They establish that essential reproductive health care and medical care for transgender people are legally protected in the state.
They ensure a state’s resources are not used to further hostile litigation from other states where essential care is banned.
They protect patients from having their medical records about protected health care shared with law enforcement agencies in other states where such care is banned.
They may protect the personal contact information of health care providers – something that can be an important protection as medical care providers have been increasingly personally targeted with harassment and threats.
They may also ensure that insurance plans and health care institutions don’t penalize providers simply for providing medical care that is legal in their state.

These protections are growing more urgent, not only because the number of states banning essential health care is increasing, but because those bans and the disinformation being circulated to support them are designed to have a chilling effect on health care providers and institutions everywhere. At the same time, the tactics being employed by opponents are becoming more and more concerning.

Opponents of the Maine shield bill, LD 227, many of them from outside Maine and spurred on by the anti-LGBTQ extremist group Libs of TikTok, used a campaign of intimidation and disinformation about transgender people to try and stop the bill from moving forward. Bomb threats were called into the state house and the homes of the bill sponsors during the week of the committee hearing. Attorneys General from 16 states with transgender health care bans, led by Tennessee, wrote a letter threatening legal action if Maine passed a law protecting health care within its own borders.

GLAD partnered with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, Maine health care associations and providers, and many other organizations and individuals to provide accurate information to legislators and counter the false and at times cruel rhetoric being used against the bill. Maine’s Attorney General responded that the state has every legal authority “to decide what access to health care people in Maine receive, free from interference by out-of-state actors.” In the end, a majority of Maine legislators saw through the fear and falsehoods. LD 227 passed on April 12 and was signed into law by Governor Mills on April 22.

If we want access to quality, science-based health care and the ability for each of us – not the government – to make personal medical decisions for ourselves and our families, we have to protect it – in the courts, in our legislatures, and by making sure providers can practice the medicine they are trained to deliver without hostile, politically-driven interference.

This story was originally published in the Summer 2024 GLAD Briefs newsletter. Read more.

Blog

Home

Michigan Acts to Protect LGBTQ+ Families With Updated Parentage Law

On April 1, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed the Michigan Family Protection Act, a law that will ensure that children born through assisted reproduction and to LGBTQ+ parents have equal access to a secure legal relationship with their parents and the essential rights that accompany it.

Governor Whitmer, sitting center at a table in a library in front of a crowd of seated individuals while professionally-dressed people stand behind her. Two women behind her to her right commemoratively hold up a piece of paper and lean into each other. — Governor Whitmer signs Michigan Family Protection Act

A patchwork of outdated laws across the country continues to leave LGBTQ+ parents and their children, and all families formed through assisted reproduction, vulnerable. Updating those laws to include LGBTQ+ families is a GLAD priority. With bills similar to the Michigan Family Protection Act pending in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, we hope Michigan will be an inspiration for other states to follow.

GLAD’s Director of Family Advocacy, Polly Crozier, worked closely with grassroots local advocates at the Michigan Fertility Alliance as well as attorney Courtney Joslin, who is Reporter for the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) of 2017, to advance the Michigan Family Protection Act. The UPA is nonpartisan model legislation that ensures state parentage laws are constitutional, child-centered, and inclusive of all families no matter the gender or marital status of the parents or how the family is formed. Michigan is the first state in the Midwest and the 7th state in the country following Maine, Washington, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Colorado to comprehensively update its parentage laws to protect LGBTQ+ families based on the UPA 2017.

“Michigan has shown us what strengthening families should look like in 2024: making it more accessible for all families, including LGBTQ+ families, to obtain the safety and stability that comes with legal parentage,” says Crozier.

Last June, GLAD worked with the Movement Advancement Project, COLAGE, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Family Equality to release a report on the state of parentage laws. Relationships at Risk: Why We Need to Update State Parentage Laws to Protect Children and Families detailed how the current patchwork of parentage laws across the country – many of which haven’t been updated in decades – leaves LGBTQ+ parents and their children vulnerable.

Nearly 1 in 3 LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. are raising children under the age of 18, many of them in states that still have outdated laws. This means that far too many children in LGBTQ+ families are potentially at risk, and that LGBTQ+ parents must navigate costly, time-intensive, and invasive legal obstacles to protect their families.

Outdated parentage laws can mean children don’t have their parents when they need them most, like during a medical crisis, or can lead to a parent without legal security under their state’s law losing their connection to their child in circumstances such as the death of a legal parent or the end of the parents’ relationship.

Michigan’s new law also comes in the wake of aggressive efforts around the country to restrict Americans’ ability to make personal decisions about whether, when, and how to build their families, as well as efforts to undermine equal rights for LGBTQ+ people and families.

A woman in a suit jacket and red dress and a woman in a grey suit with her arm around the other woman stand next to each other, smiling. — Governor Whitmer and Director of Family
Advocacy Polly Crozier

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that there is no federal constitutional right to abortion, efforts have escalated to restrict not only abortion but contraception and access to family building like IVF. Earlier this year an unprecedented Alabama Supreme Court ruling effectively shut down IVF access in that state before lawmakers rushed in with a partial and problematic fix.

The national outcry in response to the Alabama ruling made it clear that IVF and other forms of fertility treatment and assisted reproduction are important family building options for many people. Yet even in many states with strong protections for reproductive freedom – like Massachusetts where the Massachusetts Parentage Act is pending – children born through assisted reproduction still lack vital protections.

“In many states, parentage laws are decades out of date and haven’t kept pace with how families are formed,” says Joslin. “Critically, that leaves many children born through assisted reproduction – including IVF and surrogacy – without clear legal ties to their parents. When children lack legal relationships with their parents, they are extremely vulnerable; they may not be entitled to child support or to important government protections.”

“Amid efforts to restrict Americans’ reproductive freedom and roll back protections for LGBTQ+ people and their families,” adds Crozier, “the Michigan Family Protection Act is an inspiring example for other states where gaps in parentage laws continue to leave families vulnerable.”

This story was originally published in the Summer 2024 GLAD Briefs newsletter. Read more.

Blog

Home

Breaking Barriers in PrEP Access: Challenges and Opportunities

GLAD founded its AIDS Law Project in 1984 at a time when many people died within months of diagnosis. It would have been unfathomable to the hundreds of thousands of young people who died in the first three decades of the HIV epidemic – and to the parents, children, spouses, partners, friends, and caretakers who survived them – that there would one day be a fully effective daily pill that prevents HIV transmission by close to 100 percent. PrEP is just that. Yet less than a third of the people who need PrEP (HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis) are taking it because formidable barriers from insurance practices to stigma to racial inequities remain.

Black man at march holding a sign. The sign has a pink triangle with the words "Silence = Death" in white underneath. — Photo credit: Michael Fleshman

PrEP remains under-utilized, particularly among communities most at risk for HIV transmission. In 2022, the CDC reported that only 13% of Black people and 24% of Latinx people eligible for PrEP received it, compared to 94% of eligible white people. This stark disparity underscores the urgent need for intervention.

GLAD has been fighting impediments to PrEP access and working to pass laws that will expand the avenues for people to receive PrEP, especially new forms of PrEP such as long-acting injectables. Recently, the US Court of Appeals heard arguments in Braidwood v. Becerra. In this case, a Texas Court struck down a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurers cover PrEP without any charge to the patient. GLAD filed a friend-of-court brief in the case, which reminded the Court of the profound suffering and death experienced by so many earlier in the epidemic.

Working with epidemiologists at Yale, we also calculated the increase in HIV infections if the court upholds the elimination of this important ACA provision. We concluded that there would be at least 20,000 additional preventable HIV infections in 5 years at a cost to the healthcare system of 8 billion dollars! This harm will disproportionately impact people of color who have the least access to PrEP now. We hope this critical information about the consequences of its decision will help the Court understand the importance of maintaining the ACA’s protections.

GLAD has also been working to pass state laws to challenge other barriers to PrEP. Prior authorization, an insurance practice requiring delays while patients wait for coverage approval, significantly impedes access to new long-acting injectable forms of PrEP. Injectable PrEP is a crucial option for people who, because of their circumstances, such as homelessness or fear of disclosure, are not able to adhere to a daily pill regimen. Prior authorization requirements create delays and mean people do not follow up for care. Even after the delay, insurance companies frequently deny approval.

GLAD is working with our partners on bills in Rhode Island and Massachusetts that would prohibit insurers from imposing prior authorization or cost sharing for any HIV prevention medication. The legislation has passed the Senate in Rhode Island. If signed into law, it would be the first of its kind and could build momentum for similar initiatives in other states. Previous victories, such as ensuring PrEP access for eligible minors in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and enabling pharmacy access without an initial doctor’s prescription in Maine and Rhode Island, demonstrate how far we have come in breaking down barriers.

We have the medical tools to end the epidemic. But now we need the laws and policies that will make access to PrEP a reality for all.

This story was originally published in the Summer 2024 GLAD Briefs newsletter. Read more.

Blog

Home

Meeting People Where They’re At – But Not Leaving Them There

In today’s fragmented world, where many interactions occur online, engaging in meaningful conversations with people with different viewpoints can seem like an uphill battle. Yet, when it comes to issues impacting LGBTQ+ people, these conversations can have a powerful impact. Addressing misunderstandings and discussing issues impacting LGBTQ+ people and our lives can help slow the spread of misinformation, build understanding, and lessen support for harmful legislation.

We’ve seen the power of this throughout our movement. We are celebrating 20 years of marriage equality in Massachusetts this year, but the fact is marriage wasn’t settled after GLAD’s landmark Goodridge court victory in November 2003, or even on the day couples finally began to marry on May 17, 2004. It took another three years to build support and defend the freedom to marry in Massachusetts from the threat of a constitutional amendment and another decade to win marriage nationally. And by the time the Supreme Court decided Obergefell in 2015 there was a super-majority of support for marriage equality across the country. That happened, in part, because our community launched a movement that centered our stories—of love, commitment, family, community, and what marriage meant to us. We talked to lawmakers, community groups, clergy, business leaders, friends, and family. People listened and learned and were moved to join the cause.

GLAD Staff and Board members smiling in green "Yes on 3" t-shirts around a large sign that says "Election Night Viewing Party" — GLAD staff and board celebrating the success of the
Yes on 3 campaign

A similar story played out when, in 2018, opponents attempted to repeal the Massachusetts transgender nondiscrimination law on the ballot. With the Yes on 3 campaign, transgender people told their stories, sharing the joys and challenges of their lives with friends, family, lawmakers, the media, and on the doorsteps of their neighbors and even total strangers. Again, people listened, learned, and joined us. We organized and won the support of city and town councils around the commonwealth and editorial support from major media outlets. On Election Night, Yes On 3 prevailed with a whopping 67.8 percent of the vote, making Massachusetts the first state in the US to uphold protections for trans and nonbinary people by popular vote.

Our personal stories, and those of young trans people in our lives, can help humanize complex issues and foster empathy. Today, when we are facing legislation and local initiatives targeting transgender youth around the country, one-on-one conversations with people in your life can be a powerful place to start to shift misunderstanding. Many people may not know a trans person or know that they do. With so much debate in the media and online, you may find yourself in a conversation with someone you care about who has questions or needs the facts. Our loved ones might not know the best way to talk about these things, but if they feel heard, there’s a great opportunity to build connection and understanding.

Addressing misinformation requires patience, empathy, and a commitment to factual discussions. By emphasizing shared values and finding common ground, we can build understanding even in the face of disagreement. Last year, during the holiday season, Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies Mary Bonauto and GLAD’s Public Education department teamed up to create resources for our community on how to talk with people unfamiliar with what it means to be transgender and the harms transgender young people are facing.

Tips for speaking across difference

Give people space to ask questions and help them feel heard.
Start from a place of shared values:
- We all want what’s best for children, and families should have access to the best available information to support their kids, including when it comes to medical care.
- Equal access to education is fundamental to enable children to grow into healthy, secure adults who can contribute to their communities. All kids deserve to be included and feel like they belong in school life – that includes LGBTQ+ kids
- All people are deserving of respect and safety.
It’s ok to not know all the answers – the point is connection and starting a dialogue.
Recognize that creating a safe space for all participants in dialogue is key. With increasing online and offline harassment and doxing, it’s important to trust your gut and take your and others’ level of risk into account. If you feel unsafe or someone is engaging with you in bad faith, you can always disengage.

Navigating conversations like these can be challenging, and it’s essential to approach these discussions with empathy, patience, and a commitment to understanding. While changing someone’s mind may not always be possible, ensuring they feel valued and heard, and sharing your perspective, can further the conversation and get people thinking.

Have you had a conversation with someone who felt differently than you about LGBTQ+ equality? Tell us how it went! Join us on social media to share your experiences and continue the conversation.

This story was originally published in the Summer 2024 GLAD Briefs newsletter. Read more.

News

Home

VICTORY: Court Declares NH Classroom Censorship Law Unconstitutional

Vague law actively discouraged public school teachers from teaching and talking about race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity inside and outside the classroom

CONCORD, N.H. – A federal court ruled today that New Hampshire’s classroom censorship law is unconstitutional. A broad coalition of educators and advocacy groups brought the challenge to the law, which actively discouraged public school teachers from teaching and talking about race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity inside and outside the classroom. This is the first decision in the country striking down a classroom censorship law that applies to K through 12 public schools.

“Today’s court victory means that educators across New Hampshire can nurture an equitable and inclusive school environment where all students are seen and heard,” said Christina Kim Philibotte and Andres Mejia, two New Hampshire school administrators who are plaintiffs in the case. “It is critically important that students see themselves in the books they read and in the classroom discussions they have to ensure that they feel cared for and valued. We understand that the legislature is still pushing dangerous bills that tell students of color, students from the LGBTQ+ community, and students with historically marginalized identities that they do not belong in our schools and history. This decision pushes back on these legislative efforts by providing relief for teachers who can now confidently do their jobs and teach in ways that validate their students’ lived experiences. We are grateful to the Court for striking down this unconstitutional classroom censorship law in a decision that has moved the pendulum towards justice for children across the state.”

The court found that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment, concluding the law was so unclear and vague that it failed to provide necessary guidance to educators about what they could and could not include in their courses and that it invited arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement—up to and including the loss of teaching licenses.

The court stated in its order that the “prohibitions against teaching banned concepts are unconstitutionally vague,” and that the law contains “viewpoint-based restrictions on speech that do not provide either fair warning to educators of what they prohibit or sufficient standards for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”

The court concluded further, “All told, the banned concepts speak only obliquely about the speech that they target and, in doing so, fail to provide teachers with much-needed clarity as to how the Amendments apply to the very topics that they were meant to address. This lack of clarity sows confusion and leaves significant gaps that can only be filled in by those charged with enforcing the Amendments, thereby inviting arbitrary enforcement.”

“The Court’s ruling today is a victory for academic freedom and an inclusive education for all New Hampshire students,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. “This unconstitutional classroom censorship law had no place in New Hampshire, and we are grateful to the court for stopping the culture of fear and apprehension perpetuated in Granite State schools under this law.”

The Court also explained in its order that, “because the Amendments fail to establish ‘minimal guidelines to govern [their] enforcement,’ officials are free to ‘pursue their personal predilections’ when applying the law. Indeed, the record demonstrates that those charged with enforcing the law have relied on Commissioner Edelblut’s personal opinions on what is appropriate instruction, as expressed in his op-ed articles, to guide their efforts.”

Following the bill’s passage in 2021, NEA-New Hampshire (the state affiliate of the National Education Association) and AFT-New Hampshire heard from teachers that they were confused about what they could and could not teach, and that they were scared of the repercussions for guessing wrong.

Chris Erchull, Attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, said, “Today’s decision affirms the essential work of New Hampshire public school teachers to ensure students develop the knowledge and critical thinking skills they need to be successful and contribute to their communities. We’re grateful the Court recognized that setting vague conditions on what educators can say about race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability harms students with historically marginalized identities, including LGBTQ students. Now, teachers can do the work of planning lessons and guiding student discussions without fear of losing their license if someone raises a vaguely defined banned topic in the classroom. We’re better as a state and community when we can have hard conversations and learn from them, and that’s what this decision allows.”

Megan Tuttle, NEA-NH president, said, “As a social studies teacher, I know how important it is for students to have truthful and accurate information that helps them better understand the lives, cultures, and experiences of different people. It builds critical thinking skills that are truly foundational to their success in all facets of life. But New Hampshire’s ‘banned concepts’ law stifled New Hampshire teachers’ efforts to provide a true and honest education. Students, families, and educators should rejoice over this court ruling which restores the teaching of truth and the right to learn for all Granite State students.”

Jennifer Eber, Litigation Director of Disability Rights Center – NH, said, “By discouraging open and honest discussion of difficult topics related to disability, this law posed a significant threat to the disability rights movement. Learning about the history of institutionalization and isolation to which disabled people have been subject is fundamental to building inclusive school communities and providing students with appropriate supports and services.”

Emerson Sykes, Senior Staff Attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, said, “This is an important win for educators and students in New Hampshire and sends a clear message across the country that bans on inclusive education are unconstitutional and will not stand.”

The case consolidated two lawsuits, one filed by educators Andres Mejia and Christina Kim Philibotte and NEA-NH, and one filed by the American Federation of Teachers.

Read the court decision

Learn more about the case

News

Home

LGBTQ Legal, Advocacy Groups Urge Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Affirm Lesbian Mother’s Parental Status

Brief filed in Glover v. Junior encourages use of a legal standard that will provide secure parental relationships for all children born through assisted reproduction.

Organizations advocating on behalf of LGBTQ+ families and their children have filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to issue a ruling protecting a lesbian mother’s parental status and affirming the recognition of legal parentage for children born through assisted reproduction.

The case, Glover v. Junior, concerns a married, non-genetic, non-gestational mother, Nicole Junior, who planned with her now former spouse to conceive and raise a child via assisted reproduction, with the clear intent that both would be the child’s parents. In a December 2023 en banc ruling overturning a prior panel decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court – citing evidence including that Junior and Glover had jointly signed agreements related to the assisted reproduction – found Junior had established legal parentage of her child and that the couple’s subsequent separation and divorce after conception did not change the fact that Junior is her child’s intended and actual parent.

The LGBTQ+ organizations’ brief urges the state Supreme Court to affirm the Superior Court’s ruling securing Junior’s legal relationship to her child. It also argues that an intent-based parentage doctrine is the best legal standard to reflect contemporary family formation and protect the interests and stability of all children and families – including many LGBTQ+ families – formed through assisted reproduction.

The brief was filed May 24, 2024 by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Pennsylvania, Family Equality, Mazzoni Center, Philadelphia Family Pride, and COLAGE. Attorneys Kimberly A. Havlin, Robert J. DeNault, and Stephen M Hogan-Mitchell of White & Case LLP were pro bono counsel on the brief.

“There is no question that Nicole Junior is a parent to her child, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should quickly affirm the Superior Court’s en banc ruling to ensure security and clarity for everyone in the family,” said Polly Crozier, Director of Family Advocacy at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. “Having a secure legal parent-child relationship is critical to a child’s wellbeing. Many hopeful parents across Pennsylvania – including many LGBTQ+ people – are building or seeking to build loving, stable families through assisted reproduction. Pennsylvania law, through the courts and the legislature, should reflect the reality of how contemporary families are formed and ensure that all children have access to the rights and protections that come from having their relationship to their parents recognized and secured. We’re grateful to be working alongside White & Case LLP and our many partner organizations to advocate for children and families across Pennsylvania.”

“This case presents a critical opportunity for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to clarify that children born through assisted reproduction deserve the same security and stability as other children,” said Shannon Minter, NCLR’s Legal Director. “We are hopeful the Court will quickly affirm the decision below and ensure that families created through assisted reproduction have clear protections and that lower courts have clear guidance about how to apply the law to these families.”

“Same-sex couples and families deserve to be treated equally under the law,” said White & Case associate Robert J. DeNault. “It is important that courts recognize the parentage rights of those who demonstrate intent to become parents, especially in the assisted reproduction process.”

BKW Family Law LLC is counsel for Nicole Junior. Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller also submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML).