Advocates looking for 'actual strategy' for Bay State LGBTQ+ community

BOSTON (SHNS) – Advocates, health care professionals and lawmakers raised alarm Wednesday at federal rhetoric and actions aimed at the LGBTQ+ community, which they say will increasingly harm LGBTQ+ people and could upend their access to gender-affirming care.
'We're witnessing relentless attacks on trans lives, on bodily autonomy and the very existence of LGBTQ individuals. Hard-fought gains and health equity are at risk with successful government programs that save lives being threatened right now and being defunded,' Dallas Ducar, executive vice president of donor engagement and external relations at Fenway Health, said Tuesday at a briefing highlighting National LGBTQ+ Health Awareness Week.
'These aren't just policy debates. These are decisions that will determine whether people live or whether they die,' Ducar said.
Fenway Health is a federally-qualified health center. Of its 33,000 patients, half are LGBTQ, according to Ducar, who said the center is specifically worried about its research and education efforts, public health programs and system of gender-affirming care.
The federal government has taken action during the first months of President Donald Trump's second term to change LGBTQ-related policy in the United States, moving to roll back numerous policies that protect people from discrimination based on their gender identity or sexual orientation, ensure access to gender-inclusive care, and differentiate between 'gender identity' and 'sex' in the federal government.
Trump has said his orders are meant to defeat 'gender ideology.'
Brittany Charlton, founding director of Harvard University's LGBTQ Health Center for Excellence, tied impacts to the recent elimination of federal research grants focused on LGBTQ+ health, many of which she said are based in Massachusetts, and said the effects are already being felt here.
'Just in the last several days, several of my very large-scale, multi-million dollar grants that are funded by the federal government have been terminated,' Charlton said. 'Halting this work … is setting a really concerning precedent where scientific inquiry is going to be stifled by political rhetoric and potentially erasing our entire community from future research agendas.'
She said that while partnering with philanthropists and foundations can help groups continue to do this type of research, they still need aid from the state and feds to be able to 'fill this gap.'
Calls were loud Tuesday for allied legislators to do more. Taimur Khan, associate medical research director at the Fenway Institute, urged legislators to close gaps in existing care and use their platforms to advocate nationally for LGBTQ+ communities.
'Continue championing policies that make our health care system more inclusive. This means protecting the gains we have made, ensuring LGBTQ+ non-discrimination protections remain strong, and filling any gaps that remain. It means funding critical services like community health centers, HIV prevention and treatment programs, health care services for LGBTQ+ youth and outreach for seniors,' Khan said.
And Boston Medical Center GenderCare Center's research lead, Carl Streed, expressed confusion about what the Legislature is actively doing to protect programs from federal elimination. Streed said other issues, like Medicaid funding threats and the housing crisis, also impact LGBTQ+ patients served at BMC.
'We are probably in the best, safest jurisdiction right now, given the federal assault, but we can do more,' Streed said. 'I need guarantees that our funding is not going to get cut … I want to understand what's the actual strategy to safeguard our patients, to safeguard our community.'
The federal-local connection is on the minds of lawmakers like public health committee co-chair, Rep. Marjorie Decker, who said her team has been having conversations since November with leadership, colleagues and the Department of Public Health about how to ensure access to gender-affirming care remains in Massachusetts.
'I'm standing here and my heart is racing because quite honestly, like many of you, the level of anger that I feel here — in turn, that anger is only going to fuel the organizing that we will do to think out of the box, to collaborate and to make sure that at the end of the day, there will still be a system of access of care to everyone in our state,' Decker said.
Rep. Sam Montaño seconded the state Legislature's commitment to supporting LGBTQ+ rights, but flagged a lack of support they see in Congress.
'Where I'm not sure that we're so good is our federal delegation. And I think we've seen that through Seth Moulton, you can see that through other folks who haven't been outwardly supported, who have questioned this movement,' Montaño said, encouraging people to call their congressional leaders.
In November, Moulton made national headlines after he suggested that Democrats' support of allowing trans girls to play girls' sports was tied to the party's presidential election loss. Gov. Maura Healey, among numerous other Massachusetts Democrats, publicly spoke against Moulton's commentary.
Other personal reflections from lawmakers, including Sen. William Brownsberger and Reps. John Patrick Lewis and John Moran, expressed broad support in the Legislature for the LGBTQ+ community. Moran spoke about his positive experience receiving care tailored to him, as a member of the LGBTQ community.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Miami Herald

9 hours ago

• Miami Herald

Some Johns Hopkins, UMD research stopped after Trump cuts. Others are scrambling to resume

BALTIMORE - Some Maryland university research projects on the Trump administration's chopping block have been fully discontinued, while others are scrambling to resume after a pause in funding. Johns Hopkins has lost more than $800 million in federal grant money. The University of Maryland lost tens of millions of dollars. But some cuts have been blocked by legal challenges, though litigation is ongoing. Researchers describe disappointment and uncertainty as they determine how to move forward. Alternative funding has been secured for a clinical trial in Bangladesh aimed at managing life-threatening diarrheal diseases in children, which was previously halted because of U.S. Agency for International Development funding cuts. The work has yet to resume. "It just takes a long time to rebuild the teams and get things in place again to start," said Judd Walson, chair of the Department of International Health at Johns Hopkins University, which partnered on the project. "The disruptions that are happening are really catastrophic." Over the past several weeks, 17 NIH awards have been terminated or had an unclear status, including two training awards supporting doctoral-level researchers, Walson said. "We're not getting a lot of communication, so it's a little bit hard to say exactly what the status of some of these awards are," he said. The National Institutes of Health didn't respond to questions about funding cuts to Maryland research institutions. In a lawsuit challenging NIH research cuts, lawyers for the federal government wrote in a recent court filing that its terminations of grants for DEI-related studies were "sufficiently reasoned," and that the NIH has "broad discretion" to decide what grants to provide. Johns Hopkins is a plaintiff in two lawsuits involving caps on reimbursement of indirect costs for research - one challenging the NIH and the other against the Department of Defense. The latter suit also lists the University of Maryland, College Park, as a plaintiff. Both schools have also filed a brief in support of a lawsuit filed by Harvard University against the Trump administration's funding cuts. New grant terminations have been arriving "nearly every week," Johns Hopkins University said in a recent update published on its website. There's also been a nearly two-thirds decrease in new awards compared with last year, the university said. Johns Hopkins atmosphere and ocean sciences researcher Darryn Waugh was disappointed upon receiving notice that his NASA grant to study air pollution in Baltimore was canceled by the Trump administration. The termination came as a result of President Donald Trump's executive order, "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." "It wasn't clear to me that this actually falls under this diversity, equity, inclusion," Waugh said. "It was research that I think we still wanted to do - to understand how the air pollution varies through the city - and the environmental justice was only actually a relatively small component of it." Waugh was working through the second year of a three-year grant, totaling $1,465,950. "We've got kind of a preliminary analysis," he said, regarding the research. "But to get anything conclusive, we would need more than one year of funding." Waugh said he intends to find ways of continuing the research without the NASA grant. Daniel Mullins, at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, had a grant canceled for a "Health Equity Research Hub," which examined how to encourage greater participation in health-related research. Mullins said the loss of the grant affected five positions, and the individuals will be removed from the university because of lack of funding. He added that the termination stated that the grant was DEI-related, which he disputes. "I think under the DEI umbrella, a lot of times, the government will refer to it as just one racial ethnic group," he said. "We've worked in different geographies, in different racial and ethnic populations, but what's cool about what we do is it really does apply to all patients in all populations." Mullins said his research group has additional funding from other agencies and is writing new proposals. Walson said social determinants of health - involving factors like poverty and other "inequities" - are "foundational to our understanding of health." "So the idea that we would not be able to pursue work that focuses on identifying and managing those particular issues, which are the underlying, core issues at the heart of health issues, is really challenging," Walson said. The Trump administration's cuts have had an ieffect across the world. Walson said it's estimated the cuts will result in hundreds of thousands of deaths globally, and could eventually lead to millions of deaths over the next couple of years. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said it's "a lie" that people have died because of USAID cuts. During a congressional hearing in May, Rubio said the U.S. is the world's "largest humanitarian provider." "I would argue: How many people die because China hasn't done it?" he said. "How many people have died because the U.K. has cut back on spending and so has other countries?" Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

Gizmodo

11 hours ago

• Gizmodo

When Will Genetically Modifying Our Children Go Mainstream?

In late May, several scientific organizations, including the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT), banded together to call for a 10-year moratorium on using CRISPR and related technologies to pursue human heritable germline editing. The declaration also outlined practical steps that countries and research institutions could take to discourage this sort of experimentation, such as strengthening regulations tied to gene editing. 'Germline editing has very serious safety concerns that could have irreversible consequences,' said Bruce Levine, a cancer gene therapy researcher at the University of Pennsylvania and former president of the ISCT, in a statement. 'We simply lack the tools to make it safe now and for at least the next 10 years.' Newer technologies such as CRISPR have made gene editing easier, cheaper, and more practical to carry out in a variety of species, humans included. That reality has made heritable germline editing—altering egg, sperm, and embryos such that they can be passed down to offspring—more feasible than ever. In November 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui thrust this issue into the limelight when he announced that his team modified the genes of several human embryos using CRISPR, then implanted them successfully in women volunteers. Eventually three children were born with the modifications, intended to confer natural immunity to HIV infection. He deliberately flouted ethical guidelines and the law in his research, such as doctoring lab results so that HIV-positive men could father the children (according to He, the children were born without HIV and appeared to have avoided any related health issues). He's experiments were roundly condemned by the scientific community and he ultimately served a three-year prison term for his actions, which ended in 2022. Upon release, He went back to working in the gene-editing field, though he promised to abide by domestic and international rules. The episode showed that human heritable germline editing is already clearly possible today, but not necessarily ethical to carry out. Indeed, many scientists and bioethicists believe we're not ready to go down that path just yet. For this Giz Asks, we reached out to several bioethicists to get their take on the moratorium, and more broadly, on the question of when we should be able to genetically modify children, if ever. Founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine's Department of Population Health. I've been thinking about that question for well over 40 years. We didn't always have the technology to go in and modify genes in an egg, sperm, embryo, or fetus for that matter. But it's certainly the case that people have been thinking hard about trying to genetically alter and improve children, probably back to the Greeks. We know that in modern times, Nazi Germany was home to race hygiene theory and a form of eugenics; they would have been very interested in creating better babies. They did have the Lebensborn Program where they tried to force women and men that they deemed especially genetically fit to breed and have kids. It's not really clear whatever happened to those kids. But it's a form, if you will, of trying to get the right genes into your offspring and get them passed along into the future. They practiced that. And we had versions of that in the U.S., believe it or not. We actually had awards given at state fairs to families that were seen as eugenically the best and trying to encourage those families to have bigger families. That's an idea that's still rattling around today, by the way, in the mouths of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Stephen Miller, etc. Many in the current Trump administration are very concerned about minorities becoming the majority in the U.S. In any event, these are old fashioned ideas, often fueled by dreams of eugenics, shifting the population in the future toward healthier, more competent, more physically able people, trying to get people of the right race or ethnicity so that the society's makeup is proper. They don't rely on engineering a gene. There's no CRISPR. There's nobody going in there and trying to penetrate the cell wall to insert genetic information. But those are just new ways to think about ideas that have been around for a long time. So if you ask me, will we see genetic engineering of children aimed at their improvement? I say yes, undoubtedly. Now when? I'm not sure what the answer to that is. Right now, we have some crude tools. We are seeing some efforts to use gene therapy in kids to repair diseases of their bodies, not things that would be inherited. They work a bit, but I wouldn't say we're really at the sort of utopia of being able to reliably get rid of in a person or a child, sickle cell or other major diseases. The tools, despite a lot of hype and a lot of maybe press release journalism, are not quite there yet to really say we can even do a good job repairing disease in an existing kid. So when it comes to trying to use tools to modify an embryo, I'm going to say flat out we're at least 10 years away from that in any serious way that could be considered safe, targeted, and likely to produce the outcome you want. So the big restriction now is safety. I think we'll get past safety, but it is a reason right now not to do anything. Now, what else might become an objection if we did have accurate, sophisticated tools? I think the first is access. If you make better kids, but only some people can afford it, that wouldn't be fair. And that in itself would be unjust. And you might wind up creating two classes or more of humans on Earth, the genetically engineered superior people and others. And this obviously is a theme all over science fiction. Old-timers will remember the Wrath of Khan from Star Trek for their take on what happens when you get a super genetically engineered race. There's Gattaca, another movie that explored this. But I'm going to say this somewhat controversially. Fairness in access never stopped a technology from going forward. When the rich and the middle class want it, they're not stopped by the fact that the poor can't get it. I would like to see provisions made to say we shouldn't move forward unless those technologies are available to those who want them regardless of cost. But I don't think that's going to happen. It's just never happened. So access is an issue, but I don't think it's a game-breaker for improving your kids. People also say, well, how will we improve? I mean, what's the best state? We can't agree on that. So will we really improve kids? There may be things we disagree about as to whether they're really improvements. Would it be an improvement to diminish pigment in black people? Try and make them less dark. We can certainly see that argued. There are plenty in the deaf community who say, well, deafness is not really something you have to get rid of or try to improve by genetically engineering hearing to make it better. They can get around the world deaf using a different language and different institutions. But there are clearly things that it would be nice to genetically improve in kids. Immunity would be great. We do it now with vaccines. It would be great to find the right genes, tweak them, and build stronger immune systems. It would be great to make sure that we try our best to diminish the extreme pain, that some of us suffer not just as disease, but with respect to certain stimuli. I'm not saying we should genetically eliminate all pain. That would probably put us in danger, but we don't quite have to suffer the way we do. My point being, the fact that we don't agree on everything as to what would be an improvement doesn't mean that we can't agree on anything. The last thing I'll say is this. When you try to make better kids, I think one last concern is: Are you going to make the children have less options rather than more? So if I considered it an improvement in a child to make them a giant, or to make them a tennis player, or to try and figure out perhaps some weird appearance that would make them a celebrity, I'm condemning the child to my choice. They don't have the freedom to run their own life. They don't have the ability to choose what they want to do. I tighten down their future by narrowing the kinds of traits they have. That, I think, is a legitimate objection. We have to think hard about that. Many of the things we do environmentally, learn to read better, learn to do exercise, learn to play games, these are skills that expand capacities in our children, and may in fact be values that are then passed on to future generations. But they don't wind up creating kids who are less capable because of those interventions. That's where genetic change has to be watched very closely. So the bottom line of this gigantic speech is yes, we will see genetic modification of our children. It will come. There are traits that people will eagerly try to put into their kids in the future. They will try to design out genetic diseases, get rid of them. They will try to build in capacities and abilities that they agree are really wonderful. Will we hang up these interventions on ethical grounds? For the most part, no, would be my prediction, But not within the next 10 years. The tools are still too crude. Associate professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve University's School of Medicine There are children with genetic modifications walking around today, children like KJ, who was treated with personalized CRISPR gene editing at just six months old. There are now kids who are free of sickle cell disease symptoms through CRISPR therapy, the first one ever approved by the FDA. All of these children are 'genetically modified,' and they and their parents couldn't be happier about it. What other conditions could and should be treated through genetic modifications? That's a question that scientists are actively working on, and that social scientists like me are talking about with patients, parents, and communities—because we and they think it's really important for them to be part of those decisions. These 'somatic' gene editing treatments that are already being used aren't the kind that is passed down through our reproductive cells, the germline. Heritable gene modification would involve embryos, eggs, or sperm, or even possibly other cells that could be turned into these kinds of cells. A technology currently being researched, called in vitro gametogenesis, could use gene editing to turn skin cells into reproductive cells, allowing families with infertility to have their own genetically related children. And of course, there are scientists looking at the possibility of editing reproductive cells to allow couples who carry the genes for severe diseases to conceive children without those conditions. Many ethicists and scientists have drawn a hard line between heritable and non-heritable gene editing, but in practice it's not nearly so clear-cut. Off-target effects of gene editing are difficult to predict or control, so there is a chance that reproductive cells could be changed by treatments aimed at other organ systems. Fetal gene editing, which could help babies with some conditions be born with few or no symptoms, will also involve the pregnant bodies of their mothers; those adults could host edited cells even after the pregnancy ends, possibly affecting their future children too. Families dealing with genetic conditions that cause great suffering for their children don't necessarily see a problem with eliminating those conditions forever with heritable gene editing. On the other hand, some people living with genetic conditions, such as deafness or autism, see no reason for treating their condition with gene editing, heritable or not, because their biggest problems come not from the condition itself but from the way society treats them. So there are many questions to be asked about all forms of genetic modification, and how they will be developed and implemented. All the gene editing treatments that exist now or are being imagined over the next decade, heritable or not, involve exorbitant cost and will be inaccessible to most people worldwide. It will be crucial to balance the excitement of these novel technologies with attention to questions of justice, developing new treatments with an eye toward both accessibility and the priorities of those most affected. The only way to do this is to bring more voices into conversation with one another: people living with genetic conditions, scientists and doctors, policymakers of all kinds, and members of the public. Although gene editing is an amazing tool to add to our kit, the work of building more robust healthcare and support for families carrying or living with genetic conditions doesn't begin or end with genetic modification. Bioethicist, sociologist, and executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Yes we should, when it's safe, effective, and voluntary. Calls to permanently ban the creation of genetically modified children often rest on fear, not facts. They mirror past moral panics over interracial marriage, in vitro fertilization, and birth control—all technologies or choices once deemed unnatural or dangerous, and now widely accepted. We should be wary of arguments dressed up as ethics but rooted in anxiety about change. That doesn't mean anything goes. Like any powerful technology, gene editing must be tightly regulated for safety and efficacy. But the agencies we already trust to regulate medicine—the FDA, NIH, and institutional review boards—are largely capable of doing that. We don't need a bioethics priesthood or a new bureaucracy to police reproductive decisions. We need science-based oversight, individual consent, and protection from coercion. One of the loudest objections to genetic editing is the specter of 'eugenics.' But if eugenics means state control over reproduction, then the lesson of the 20th century is to defend reproductive freedom, not curtail it. Governments should not tell parents what kinds of kids to have. Preventing parents from using safe, approved gene therapies to reduce suffering or enhance their children's lives is a strange way to honor that lesson. They should give parents access to all the information and technology for the choices they make. True reproductive liberty includes the right to use the best science available to ensure a child's health. Another objection is that genetic modification could harm people who would rather not participate. But this 'perfection anxiety' ignores how all medical advances shift social norms. We didn't stop improving dental care because it made bad teeth less acceptable. And a healthier society has not led to less compassion for those who remain sick or disabled—if anything, it's strengthened the case for inclusion and support. The goal should be equitable access, not frozen norms. We do need to ensure that parents can access all the gene therapies that actually provide potential benefits for children. Governments with universal healthcare will need to make tough choices about what to cover and what not to cover. For instance, the National Health Service should make gene therapy to remove lethal, painful conditions available for all Britons, but parents may need to pay for medical tourism to some offshore clinic if they want to tweak their embryo's eye color. What about risks we can't foresee? Of course there will be some. All new medical therapies come with uncertainties. That's why we have trials, regulation, and post-market surveillance. There's no reason genetic therapies should be held to an impossibly higher standard. We should start with animal models, and proceed to the most morally defensible gene tweaks, lethal and painful conditions. Over time, as the safety of the techniques are better understood, we can expand the scope of therapeutic choices. Some worry that genetically modified children could disrupt our ideas of family or humanity. But those concepts have already been revolutionized—by urbanization, feminism, economic precarity, and social movements. The family of today would be unrecognizable to most people in 1800. If genetic technologies change our values again, it won't be the first time. Liberal democracies don't freeze culture in place—they ensure people have the freedom to shape it. Ultimately, the question isn't whether we should allow genetically modified children. It's whether we trust parents to make mostly good choices under the oversight of regulators and doctors. We should, because most parents have their children's best interests in mind, as they perceive them. That's why we allow parents to raise their own children in the first place. And we should ensure those choices are equitably available to all, not outlawed out of fear. If we ever find genetic tweaks to reduce suffering, enhance capability, or prevent devastating disease—and we can do so safely and ethically—the real moral failure would be to prohibit it. A Canadian bioethicist and environmentalist currently teaching at the University of Toronto. Well, there's a big difference between genetic enhancement and treatment. And with enhancement, I think we're nowhere near a point where we should be even considering that. But with treatment, the large ethical issue right now is something like single gene mutation. So something like Huntington's disease, muscular dystrophy, or similar diseases, could it be justified to edit the gene for that? The challenge is we don't fully understand all the things. We don't know what we don't know, to put it bluntly. And with germline editing, the changes we would be making are permanent and they run through many generations ahead. So, yes, being able to prevent deadly or debilitating illnesses is absolutely something wonderful. But having said that, you obviously don't have consent of the person who will be born, but you also don't have consent of the generations that come after that. And if there is complications or unexpected problems, you can have an inheritance that just keeps running through generations. But here's the thing with this moratorium; to what end? You can call for a moratorium, but if no one's focusing on anything, if there's no research, no planning, no social discourse, there's just a lot of people with different opinions, and everything gets shelved for 10 years. I'm not sure that's going to be particularly useful. It sounds great if it's going to be 10 concentrated years on building consensus and public engagement and those types of things, but I don't think that's what would actually happen. And also, I'm sure you've noticed, the world's not in good shape, and Western culture is not of one mind these days. And with the ruptures, particularly in the United States, there's a lot of division in Western culture of how people see things. And I'm just not convinced that a moratorium, that people would make use of it in a constructive way. It really needs a coordinated plan, and I'm not sure there is one. So I do see that as quite a problem. The other thing is, we're dealing with high-income countries. So when we look at potential for CRISPR-Cas9 and gene editing, we're dealing with a very small percentage of the world's population. I'm going to guess that it's maybe 15% to 20% of the world's population, because most of the population of the world has no access to things like this and never will. Not never will, but in the foreseeable future, they won't. And I think that's something we miss a lot of the time. And the biggest ethical problem in the world today is not gene editing. It's just access to healthcare. And this doesn't do anything in those domains whatsoever. So from a justice point of view, that is a concern. And I'm going to sound cynical here. Emerging medical technologies are not motivated largely by the social sector. They're motivated by marketing and market forces. So if people can make money on this, somehow, someway, people will proceed. And if gene editing is illegal in Canada and the U.S. and Western Europe and Australia, there's a lot of countries that don't fall into that. And you can set up shop anywhere. Equatorial Guinea or other places are not going to be worried about things like this. They've got enough problems on their hands. And there's a lot of countries out there where this would not be easily called. So I support the essence of it. And I can see why people want to do it. I'm just not convinced it's all that feasible. I think what makes more sense is just not having any germline editing until we have a larger consensus about this technology.

Yahoo

17 hours ago

• Yahoo

Delaware governor signs executive order protecting gender-affirming care

On Friday, Delaware Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer signed an executive order increasing protection for receivers and providers of gender-affirming care. 'In Delaware, we cherish privacy, dignity and the right to make personal medical decisions. Everyone deserves the freedom to access healthcare rooted in science and compassion,' said Meyer. The executive order prohibits any state agency from providing 'medical records, data or billing information, or utilize state resources' that could help any criminal or civil investigation against someone receiving or providing gender-affirming care. It also dictated that the state professional regulations board cannot disbar healthcare professionals only due to providing gender-affirming care. California, New York, Illinois and 11 other states, and Washington, D.C., have enacted similar legislation to shield patients and doctors from aggressive legislation in states where gender-affirming care is highly restricted. Patients can now travel to shield states to receive their care without fear of retribution in their home states. This comes after a Supreme Court decision on June 18 that upheld Tennessee's decision to ban puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors. 'This ruling undermines doctors in delivering care to some of the most vulnerable patients in our country,' Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the nation's first openly transgender member of Congress, said Wednesday on the social platform X. Since President Trump took office transgender rights have increasingly been limited. Trump signed an executive order recognizing only two genders, has tried to ban transgender troops from the military, has refused requests to change the gender of passports and has tried to defund gender-affirming medical care. Delaware has a long history of tolerance for LGBTQ populations. According to the order, the state hosts 40,000 LGBTQ individuals and 6,300 transgender adults. In 2013, it legalized same-sex marriage and implemented anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment and public accommodation. 'We will do everything in our power to protect transgender families in the state of Delaware and throughout the country,' the Executive Committee of the Delaware Democratic Party PRIDE Caucus said in a press statement earlier this week. 'We call on every legislator, from the state and county level to the federal level, to speak out and step up. This is the moment to act – not with caution, but with courage.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.