Latest news with #DefendingWomenFromGenderIdeologyExtremism
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Here are the new Texas laws that will affect trans and LGBTQ+ people
While largely avoiding the same level of heated pushback of years' past, Texas lawmakers passed several bills that give LGBTQ+ people in Texas, specifically transgender residents, less opportunity to receive care and maintain their identities in state records. Texas legislators filed over 100 anti-trans bills through the session, some containing provisions that have been shot down in years' prior while others proposed new restrictions. Less than 10 were ultimately approved by lawmakers. The new bills that are likely to be signed by Gov. Greg Abbott represent a yearslong movement from state conservatives to find new ways to restrict the presence of trans and LGBTQ+ Texans, advocates say. The bills that failed may also be resurrected by lawmakers in future sessions. Here's what to know. Several bills filed in the Legislature aimed to craft legal definitions of sex and gender in addition to their target goals — but House Bill 229 makes that goal its sole purpose, establishing state definitions for male and female and applying those definitions across statute. HB 229 defines a woman as 'an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,' and a man as 'an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.' Most immediately, the bill will bolster an already existing block from state agencies on changes to gender markers on state documents, which was backed by a nonbinding opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton in March. The bill may also force those who have already switched their documents to match their identified gender to have changes reverted when they are renewed. The longer-term effects of HB 229 are still not immediately apparent, as references to man and woman are used hundreds of times in statute and may ripple into other laws affecting people's lives. Texas joins 13 other states that have also crafted their own definitions, and several other bills that also passed in the state have individual definitions for related terms like 'biological sex.' President Donald Trump issued an executive order named 'Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism' in January providing federal definitions of male and female. Similarly, HB 229 has been dubbed the 'Women's Bill of Rights' by supporters, claiming it protects women in the state from men invading their spaces. Abbott released an executive order of his own shortly after Trump's affirming the president's directive, but did not provide his own definitions. In a May post on social media, the governor said he would immediately sign HB 229 into law. Tightening the ability to change the gender on state records like drivers' licenses has been a key issue for conservative lawmakers for years, and while HB 229 sets a precedent in disallowing new changes, another bill creates new requirements entirely. Senate Bill 1188 creates a new section on all state medical records listing patients' assigned sex at birth and any physical sexual development disorders. It also bans changes to those gender markers for any reason other than clerical errors, and creates civil penalties for medical professionals who do change them. House Democrats opposing the measure during floor discussion worried that SB 1188 may scare medical providers into inputting vague or inaccurate health information out of fear of fiscal or legal retribution. The bill does allow the new section to include information on a patients' gender identity, however health care services must opt-in to provide it. The bill also creates restrictions on where health care providers can store patient data and the physical servers they use to store them, and new regulations on how artificial intelligence can be used to create diagnoses. SB 1188 is not the only bill opponents have said will create a chilling effect on the LGBTQ+ community. Some bills may be more immediate in blocking options people have to do things like change their state records, but others like SB 1188 and Senate Bill 1257 may reduce what resources are available. SB 1257 was signed by Abbott in May and mandates that insurance companies provide coverage for gender detransitioning care if they already cover gender transition care. Proponents of the law claim it enforces responsibility onto insurance companies. The law is not a ban on gender-affirming care, however opponents worry it may act as one by incentivizing insurance companies to pull coverage altogether rather than take on potential new costs. SB 1257 is the first legal mandate for detransition care in the United States, making Texas a testing ground for insurance companies' appetite to keep or pull coverage. Similar bills in Arizona, Florida and Tennessee did not pass out of their respective state legislatures in 2024. Medical gender transition care for minors was banned in Texas by the Legislature in 2023, a restriction that was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2024. House Bill 18, primarily an overhaul of rural health care including a rural pediatric mental health care program, bans minors from accessing its resources for gender-affirming mental health counseling 'inconsistent with the child's biological sex.' The current gender transition care ban for minors does not include mental health services, only puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery, which is rare for those under 18. Another proposal headed to Abbott's desk, House Bill 1106, asserts that parents who do not recognize or affirm their child's gender identity cannot be held liable for abuse or neglect because of that lack of recognition. Access to materials and resources related to LGBTQ+ subjects are also being restricted by legislators through two key bills primarily aimed at schools. Senate Bill 12 bans Texas schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity and forbids student clubs 'based on' those subjects. The bill would prevent clubs like Gay-Straight Alliances and pride clubs, which are often tailored toward anti-bullying initiatives in schools. Opponents of the bill claim a ban on those clubs would cut off LGBTQ+ students from communities and resources that can save lives. 'One of the deadliest things that our youth go through is experiencing the perception at least of isolation, and GSAs are a powerful way that we can combat that and make sure that our youth are getting support,' said Ash Hall, ACLU Texas' policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights. While SB 12 restricts instruction and student groups, Senate Bill 13 gives school boards and new advisory councils greater oversight to remove books from school libraries that go against 'local community values.' Some lawmakers and advocates worry school boards and advisory councils would be able to restrict books containing LGBTQ+ material. A third bill, Senate Bill 18, would have banned 'drag-time story hours' at municipal libraries and cut funding to those who host them, however that bill was unintentionally killed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick after a procedural error at the end of the Senate's deadline to pass bills. The small set of bills passed by legislators shift the state's treatment of LGBTQ+ Texans significantly, but still represent a fraction of what lawmakers proposed. House Bill 239, this session's bathroom ban bill, was one of the over 100 bills that did not survive and was never heard by lawmakers despite half of the House signing on as coauthors. House Bill 2704 sought a similar ban through private lawsuits rather than criminal charges, but was never picked up by lawmakers. Also left unheard was House Bill 3817, filed by Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, which would have created a new felony charge for 'gender identity fraud' if a person represented themselves as a gender besides the one they were assigned at birth to state agencies or employers. Advocates like Johnathan Gooch, communications director for Equality Texas, say that the Legislature has kept its course on anti-trans legislation for the last few sessions, and that bills that didn't get picked up by legislators may be at the forefront of future sessions. 'We're hearing rhetoric that we've heard for a very long time and just more, more bills, a variety of new ways to narrow the rights of trans people,' Gooch said. 'It just doesn't come as a mistake that the number of bills is escalating.' Disclosure: ACLU Texas and Equality Texas have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Federal judge orders Trump administration to restore some research on women's health and transgender mental health issues
A federal judge ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must restore medical research articles from a government database, which were removed for promoting 'gender ideology,' per The Christian Post. The authors of the articles, Harvard medical researchers Gordon Schiff and Celeste Royce, sued the Trump administration over the removal of their research from the Patient Safety Network, according to The Harvard Crimson. One of the articles in question was removed for commenting on the diagnosis of endometriosis, an often-debilitating medical condition, for women, transgender and non-gender-conforming individuals. Another paper was removed for commenting on the importance of recognizing groups at risk for suicide, stating that young people, veterans, men, Indigenous, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer groups are at particular risk. Massachusetts District Court Judge Leo Sorokin argued that the articles' removal violated the First Amendment. 'This is a flagrant violation of the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights as private speakers on a limited public forum,' he stated according to The Christian Post. 'Because irreparable harm necessarily flows from such a violation, and the balance of harms and the public interest favor the plaintiffs, the motion for a preliminary injunction is allowed in part.' In January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled 'Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.' The order described Trump's intention to 'defend women's rights' and only officially recognize two genders. Also in January, Trump issued an order titled 'Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.' The order stated that medical professionals across America are 'maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children' who desire to change their genders. To carry out these orders, the Trump administration scrubbed thousands of data entries concerning LGBQ and transgender physical and mental health from national databases. Entries about contraception, HIV and women were also removed. Multiple federal judges have granted injunctions against Trump's executive orders, including allowing transgender medical operations to go through for young people and requiring that related medical research be restored to government databases.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Protecting women': Education Department, DOJ partnering in Title IX Special Investigations Team
Amid a 'staggering volume' of Title IX complaints, the federal Education and Justice departments have launched a new team to address and resolve the complaints to 'protect students, and especially female athletes from the pernicious effects of gender ideology in school programs and activities,' officials said Friday. The Title IX Special Investigations Team aims to streamline Title IX investigations by creating a specialized team of investigators from across the Education Department and Department of Justice offices, federal officials said. 'Protecting women and women's sports is a key priority for this Department of Justice,' Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. 'This collaborative effort with the Department of Education will enable our attorneys to take comprehensive action when women's sports or spaces are threatened and use the full power of the law to remedy any violation of women's civil rights.' The Special Investigations unit 'will allow personnel to apply a rapid resolution investigation process to the increasing volume of Title IX cases' and also enable both the Education and Justice departments 'to work together to conduct investigations that are fully prepared for ultimate Justice Department enforcement,' officials said. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the new investigations unit 'will benefit women and girls across this nation who have been subjected to discrimination and indignity in their educational activities.' 'From day one, the Trump Administration has prioritized enforcing Title IX to protect female students and athletes,' McMahon said. 'Traditionally, our Office for Civil Rights (OCR) takes months, even years, to complete Title IX investigations. OCR under this Administration has moved faster than it ever has, and the Title IX SIT will ensure even more rapid and consistent investigations.' 'To all the entities that continue to allow men to compete in women's sports and use women's intimate facilities: there's a new sheriff in town. We will not allow you to get away with denying women's civil rights any longer,' McMahon said. The Title IX Special Investigations Team includes: ED Office for Civil Rights investigators and attorneys DOJ Civil Rights Division attorneys ED Office of General Counsel attorneys ED Student Privacy and Protection Office case workers and an FSA Enforcement investigator The launch of the new Special Investigations team comes after President Donald Trump in February signed the executive order Keeping Men out of Women's Sports, which officials said articulates U.S. policy, consistent with Title IX, to protect female student athletes from having 'to compete with or against or having to appear unclothed before males.' In January, the president signed the executive order Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism which states that 'The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system.' Meanwhile, California lawmakers won't change state policies allowing transgender kids and teens to play on sports teams consistent with their gender identities amid heated nationwide debates over the participation of trans youth in athletics, the Associated Press reported. Several female student athletes held signs during a hearing on Tuesday in Sacramento, California to consider bills to pass rules banning transgender student-athletes. 'Save Girls' Sports' and 'Will you protect me?' the signs read. This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available. Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Civil rights groups sue Trump over anti-DEIA executive orders
A trio of civil rights organizations filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday charging that three of President Donald Trump's executive orders attacking diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in the federal government violate their free speech rights and hinder their ability to help marginalized communities. Through Trump's orders barring references to transgender people or support of DEIA programs within the federal government, public funding for several nongovernment organizations, including the three plaintiffs, are at risk of being cut. As a result, the civil rights organizations — the National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and AIDS Foundation Chicago — said in their lawsuit that they will be less able to help "people of color, women, LGBTQ people, and/or people with disabilities overcome systemic barriers to access housing, education, employment, and healthcare stemming from discrimination, biases, and inequalities.' Lambda Legal and the Legal Defense Fund, which are representing the civil rights organizations, said in a separate statement that the 'orders will severely limit the organizations' ability to provide critical social and health services.' Two of the orders specified in the lawsuit are the 'Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing' and the 'Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,' which Trump signed on Jan. 20, his first day back in office. The third executive order cited in the lawsuit, 'Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,' was issued Jan. 21. The lawsuit names as defendants Trump and more than a dozen key members of his administration including Attorney General Pam Bondi, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'Protecting the civil rights and expanding opportunities for all Americans is a key priority of the Trump Administration, which is why he took decisive actions to terminate unlawful DEI preferences in the federal government," Harrison Fields, a White House principal deputy press secretary, told NBC News in a statement Wednesday. "Every man and woman in this great country should have the opportunity to go as far as their hard work, individual initiative, and competence can take them. In America, grit, excellence, and perseverance are our strengths.' Previously, Trump's executive orders have labeled DEIA programs to help marginalized groups as 'discriminatory' and his supporters have tried to spin what critics have called attacks on the transgender community as attempts to protect cisgender women. 'While the President may have his viewpoint, as flawed and discriminatory as it may be, the First Amendment bars him from unduly imposing his viewpoint on federal contractors and grantees,' the lawsuit states. Also, Trump's executive orders 'could prohibit Plaintiffs from engaging in any targeted effort to help a specific group of people facing unfair disadvantages." Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, said in the press release announcing the lawsuit that targeting DEIA was 'discriminatory at best and an attempt at institutionalized economic oppression at its worst.' Janai Nelson, who heads the Legal Defense Fund, agreed. 'The three orders we are challenging today perpetuate false and longstanding stereotypes that Black people and other underrepresented groups lack skills, talent, and merit — willfully ignoring the discriminatory barriers that prevent a true meritocracy from flourishing,' Nelson said. The lawsuit also noted that the language in Trump's executive orders 'are 'extraordinarily vague.' In the press release announcing the lawsuit, Lambda Legal and the Legal Defense Fund included testimonials from a Black man with HIV named Will, who was identified as an AIDS Foundation Chicago (AFC) program 'participant and caseworker for another organization.' 'Now, as I work in the HIV field," he said, "I am deeply concerned about the threat these orders represent to AFC's ability to serve our communities if they can't even name the issues our people are facing.' This article was originally published on
NBC News
19-02-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Civil rights groups sue Trump over anti-DEIA executive orders
A trio of civil rights organizations filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday charging that three of President Donald Trump's executive orders attacking diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in the federal government violate their free speech rights and hinder their ability to help marginalized communities. Through Trump's orders barring references to transgender people or support of DEIA programs within the federal government, public funding for several nongovernment organizations, including the three plaintiffs, are at risk of being cut. As a result, the civil rights organizations — the National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and AIDS Foundation Chicago — said in their lawsuit that they will be less able to help "people of color, women, LGBTQ people, and/or people with disabilities overcome systemic barriers to access housing, education, employment, and healthcare stemming from discrimination, biases, and inequalities.' Lambda Legal and the Legal Defense Fund, which are representing the civil rights organizations, said in a separate statement that the 'orders will severely limit the organizations' ability to provide critical social and health services.' Two of the orders specified in the lawsuit are the 'Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing' and the 'Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,' which Trump signed on Jan. 20, his first day back in office. The third executive order cited in the lawsuit, 'Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,' was issued Jan. 21. The lawsuit names as defendants Trump and more than a dozen key members of his administration including Attorney General Pam Bondi, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, and Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'Protecting the civil rights and expanding opportunities for all Americans is a key priority of the Trump Administration, which is why he took decisive actions to terminate unlawful DEI preferences in the federal government," said Harrison Fields, a White House principal deputy press secretary, told NBC News in a statement on Wednesday. "Every man and woman in this great country should have the opportunity to go as far as their hard work, individual initiative, and competence can take them. In America, grit, excellence, and perseverance are our strengths.' Previously, Trump's executive orders have labeled DEIA programs to help marginalized groups as 'discriminatory' and his supporters have tried to spin what critics have called attacks on the transgender community as attempts to protect cisgender women. 'While the President may have his viewpoint, as flawed and discriminatory as it may be, the First Amendment bars him from unduly imposing his viewpoint on federal contractors and grantees,' the lawsuit states. Also, Trump's executive orders 'could prohibit Plaintiffs from engaging in any targeted effort to help a specific group of people facing unfair disadvantages." Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, said in the press release announcing the lawsuit that targeting DEIA was 'discriminatory at best and an attempt at institutionalized economic oppression at its worst.' Janai Nelson, who heads the Legal Defense Fund, agreed. 'The three orders we are challenging today perpetuate false and longstanding stereotypes that Black people and other underrepresented groups lack skills, talent, and merit — willfully ignoring the discriminatory barriers that prevent a true meritocracy from flourishing,' Nelson said. The lawsuit also noted that the language in Trump's executive orders 'are 'extraordinarily vague.' In the press release announcing the lawsuit, Lambda Legal and the Legal Defense Fund included testimonials from a Black man with HIV named Will, who was identified as an AIDS Foundation Chicago (AFC) program 'participant and caseworker for another organization.' 'Now, as I work in the HIV field," he said, "I am deeply concerned about the threat these orders represent to AFC's ability to serve our communities if they can't even name the issues our people are facing.'
