Maine Sheriffs’ Association Announced That It Opposes “Shield Law” Bill / by Zane McNeill

Officers with the Somerset County Sheriffs gather outside the courthouse at the Cumberland County Courthouse in Portland, Maine, on September 12, 2019 | SHAWN PATRICK OUELLETTE / PORTLAND PRESS HERALD VIA GETTY IMAGES

“They clearly demonstrate that law enforcement is NEVER on the side of LGBTQ+ people,” Allison Chapman said.

Reposted from Truthout


The Maine Sheriffs’ Association has come out in opposition to LD227, a shield law that would protect health care providers offering gender-affirming and abortion care to patients from states where such health care is prohibited.

LD227 would designate Maine as the 18th state, according to Maine’s Attorney General Aaron Frey, to implement a shield law. Additionally, according to transgender activist and journalist Erin Reed, the bill would “ban healthcare providers, practitioners, facilities, and similar institutions from disclosing protected healthcare information about their patients to out-of-state investigators.”

Mary-Anne LaMarre, executive director of the Maine Sheriffs’ Association, said in a letter to the Joint Standing Committee on Health Coverage, Insurance, and Financial Services on March 21 that law enforcement collectively opposes the bill.

“Maine Sheriffs have announced they are opposing LD227, which would shield abortion and trans healthcare from out of state prosecution and would protect Maine health records,” Reed said on social media. “Why is a police org supporting Texas demanding medical records of trans and abortion patients in Maine?”

LD227 recently passed out of committee, despite the legislature facing bomb threats after legislators were targeted by the anti-LGBTQ activist Chaya Raichik, who runs the far right account Libs of TikTok, and anti-transgender activist Riley Gaines, who recently was among a dozen college athletes who sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) over its trans-inclusive policies.

“Riley Gaines in recent months has successfully inspired threats of violence against state legislators in Maine which resulted in the dropping of a bill similar to LD227,” LGBTQ legislative researcher Allison Chapman told Truthout. “Riley and others attempt to use stochastic terrorism to force their opinions into law via sheer terror. In the United States, we do not negotiate with terrorists and that should apply to domestic stochastic terrorism as well.”

In the absence of protective shield laws, states may conduct criminal investigations into trans people seeking gender-affirming care outside of their state. For example, in November of 2023, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sought confidential information concerning transgender patients from Texas who had received gender-affirming care at clinics located in Georgia and Seattle. Paxton also recently made requests for records from PFLAG, a prominent LGBTQ advocacy organization in the United States, concerning their support for families of transgender minors seeking treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy.

“It’s rather disturbing that a Sheriffs’ Association wants to be able to prosecute and execute out of state requests against LGBTQ+ individuals, abortion providers, and more,” Chapman told Truthout. “While it’s disturbing, it is not surprising. They clearly demonstrate that law enforcement is NEVER on the side of LGBTQ+ people. Once again, all cops are bastards.”

Sixteen attorneys general representing Republican-led states, including Texas, Florida, and Kentucky, are also opposing the shield law, and threatened to sue Maine earlier this month should it enact LD227. Frey said that he was “thoroughly dismayed” by the attorneys general.

“We do have a right to disagree and I fully concur that one state cannot control another. Recognizing these shared values, I welcome your respect for Maine’s ability to decide what access to health care people in Maine receive, free from interference by out-of-state actors,” Frey said in response.


Zane McNeill is a trending news writer at Truthout. They have a Master’s Degree in Political Science from Central European University and is currently enrolled in law school at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. They can be found on Twitter: @zane_crittheory.

Bill protecting reproductive, gender-affirming health care providers in Maine advances to floor / by Emma Davis

Pro-choice activists demonstrate outside the Supreme Court on October 04, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Other states have enacted such laws in recent years to protect providers and patients from legal and professional repercussions from other states’ bans on certain types of healthcare

Reposted from Maine Morning Star


A proposed “shield law” in Maine designed to protect healthcare providers from other states’ bans on reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare advanced out of committee Thursday with a favorable but split vote along party lines. 

The Health Coverage, Insurance and Financial Services Committee voted 8-4, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed, to recommend that the Legislature pass the bill. 

“I wish we were not in this situation in the United States,” said bill sponsor Rep. Anne Perry (D-Calais). “I would be much happier if this was not something I felt we needed to do.”

Other states have enacted such laws in recent years to protect providers and patients from legal and professional repercussions from other states’ bans on certain types of healthcare, which has increasingly occurred in Republican-led states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. 

Abortion is now banned in 14 states, with a handful of others passing restrictions to the procedure earlier in pregnancy than the standard established under Roe. Gender-affirming care has also come under attack, with 22 states passing laws or policies banning this care despite it being supported by every major medical association. 

So far, 22 states and Washington, D.C. have passed shield laws protecting abortion and eleven of those states and D.C. also have protections specifically for gender-affirming care.

The legislation proposed in Maine, LD 227, would fall in line with the latter. It would protect from litigation health care practitioners or people assisting practitioners who provide gender-affirming health care and reproductive health care services, which are both legal in Maine.

“This is about Maine sovereignty,” Rep. Sally Cluchey (D-Bowdoinham) said of the bill. “We get to make the laws for the state of Maine and other states’ laws can’t trump us.” 

What the Maine bill would, and would not, do

The bill would shield providers from civil actions, foreign judgements and forced testimony, as well as prevent law enforcement from sharing information in out-of-state investigations regarding healthcare activities that are legally protected in Maine.

LD 227 doesn’t change what health care is available in Maine. “Those who do not like the laws we’re covering,” Perry said, “that is a whole other issue.” 

The version of the bill the committee advanced incorporates several amendments that directly respond to concerns raised to the committee. 

In written comments, the Maine Chiefs of Police Association said they had concerns about how the law would impede their work because law enforcement agencies often collaborate. 

“In some cases, requests for assistance are are urgent and time-sensitive, leaving no opportunity for Maine law enforcement to question our law enforcement partners about the genesis of their investigation,” Auburn Police Department Chief Jason Moen wrote on behalf of the association, adding that declining to provide such assistance could break down inter-agency relationships. 

The amended version of the bill clarifies that police cannot knowingly provide information or expend money in connection with an interstate investigation or proceeding that’s trying to impose liability on someone for a legally protected healthcare activity. 

The amendment also outlines some exceptions. Police cannot provide this information unless they are responding to a warrant or extradition demand on the “good faith belief that the warrant or demand is valid in this state” or when exigent circumstances make compliance impossible. Exigent circumstances are defined as circumstances where the agency “has insufficient time to comply with this section and a compelling need to act as the result of an imminent danger to public safety.” 

The bill also narrows the definition of the “hostile litigation” the bill prevents to legal actions specifically against healthcare providers and those who assist them, rather than any person, which Colleen McCarthy Reid, the committee analyst from the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, said is a means to emphasize the bill’s intended use following concerns from opponents about the bill allowing for child trafficking and kidnapping. 

The bill does not change existing laws about child custody or parental consent required for minors to access reproductive or gender-affirming health care — a clarification repeated by Reid throughout the work session for the bill on Thursday. 

The amended bill also added further clarity on this point. It now states that the bill may not be construed to conflict with or alter the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Further, it states that if a court finds that a foreign subpoena seeks information related to an out-of-state custody battle of a minor that involves legally protected health care activity in Maine, “the court shall direct the clerk to issue the subpoena.” 

Combating misinformation about the bill

The custody-related claims about LD 227 can be traced back to the main point of opposition to a different proposal, LD 1735, that the Judiciary Committee voted down in January. 

LD 1735 had focused solely on gender-affirming care but was deemed overly complicated and broad by proponents. It went beyond the protections advocates were seeking for healthcare providers and patients, including a provision that would have prohibited Maine from enforcing out-of-state orders to remove a child from a guardian’s care for allowing the child to receive gender-affirming care. 

Although never a part of the text for LD 227, opponents and legislators have continued to raise questions about custody, as well as gender-affirming care itself, though already protected by law in Maine. Planned Parenthood Maine Action fund and other advocates praised Thursday’s vote, but concern about misinformation remains as the bill now heads to the House. 

“It can be really hard to be in a room when people are talking about you as a person and they’re using language that is not supportive and downright hostile,” said Gia Drew, executive director of EqualityMaine. 

“You could hear it in the committee today,” Drew said. “They keep repeating the same things that aren’t connected to the bill and aren’t grounded in the experiences of trans people or the providers who provide this care.” 

Drew, now in her 50s, said that as a child she’d had to deal with gender dysphoria on her own and did not feel like she could talk about it with medical providers. 

“Now we know there are ways to mitigate a lot of different things that happen with folks who are trans or have gender dysphoria, and gender-affirming care is one of those things family and trans youth can talk about with their providers.” Drew explained, “What’s the right thing for you — that’s so important.”

The individualized aspect of this care is often not captured in legislative discussions, Drew said. This care also differs for minors and adults. For the most part, parental consent is needed for minors. A law in Maine passed last session allows for people who are at least 16 years old to receive non-surgical gender-affirming hormone therapy —  not gender reassignment surgery – without a parent’s consent, but only under a set of specific circumstances.  

While discussion about the bill’s contents dominated committee work, there was also a kerfuffle about the legislative process. 

Perry submitted the text for LD 227, previously a concept draft, a month after the Judiciary vote on the other bill and less than a week before its public hearing. While not unique to this bill, legislators criticized the late timing of the language. On Thursday, Perry said she is working with the Legislature’s Executive Director’s Office to introduce new rules about concept drafts for the future.

“This was never my intent to make this secret,” Perry said.

National attention

LD 227 garnered national attention earlier this month after 16 Republican state Attorneys General threatened to sue the state of Maine if the bill passed. 

In a March 11 letter addressed to Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey, Gov. Janet Mills, House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Portland) and Senate President Troy Jackson (D-Aroostook), the Republican AGs described the provisions in the bill as “unprecedented” and in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires that state courts respect the laws and judgments of courts from other states.

Frey called the legal concerns raised “meritless” and an attempt to intimidate proponents. “Unfortunately, shield laws have become necessary due to efforts in some objecting states to punish beyond their borders lawful behavior that occurs in Maine and other States,” Frey wrote in response.

Frey also dismissed the Republican AGs’ claim that LD 227 is unconstitutional “because Maine will honor out-of-state judgments as long as they were issued in accord with basic requirements for due process and the court had sufficient jurisdiction.” Frey added, “Harmony between our states would be best preserved and promoted by the exercise of restraint by all parties seeking to control health care related policy choices in other states.”

Earlier on March 8, days after the public hearing for LD 227, the State House was evacuated when an email sent to state officials claimed bombs had been placed at the State House, the headquarters for the Maine Democratic Party and the homes of bill sponsors Perry and Sen. Donna Bailey (D–York). The email referenced mutilation, which is a common mischaracterization of gender-affirming health care.

Maine Capitol Police determined the threats were a hoax. Days before the hoax, the rightwing account Libs of TikTok also posted about LD 227 to its nearly 3 million followers, including pictures and contact information for Perry and Bailey.

This incident was the third bomb scare at the State House this year, which has led police to take a more proactive approach to security.


Emma Davis is a reporter based in Portland, Maine, where she focuses on government accountability.

Gender-affirming care bill persists in face of right-wing misinformation campaign / by Dan Neumann

A transgender Pride flag in New Orleans during a march marking Transgender Day of Visibility. | Greg LaRose, Louisiana Illuminator

Reposted from the Maine Beacon


A Maine bill that would provide protection to out-of-state patients seeking reproductive health services and gender-affirming healthcare here is at the center of a right-wing misinformation panic that has drawn in local neo-Nazis and resulted in a bomb threat against lawmakers last week.

Medical professionals, LGBTQ advocates and reproductive rights activists say the far right is manufacturing fear by misleading the public on what the bill would actually do.

“There are materials circulating about this bill that state that it encourages trafficking,” said Quinn Gormley of the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault. “It is important to ensure that we are clear on what the exploitation of minors is and is not. LD 227 does not encourage or support the commercial sexual exploitation of minors or trafficking of minors.”

LD 227, sponsored by Rep. Anne Perry (D-Calais) and Sen. Donna Bailey (D-York), would ensure that Maine medical professionals who provide reproductive health services and gender-affirming care to out-of-state patients aren’t penalized by other states’ laws. 

The “shield” legislation was drafted in reaction to the 22 states that have passed gender-affirming care bans for young people and sought extreme measures to punish their residents for travel or assisting travel to places like Maine. Maine now allows access to gender-affirming care without parental consent or notification for 16- and 17-year-olds.

A half-dozen states — Massachusetts, Washington, Colorado, Vermont, New York and California — have passed similar laws seeking to preserve abortion access for out-of-state patients since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to abortion in June 2022.

“Safeguards are included in this bill, as providers shouldn’t worry about potential impacts to their professional licensing as a result of delivering this care, nor should they fear legal action from out of state agencies, and this legislation will help enforce that,” Perry said in a public hearing host by the legislature’s Health Coverage, Insurance and Financial Services committee on March 5. 

“Unfortunately, we have already seen this in the United States, with Texas recently seeking medical records of children from Texas who received gender-affirming care in Seattle,” she added.

On Tuesday, the attorneys general from 15 Republican-controlled states sent letters to Gov. Janet Mills, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey and legislative leaders saying the proposal violates their own rights.

This follows a bomb threat that was emailed to Perry and Bailey and the Maine Democratic Party last Friday, resulting in the evacuation of the State House. The email threat reportedly mentioned mutilation, a common misrepresentation of gender-affirming care. 

On March 4, one day before the public hearing for LD 227, the far right, anti-LGBTQ “Libs of TikTok” account, operated by former New York real estate agent Chaya Raichik, promoted the hearing in a post that included the email addresses of Perry and Bailey. Among the people who turned out the next day to testify against the bill were two members of the People’s Initiative of New England, an affiliate of NSC-131, a regional neo-Nazi group.

In January, the Libs of TikTok account similarly pushed its followers to oppose another bill to protect gender-affirming care in Maine. The social media campaign came as Maine Republicans held a press conference to build opposition to the bill.

Last week in a public hearing for the bill, Republican House Speaker Billy Bob Faulkingham of Winter Harbor echoed the unfounded claim put forward by conservative groups that the bill would open the door for what he described as state-sanctioned kidnapping by shielding traffickers from criminal prosecution. The Christian Civic League, the state’s leading opponent of LGBTQ and abortion rights, has made similar claims.  

Supporters of the bill insisted those claims were patently false and distract from actual cases of criminal sexual exploitation.

“Maine’s sexual assault support centers and children’s advocacy centers have seen over 100 cases of commercial sexual exploitation since 2020,” said Gormley, who works for an organization committed to ending sexual violence. “These are cases where children’s sexual images or sexual acts are offered in exchange for financial benefit for the person exploiting them. They are not cases of adults assisting minors in accessing healthcare such as abortion or gender-affirming care.”

Faulkingham and other Republican lawmakers also claimed they were defending the health and wellbeing of young people. 

But advocates pushed back on that as well, given that the suicide rate among transgender people is considerably high compared to the general population. They noted that is not inherently due to their gender identity but because they face higher risk due to mistreatment and stigmatization in society.

“Many of us see first hand how the criminalization of such procedures and the judgment and shame attached to such laws, impact the emotional and mental health of the people we care for,” said Laura Harper of the Maine Association of Physician Assistants. “This bill, while it will provide legal protections for us as medical providers, it also sends an important message to affected Mainers: We see you; you deserve access to this essential healthcare; we’ve got your back.”


Dan Neumann studied journalism at Colorado State University before beginning his career as a community newspaper reporter in Denver. He reported on the Global North’s interventions in Africa, including documentaries on climate change, international asylum policy and U.S. militarization on the continent before returning to his home state of Illinois to teach community journalism on Chicago’s West Side. He now lives in Portland. Dan can be reached at dan@mainebeacon.com.

Lockman readies lawsuit against trans students, reportedly backed by notable attorney / by Dan Neumann

A photo posted by Larry Lockman on Twitter in 2018 with Steve Bannon.

Reposted from the Maine Beacon


Larry Lockman, who has a long history of extreme anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion and anti-immigrant activism, says he is pursuing a lawsuit attacking transgender rights in Maine with the help of attorney Jack Baldacci, the son of former Gov. John Baldacci.

Lockman shared the news in an email to supporters after he hosted a community forum in Brewer on Feb. 16, which he organized to rally parents in opposition to a transgender student at Brewer High School using the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity.

He invited Jack Baldacci, an attorney with the Augusta-based law firm Steve Smith Trial Lawyers, to the forum to share his commentary on state and federal laws protecting transgender people’s access to public facilities. 

According to Lockman, Jack Baldacci told the crowd of nearly 70 people at the forum that equal access laws are not “settled law” and are “ripe” to be overturned by the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court.

“Based on his research, Jack believes it’s highly likely that SCOTUS would rule in favor of a plaintiff who argues that a student’s constitutional right to privacy includes the right to shield one’s body from exposure to viewing by the opposite sex,” Lockman said in an email.

He further said that Jack Baldacci’s law firm is seeking prospective donors to support litigation in federal court challenging restroom policies in Maine’s public schools. 

“As you know, policies compelling teenage girls to share toilet facilities with mentally ill teenage boys are the rule rather than the exception in Maine’s government-run K-12 schools,” Lockman said. “For my part, I’m focused on finding a student or parent who might be willing to be the lead plaintiff.”

Jack Baldacci did not respond to a request for comment.

Gia Drew, executive director of EqualityMaine, does not believe that the Supreme Court will go against their own rulings and federal law, like Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education.

“Any attempt to roll back Maine law in this area is futile. And unfortunately, the process and tactics some folks are employing in this endeavor are putting young people in harm’s way,” Drew said. “Time and time again, Mainers have repeatedly said, LGBTQ+ people are an important part of the fabric of Maine which helps make our state such a special place to live.” 

The forum was in response to a petition circulated by students at Brewer High School targeting a trans student, who Lockman in an email derogatorily referred to as “a dude in a dress,” for using the women’s restroom.

Republicans have made public restrooms a major front in their culture war against transgender rights. In the 2022 midterms, Republican public officials stoked fear of transgender students and promoted so-called “bathroom bills,” laws passed by some red states requiring transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex assigned at birth. 

Lockman even suggested the hysteria around restrooms is part of a manufactured culture war. He told supporters in an email that he is planning an activist training in Bath next month — an opportunity “to join like-minded Mainers for basic training in cultural and political warfare.”

Long before serving in the Maine State Legislature, Lockman made his political career attacking LGBTQ people. 

He helped lead a statewide referendum in 1995 attempting to ban the protection of LGBTQ people from discrimination, during which he dismissed anti-LGBTQ bias as “militant homosexual demands for special status.” The prior year, Lockman declared that the Christian Civic League, the state’s leading opponent of abortion and LGBTQ rights, weren’t forceful enough in confronting “the two cutting edge moral issues of our time — abortion and the normalization of homosexuality.”

Jack Baldacci’s wife, Leah Baldacci, who is also an attorney at the same Augusta-based law firm, has also used right-wing talking points in her work. In a 2020 meeting hosted by the Maine State Bar Association, she expressed concerns about anti-racism training in the legal field.  

“I would like to caution attorneys. Telling attorneys that are of the white race that they have ‘white privilege’ is antithetical to the goals of searching for a way to make race a non-issue in our community,” she said.


Dan Neumann studied journalism at Colorado State University before beginning his career as a community newspaper reporter in Denver. He reported on the Global North’s interventions in Africa, including documentaries on climate change, international asylum policy and U.S. militarization on the continent before returning to his home state of Illinois to teach community journalism on Chicago’s West Side. He now lives in Portland. Dan can be reached at dan@mainebeacon.com.

Trans People in Utah Could Face 6 Months in Jail for Bathroom Use Under New Bill / by Zane McNeill

The Utah State Capitol is pictured in Salt Lake City, Utah / Halbergman / E+ / Getty Images

“I’m scared for every transgender person,” said the only openly LGBTQ member of the Utah legislature.

Reposted from Truthout


Three days into Utah’s general session, the state’s House of Representatives passed the country’s first anti-trans bill of 2024. H.B. 257 would criminalize transgender people for using a bathroom that doesn’t correspond with their birth certificate, end the legal recognition of trans people by redefining “sex” to exclude trans people, and bar local governments from enacting laws to protect trans people from criminalization.

“This will profoundly impact travel for trans people,” transgender journalist Erin Reed said on social media. “Salt Lake City is a major connecting flight hub. Trans people could be arrested in the airport under this law.”

In addition to affecting transgender people in airports, the bathroom ban would also be applied to public schools, colleges and universities, and convention centers. Transgender adults would only legally be allowed to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity if they have an updated birth certificate and can provide proof that they underwent gender reassignment surgery. Those in violation of this bill could be guilty of criminal trespassing and voyeurism, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

According to the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), nine states currently prohibit transgender individuals from using restrooms and facilities that align with their gender identity in government-owned buildings and/or educational institutions, including K-12 schools and colleges. If H.B. 257 is enacted, Utah would have one of the most extreme anti-transgender bathroom bans in the country and join Florida in being one of the least safe states for trans people in the U.S..

“Should this bill pass, Utah would join Florida in becoming a ‘Do Not Travel’ state for transgender people on the risk assessment map, a position held only by Florida after several organizations issued travel advisories warning of bathroom laws that could put them in legal jeopardy,” Reed wrote.

Although H.B. 257 contains an exception for transgender people with revised birth certificates who have also undergone gender reassignment surgery, the bill includes a provision that could render this exception ineffective. This provision modifies the legal definition of “sex” with the aim of excluding transgender people from legal recognition and protection.

In 2023, Kansas implemented a similar law, prompting Attorney General Kris Kobach to issue a directive mandating the reversal and cease of any alterations made to the birth certificates of trans people. Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly’s (D) administration continued to allow license changes in conflict with Kobach’s directive, triggering a lawsuit by Kobach in July which is still working its way through the courts.

Moreover, according to MAP, birth certificate changes are currently prohibited in five states. These anti-trans restrictions make it impossible for transgender people from Montana, North Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee to meet the exceptions outlined in H.B. 257, exposing them to the risk of criminalization when they are in Utah.

“I’m scared for every transgender person who has to choose between holding their bladder or potentially being seen as a criminal,” Rep. Sahara Hayes (D), the only openly LGBTQ member of the Utah legislature, said on Friday. “And I’m scared for my family. We have had multiple discussions about what our lives would look like if this should pass.”

LGBTQ advocates have highlighted that the bill would also pose a risk to cisgender people, as there are multiple examples of cisgender people being mistaken for trans while in the bathroom. With this in mind, H.B. 257 provides two defenses for cisgender people if they are criminalized under this ban.

Finally, H.B. 257 would authorize the attorney general to intervene against any local government failing to enforce the ban. Under this provision, the attorney general could fine local governments up to $10,000 if they attempt to protect transgender people in their jurisdiction from the law.


Zane McNeill is a trending news writer at Truthout. They have a Master’s Degree in Political Science from Central European University and is currently enrolled in law school at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. They can be found on Twitter: @zane_crittheory.

Gender-affirming care providers lose proposed protections as Maine lawmakers vote down bill / by Dan Neumann

Morgin Dupont, 25, a trans woman, holds up the flag for Transgender and Gender Noncomforming people at a rally for LGBTQI+ rights at Washington Square Park | Yana Paskova, Getty Images

Reposted from the Maine Beacon


The Maine Legislature’s Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted down a bill that would have compelled Maine not to cooperate with law enforcement from states that have banned gender-affirming care who are investigating people who have sought such treatment here. 

LD 1735, a bill sponsored by Democratic Rep. Laurie Osher of Orono, was a top priority for transgender rights advocates this session and it was backed by several groups, including the Maine Nurse Practitioner Association, the Maine Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.  

Republican lawmakers fiercely opposed the bill. They held a press conference on Thursday before the committee vote. According to the Advocate, the debate over the bill was seemingly influenced by a social media campaign led by Chaya Raichik, the Libs of TikTok account operator. On Jan. 16, Raichik galvanized her 2.8 million followers to take action against the proposed legislation.

Speaking last May when she introduced the legislation, Osher said that “at its heart, LD 1735 is about protecting the wellbeing and medical privacy of young people and their families.” Osher, the leader of the Legislature’s LGBTQ Equality Caucus, also said at last May’s public hearing that right now, “While other states are actively criminalizing safe, medically necessary healthcare, the stakes are higher than ever.”

For LGBTQ rights groups, Osher’s bill would have expanded on progress made last year in the Maine Legislature to secure rights for trans youth. Lawmakers passed a law allowing access to gender-affirming care without parental consent or notification for 16- and 17-year-olds. This is similar to Maine laws regarding abortion access or contraception for minors.

With Osher’s bill, Maine would have joined 12 other states that have enacted legal protections for gender-affirming care providers. 

“We’ve received an alarming number of requests from families from states like Florida, Georgla, Idaho, and Kentucky looking for somewhere safe to bring their children. These families are terrified about being split up,” Quinn Gormley, executive director of MaineTransNet, said in a public hearing last year.

Gormley added, “This bill is an opportunity for Maine to lead again. It’s our chance to send a clear message that hate isn’t welcome here.”

The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Anne Carney and Rep. Matt Moonen, both Democrats, unanimously voted across party lines to reject the legislation. Democrats, who had initially backed the bill, stated on Thursday that it included unnecessary language for the purpose of safeguarding transgender healthcare in Maine, leading to their decision to oppose it.


Dan Neumann studied journalism at Colorado State University before beginning his career as a community newspaper reporter in Denver. He reported on the Global North’s interventions in Africa, including documentaries on climate change, international asylum policy and U.S. militarization on the continent before returning to his home state of Illinois to teach community journalism on Chicago’s West Side. He now lives in Portland. Dan can be reached at dan@mainebeacon.com.

Anti-gay crackdown looms after Russian Supreme Court bans ‘LGBT movement’ / by C.J. Atkins

Activists hold a banner reading ‘Homophobia – the religion of bullies’ during a protest on Red Square in Moscow, on July 14, 2013. The Russian Supreme Court has just ruled ‘the LGBT movement’ to be extremist and banned it. | Evgeny Feldman / AP

Reposted from the People’s World


Russia effectively outlawed queer people on Thursday when the country’s Supreme Court declared any act of LGBTQ activism or advocacy to be “extremist” and illegal. Filing a sham case that named no actual defendant, President Vladimir Putin’s Ministry of Justice got the judiciary to ban what it called the “international LGBT movement” in Russia.

In a statement earlier in November, the ministry claimed that state security authorities had identified “signs and manifestations of an extremist nature” of an LGBTQ “movement” operating in Russia, including “incitement of social and religious discord.”

It offered no details or evidence of such incitement and failed to name a single organization, coalition, or individual as perpetrators.

As expected, the Supreme Court—which is an instrument of the all-powerful executive branch—performed its rubber-stamping duty, declaring the “movement” to be extremist and banning it.

The case is part of a targeted effort to rally support among religious voters for Putin and his party ahead of elections due next year. It is also a component of a broader strategy to freeze any expressions of organized domestic dissent.

“The authorities’ move apparently serves a dual purpose,” said Tanya Lokshina, associate director for Europe and Central Asia at Human Rights Watch. “It is meant to increase the scapegoating of LGBTQ people to appeal to the Kremlin’s conservative supporters before the March 2024 presidential vote and to paralyze the work of rights groups countering discrimination and supporting LGBTQ people.”

The court held its hearing behind closed doors, with only Justice Ministry lawyers present. There were no witnesses or testimony from the LGBTQ community. Since it concerns their rights, a number of LGBTQ activists filed to become a party to the government’s lawsuit, but their application was rejected by the court.

Human rights activists made the point that the “international civic LGBT movement” does not exist as a single entity and that the use of such a broad and vague definition gives Russian authorities the legal power to crack down on any individual or group they deem to be part of the “movement.”

“Despite the fact that the Justice Ministry demands to label a non-existent organization—‘the international civic LGBT movement’—extremist, in practice it could happen that the Russian authorities, with this court ruling at hand, will enforce it against LGBTQ initiatives that work in Russia, considering them a part of this civic movement,” human rights lawyer Max Olenichev, said ahead of the hearing.

Broad and vaguely written “extremism” legislation has been regularly used by Russian authorities to prosecute critics. Two years ago, the City Court in Moscow outlawed three political groups connected to opposition leader Alexei Navalny, labeling them “extremist.”

Russian law punishes participation in or financing of organizations deemed “extremist” with up to 12 years in prison, depending on which law the accused is judged to have violated. Nationwide “lists of extremists” are reportedly maintained, and any individual who is judged to be involved in such activities are blocked from running for political office.

Many fear the Supreme Court’s ruling is the prelude to a harsher crackdown on LGBTQ people across the country. For years, Putin has made “traditional family values” a central component of his rule in order to court the nationalist far right and the Russian Orthodox Church.

The country’s parliament has been an accomplice in the effort, with lawmakers passing a 2013 measure to protect children from “gay propaganda.” An expansion of the law last year outlawed any positive portrayal of homosexuals or transgender persons and prohibited any suggestion that same-sex relationships are equal to heterosexual ones in the media or by organizations. In July this year, gender transition procedures were made illegal, adoption by persons who have transitioned were banned, and marriages in which one partner is transgender were annulled.

Russian LGBTQ rights protesters are tackled by police in Moscow, May 16, 2009. | Roustem Adagamov / AP

In most instances, these bills have garnered unanimous support from parliamentarians, including those from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

“There are still some LGBT rights activists here in Russia. But they might well be the last ones,” Alexei Sergeyev, a St. Petersburg-based civil rights activist told a Moscow newspaper Thursday.

The consequences for LGBTQ activism are obvious, but Sergeyev is afraid the ruling gives police a blank check for targeting anyone who has associated with LGBTQ organizations in the past or even simply displayed LGBTQ symbols or been known publicly as a queer person.

“Considering this ‘international LGBT movement’ does not exist, the authorities might start arresting anyone related to LGBT in any way,” Sergeyev said. “Say, if you went to a gay pride event or posted a rainbow flag some years ago, you will be a potential target.”

The government has taken an even sharper turn toward conservative social positions since the invasion of Ukraine last year. The moves are widely seen as an attempt to shift public attention toward “culture war issues” and away from any criticism of the leadership’s military actions.

Like many authoritarian governments worldwide, the Russian state continues to equate LGBTQ rights and activism with “Western” cultural imperialism to rally nationalist, religious, and right-wing support.


We hope you appreciated this article. At People’s World, we believe news and information should be free and accessible to all, but we need your help. Our journalism is free of corporate influence and paywalls because we are totally reader-supported. Only you, our readers and supporters, make this possible. If you enjoy reading People’s World and the stories we bring you, please support our work by donating or becoming a monthly sustainer today. Thank you!


C.J. Atkins is the managing editor at People’s World. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from York University in Toronto and has a research and teaching background in political economy and the politics and ideas of the American left. In addition to his work at People’s World, C.J. currently serves as the Deputy Executive Director of ProudPolitics.

Anti-Trans Bills Are Sweeping the US Despite, Not Because of, Public Opinion / An Interview with Erin Reed

Opponents of several bills targeting transgender youth attend a rally at the Alabama State House to draw attention to anti-transgender legislation introduced in Alabama on March 30, 2021 in Montgomery. (Julie Bennett / Getty Images)

Posted in Jacobin on August 23, 2023


The coordinated attack on trans rights in state legislatures across the US is built on a foundation of hateful paranoia and right-wing lies. But however unpopular anti-trans bills are, the human costs are real: thousands are migrating from anti-trans states.

Over the last year, some 540 anti-trans bills have been introduced in states across the country — a stunning roster of hate.

Doug Henwood recently interviewed Erin Reed, a trans activist and journalist who runs the Substack Erin In The Morning, on Jacobin Radio show Behind the News. They spoke about the coordinated barrage of legislation, the migration it’s spurring, the parade of lies spread by the Right about trans people, and reasons for optimism on trans rights. You can listen to their conversation here.


DOUG HENWOOD

You have a map of anti-trans legislation comparing December 2022 versus June 2023. It looks like there’s a hardening of the differences between states — things are getting even more cleaved.

ERIN REED

That is a very good point to make, because so much of the analysis of this anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ legislative push has focused on the badness of the laws. And that’s important — these laws are horrific in many states.

Map of state-by-state anti-trans legislation risk. (Erin In The Morning)

But it’s also important to recognize that it’s not a uniform movement. At least fourteen states have passed laws that protect people on the basis of gender identity, that offer sanctuary from states that criminalize their care.

So, it is a hardening. We see half of the country moving in the positive direction, and half of the country banning care and banning people from bathrooms.

DOUG HENWOOD

I did some calculations based on your classifications. The worst anti-trans states have a poverty rate almost two points higher than the rest, and a life expectancy almost two years shorter. There’s a high overlap with the ex-Confederate states, it seems, and states that are both anti-trans and ex-Confederate have even worse numbers along those lines. The ones you list as the safest have a considerably lower poverty rate and a longer life expectancy. So there’s an interesting contrast in the social indicators of these two sets of states.

ERIN REED

It is. I would also add that this is both a positive and a negative. These states do protect the rights of people. They have public health programs, they tend to have higher-end school systems, etc.

But a lot of the protective states are not super affordable to live in. And so you have this situation where many of the states that are criminalizing care have people who cannot move from those states because they don’t have the resources to get up and leave.

I have also spoken to people that have left places like Tennessee and Alabama who are now living out of vans in Massachusetts, for instance. Passing laws that protect transgender people who are fleeing persecution in the criminalizing states is a necessary and important first step. But we also need to ensure that we are ready to take care of the people who are leaving their home state.

DOUG HENWOOD

Do we have any sense of how much of that migration is going on? I’ve seen reports of people leaving Florida, but how representative is that?

ERIN REED

I’ve done a lot of research on this topic myself. The Associated Press just released a story about how there are massive wait lists in many of the states that protect care and that safeguard people whenever they’re traveling over state borders. We are already seeing hospital wait lists balloon for gender-affirming care in protective states.

There was a recent study by Data for Progress that shows that 8 percent of all transgender people have already moved from their home state, with an additional 40 percent of transgender people considering it. Eight percent may not seem like a large number, but in raw numbers, there are about 1.5 million to 3 million trans people in the United States according to various estimates, and so that amounts to 130 to 260,000 transgender people who have already fled from their home states.

DOUG HENWOOD

When did this anti-trans ball get rolling? What is the history of the politics of this?

ERIN REED

Before I talk about the specifics of this particular moment, I want to stress that the United States has a history of persecuting the LGBTQ community every couple decades — from the drag bans of the 1950s and ’60s, which gave us Stonewall; to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s; to the ex-gay movement and the constitutional marriage amendments in the 2000s. And now twenty years later, they’re calling LGBTQ people groomers and banning transgender care.

We saw in 2015 the gay marriage ban go down with the Obergefell decision, and they needed a new target within the LGTQ community. Transgender people were ripe for the picking, and so they ended up passing a law in North Carolina 2016: the bathroom ban. This is what I look to as the seed of where we are today.

So the bathroom ban got passed in North Carolina. It barred transgender people from bathrooms, and it resulted in an enormous backlash. The NBA All-Star game pulled out, PayPal pulled out, Deutsche Bank pulled out — it set back the anti-trans movement by four years because no state wanted to pass these laws. But they licked their wounds and moved on, and in 2020 we got the new wave: the sports bans, the gender-affirming care bans, the birth certificate bans.

There are really good articles about this in the New York Times and CNN where they interview people like Terry Schilling at the American Principles Project, one of the organizations behind these anti-trans laws. They speak very frankly about how they had to focus on sports because that was an issue where they could get their foot in the door, and how they focused on making these laws hit several states at the same time, so they could avoid the fate of the North Carolina bathroom ban, which had the enormous backlash.

DOUG HENWOOD

It does seem like a lot of this stuff is coordinated.

ERIN REED

Absolutely. The Alliance Defending Freedom, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Principles Project are just three of the many names that have come up in these conversations. There’s a heavy religious motivation behind these laws done by groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, which wants to usher in a new age of Christian law in America.

You can also tell that these laws are coordinated, because you see several laws drop in several states at the same time, and they have identical language. You can see how after certain court challenges happen, they add a new provision to the law designed to make it harder to challenge in court.

DOUG HENWOOD

How would you characterize the state of public opinion now? It seems that the broad public isn’t necessarily on board with the full agenda of the trans haters — many people seem to have a live and let live attitude (which is not to minimize the threat of the haters). But what would you say about the general drift of public opinion at this point?

ERIN REED

There are various ways to frame the question: Are you in favor of gender-affirming care for transgender youth? Are you in favor of criminalizing gender-affirming care? Do you support trans people in sports? Do you support laws protecting trans people from discrimination? And I’ll be frank, the polls are all over the place, depending on the wording.

What is constant is that whenever you ask people what the most important issues are, or do you think your legislators should spend time legislating on this stuff, transgender issues always end up at the bottom. On top of that, people do generally support nondiscrimination protections for transgender people, and they tend to oppose criminalizing gender-affirming care for transgender youth and adults.

But the biggest thing I want to highlight is that there’s a lot of uncertainty in the polling because people don’t know much about transgender care. A lot of people haven’t had to live the life of a parent with a trans kid or as a transgender person themselves. So I think most people understand their own limitations of understanding on this. And they understand that it’s important to let these decisions be undertaken by the doctors, the patients, and, in the cases of kids, the family.

DOUG HENWOOD

There’s a line of argument that we just don’t know enough about the effects of trans care on youth, and we need to be careful. What do you say to that?

ERIN REED

We have decades of medical evidence around care. The very first trans kid we have evidence of was back in the 1890s (and of course, trans people go back much further). In the current era, we see, for instance, research showing that puberty blockers lower the suicide rate for transgender youth by up to 73 percent. These are real lives saved. It lowers the depression and anxiety rate by 60 to 70 percent. These are enormously helpful for the transgender youth who need them.

I want to make clear that I don’t disagree with being careful around care. Being careful is extremely important. I think that allowing this care to be individualized and personalized for every patient, rather than having a blunt hammer approach, where care is outright banned, is in the best interest of the kid and their medical care.

DOUG HENWOOD

The Right is keeping [“de-transitioner” activist] Chloe Cole very busy, but how common is de-transitioning? How much regret do grown-ups have over these procedures?

ERIN REED

There’s a lot of research on this as well. There was a recently study that showed for gender-affirming top surgery — chest masculinization surgery — the regret rate was almost nothing. I know that gender-affirming care has seen regret rates of 1 to 3 percent, and there have been studies on de-transitioning that show that detransition rates tend to be between 1 to 5 percent.

Detransitioner and anti-trans activist Chloe Cole speaks in favor of Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Protect Children’s Innocence Act, September 20, 2022. (Staff of US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene / Wikimedia Commons)

Here’s the important point: Whenever you see a de-transitioner like Chloe Cole testify against gender-affirming care, it’s very similar to the ex-gays of the early 2000s, where they would say that being gay was a choice and that they made the wrong choice and you should ban gay marriage because of that. The reality is, of that 1 to 3 percent of people that detransition, only 5 percent of those people do so because they no longer identify as trans. Most of those people who detransition do so because their families don’t support them anymore, because they’re getting fired from their jobs, because they can’t afford their hormones, because they can’t afford their surgery, because they cannot obtain the care.

I know many people who have de-transitioned, and they would never advocate against care. They want the care for themselves, but they can’t get it because society’s too harsh on them right now. You’re going to see a lot of people detransition in Florida in the coming months, and that’s not going to be because they no longer identify as trans. It’s because Florida bans medical treatment for adults in most circumstances right now.

DOUG HENWOOD

Florida really is the most extreme of the states at this point.

ERIN REED

Yeah, at this point Florida is absolutely the most extreme. It’s dangerous for LGBTQ people, especially trans people. About ninety-four thousand transgender people live in Florida, and about 80 percent of those people cannot obtain their hormones, and they have not been able to obtain their hormones for the last three months. That’s because of a law that essentially bars nurse practitioners from providing care. On top of that, it requires these informed consent, medical misinformation forms that are still being developed.

They’re also targeting trans people in bathrooms in Florida. For instance, if I went to Florida right now, and I were to use the bathroom that I’ve been using for the last five years that I feel the most comfortable in, I could be arrested and put in jail for a year.

DOUG HENWOOD

Yeah, that’s just absolutely appalling. Now, there’s a Swedish study the anti-trans lobby likes to cite — what’s the story on that?

ERIN REED

You’ll often hear in congressional testimony that the only study on trans people that is high-quality is a Swedish study that says transitioning increases suicide rates. The truth of the matter is that the study, which came out in 2011, looked at trans people and what happened after transitioning from 1973 to 2003. So this was a historical retrospective. It found that trans people post-transition had a nineteen-times higher suicide rate than the general population.

However, and the author stresses this, and it’s very important to note, it was not comparing transgender people who can get care to ones who can’t get care. It’s comparing them to cisgender people, who don’t have all the violence, all the health care discrepancies that trans people have in that time period. The reality is that in that time, from 1973 to 2003, the vast majority of these trans people were suffering. They were getting HIV and AIDS in the 1980s, they were homeless, and prior to 2003, it was almost impossible to medically transition. You had to spend about $12 to $20,000 just in therapy visits before they would give you your first hormones.

And so in most of these cases, these people could not transition, and therefore the rates were rather high for this population. Modern studies, of which we have about fifty at this point, show that gender-affirming care reduces suicidality by about 73 percent.

DOUG HENWOOD

I can understand in some sense the anti-trans people who are coming at it from a religious point of view. They think you’re crossing God’s law. But what about TERFS [Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists]? It’s not a giant constituency, but how do you understand what drives them to this point of hatred?

ERIN REED

It’s primarily an export out of the UK. It does not have a lot of roots in American history. In the United States, a lot of the opposition to feminism has been from a religious perspective, and so I think that in the United States the anti-abortion movement is so closely tied with the anti-trans movement — indeed, the very same people are pushing both — that I feminists in the United States clearly see those tie-ins. They see that the threat posed to one group poses a threat to the other group.

In the United Kingdom, that religious antiabortion movement did not develop in the way it did in the United States, though those tie-ins are starting to develop. We’re seeing in the UK more pushes to ban abortion, and we’re seeing those pushes come from anti-trans forces. And I think people are realizing that the trans-exclusionary movement in the UK is not congruent with the goals of feminism at large.

DOUG HENWOOD

Attitudes toward gay people softened as more straight people got to know more gay people — their cousins, their kids. Do you foresee something similar happening with attitudes toward trans people?

ERIN REED

Absolutely. In many cases these laws being pushed are contrary to public opinion, especially among Gen Z and among millennials. These two cohorts poll extremely high on LGBTQ acceptance and transgender acceptance.

The majority of Gen Z and millennials know somebody personally — they’re either friends or family with somebody who is transgender. That’s not the case for some of the older cohorts, and I think that will change over time as more of us come out.

I think that this radical push, using laws to target us, is a reaction to that change. They are a reaction to the fact that trans people are coming out in large numbers right now and that we are starting to see increased acceptance.


Erin Reed runs the Substack Erin In The Morning.

Doug Henwood edits Left Business Observer and is the host of Behind the News. His latest book is My Turn.

Opinion: Maine stopped anti-trans bills this session, and advanced the fight for equality / by Quinn Gormley

A transgender Pride flag in New Orleans for a march to mark Transgender Day of Visibility. | Greg LaRose, Louisiana Illuminator

Originally published in the Maine Beacon on July 21, 2023


If you’ve paid attention at all to LGBTQ+ politics over the last 12 months, you know that conservative politicians are obsessed with transgender people. In states across the country, and in Congress, hundreds of anti-trans and anti-queer bills have been proposed. These bills include initiatives to keep trans girls from playing on elementary soccer teams, to censoring books in our school and public libraries, to preventing research and education on issues of equity and inclusion, outing trans kids to their parents without their consent, and most often, making it harder, or even illegal, to affirm trans people’s identities and block our access to gender-affirming healthcare. 

Maine was not immune to these attacks. Republicans proposed dozens of anti-trans and anti-queer bills this session. But with the help of pro-equality majorities in the legislature, every last one of them was soundly defeated. 

Beating back bad bills is enough reason to celebrate, but it actually sells Maine short. Not only did we stop bad bills, we also passed a number of good ones, moving the fight for equality further down the road. Four of these pro-equality bills are first-in-the-nation pieces of legislation, meaning that once again Maine is leading the country on LGBTQ+ inclusion. 

Protecting and expanding gender affirming care

The vast majority of anti-trans bills around the country right now are focused on banning gender affirming care (GAC). Though efforts to ban GAC began with preventing minors from accessing it, increasingly state legislators are adding provisions to prevent adults from accessing it as well. GAC is evidence-based, has been in use for nearly a century, and is supported by every major medical association in the country. Our top priority this legislative session was about protecting and expanding access to this vital, life-saving health care for generations to come. 

LD 535 created a pathway to GAC for 16 and 17 year olds without parental consent 

Despite the overwhelming consensus that GAC is safe and effective, it remains stigmatized. Unfortunately, many minors are denied access to this care by their parents who do not affirm who they are, or who are fearful of this care. Making young people wait until they are 18 to access this care is not a neutral act. Going through the wrong puberty can be deeply traumatizing and can lead to lifelong mental health struggles and suicide. Simply put, young people’s access to care shouldn’t depend on whether or not they were lucky enough to be born into a supportive family. 

LD 535 makes it possible for some 16 and 17 year olds who meet specific criteria — including demonstrating sufficient capacity to consent to care, understanding potential side effects of GAC, and showing that they are or will experience harm if care is delayed — to be prescribed hormone therapies without parental consent. 

LD 1040 protects gender affirming care coverage under MaineCare

In June of 2019, Gov. Janet Mill’s administration removed exclusions for GAC under MaineCare. At least 30% of trans Mainers rely on MaineCare for their healthcare, according to the 2021 Maine Transgender Community Survey, so this move represented the single largest expansion of GAC in Maine history. Because this change was done administratively, it remained vulnerable to changes under a future administration. LD 1040 put this coverage into statutory law, which means it will take an act of the legislature to remove this coverage in the future. This would likely require Republicans to gain complete control of state government, which has only happened once in the last 40 years. 

Data collection is the pathway to equity

It’s not the most exciting topic, but data collection really matters for LGBTQ+ people, especially trans people. Inclusive data collection and proper documentation on vital record documents are essential to charting a pathway to equity, and to keeping trans people safe. 

LD 956 ensures LGBTQ+ patients are asked the right questions 

Did you know that among gay and queer men, 70% of gonorrhea infections go undiagnosed or are diagnosed at later stages of the disease when compared to straight men? This is because testing for gonorrhea requires swabbing in the right part of the body. Most providers, when testing men, only swab one area, and most gonorrhea infections in the bodies of men who have sex with men are in other areas. Did you know that trans women may need both prostate and breast cancer screening? Many providers don’t even know to ask. Asking simple questions about sexual orientation, the gender of sexual partners, and taking appropriate inventory of what body parts someone has are essential to ensuring providers are providing the right care for patients. 

LD 956 makes Maine the first state in the U.S. to require health care facilities to collect data about sexual orientation and gender identity. The exact questions they ask will mirror national standards for this type of screening and will evolve over time as these standards get better. Though health care facilities are required to ask these questions whenever they ask for other demographic information (such as race, religion, occupation or age), patients are not required to answer them. 

Maine health care facilities have three years to update their health record systems and practices to incorporate this new requirement. 

LD 1503 ensures our vital records record who we are for future generations 

LD 1503 completes a multi-year effort to update how trans people are documented on vital records. In 2020, Maine passed a law including gender marker X on birth certificates. LD 1503 adds this option to marriage certificates, and allows marriage certificates to be updated and reissued if one or both spouses transition. It also makes it possible for trans people to designate how they would like their sex recorded on their death certificate in their health records or advanced directive. 

This might not seem like a huge victory, but it does two important things. Death certificates are how the state measures causes of death and informs our public health work. This change means Maine will be the first state to actually have quality data about mortality rates among transgender people. And though many people simply store their marriage certificates, they are a useful document for many LGBTQ+ couples to prove their legal relationships, which can be vital in moments of health crisis. 

Ensuring state government respects and protects us

Maine has a long record of leading the country in LGBTQ+ protections, but our state government still has some areas of improvement. 

LD 942 moves us closer to full legal recognition of nonbinary Mainers 

Maine added gender marker X to state IDs in 2018, and to birth certificates in 2020. This was a huge victory for nonbinary inclusion. Gender affirming IDs have been shown to substantially reduce experiences of discrimination and violence for trans people. Unfortunately, our state government has yet to fully adapt to this change. The vast majority of state forms and databases (everything from tax documents, to MaineCare forms, to some hunting licenses) do not include options for gender marker X. LD 942 requires the administration to take inventory of all state forms, to add gender marker X wherever possible, remove gender fields where they are not needed, and to report back to the legislature in January on forms and databases that will require more time or funds to update. 

This might sound simple, but updating state databases is made exponentially more challenging by our states out of date IT systems. Adding gender marker X to state IDs was delayed by the BMV needing to replace their entire database system. Our state HR systems were built in the late 90s in coding languages rarely used anymore. We hope this inventory will encourage the state to fully adapt to the 21st century, but we anticipate funding challenges in the short session next January to finish the job. Stay tuned for how you can support our efforts. 

LD 489 will keep LGBTQ+ kids safer in schools and take controversy away from school boards 

Controversy over trans inclusion has unfortunately been concentrated on kids and schools. Anti-trans activists have targeted more than a dozen school districts across the state and their school boards don’t have the tools they need to protect LGBTQ+ students. Although sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under the Maine Human Rights Act, which applies to public schools, the rules for how the MHRA is to be implemented in schools have not been updated in 20 years. In those 20 years, gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality and ethnicity were added as protected classes, but this isn’t reflected in the rules leaving school boards and administrators responsible for guessing at how to best protect all their students. 

LD 489 requires the Maine Department of Education to finally update these rules, so schools across the state will have clear guidelines about how to protect the civil rights of all students, including LGBTQ+ students. We hope these clearer state guidelines will also reduce the focus on school boards, because civil rights issues should never be left up to local control.


Quinn Gormley is executive director of MaineTransNet.

Starbucks is latest corporation ditching Pride to protect profits, showing rainbow capitalism’s limits / by Mark Gruenberg

Hiding from Pride: Starbucks managers in at least one region of the country were instructed not to decorate their stores for Pride. Here, a giant rainbow flag flies over the company’s corporate headquarters in 2014. | AP

Originally published in the People’s World on June 22, 2023


WASHINGTON—Somebody tell Starbucks’s bosses that June is Pride Month. They’ve gone in the other direction.

An internal memo, leaked to Starbucks Workers United—the Service Employees-backed group that’s aiding the grassroots union organizing drive at the coffee giant—orders local store managers to take down and remove all pro-LGBTQ material from their stores.

This is, of course, from a corporation that attempts to cultivate an image of inclusiveness. Yet its vicious campaign to prevent unionization of its stores, filled with so much labor-law breaking that it’s resulted in multiple federal court orders, belies that.

So does its anti-gay edict. Workers in the Twin Cities first reported the memo, the same day, June 14, that Starbucks honchos publicly denied the firm is anti-LGBTQ.

“The manager of my store received an e-mail from the district manager last night regarding decorations,” a Minnesota Starbucks worker posted. “The memo instructed my manager—and perhaps other managers—not to put up decorations for Pride or any other holiday” (writer’s emphasis).

“Rather than demonstrating inclusivity by erecting decorations for a multiplicity of holidays,” the writer said later, “including Pride, our store will disavow decorations entirely.”

In the last 30 years, LGBTQ people have increasingly become accepted in wider U.S. society, especially when it comes to matters of non-discrimination on the job, marriage equality, and in popular culture. A combination of chasing after the “pink dollar” and the advancement of LGBTQ people within corporate management structures have also resulted in many companies embracing Pride marketing every June.

But there’s been a corresponding right-wing backlash, some of it violent, and especially aimed at transgender people as of late.

Starbucks appears to be catering to the right-wingers, in the name of greater profits, the Twin Cities Starbucks worker, commenting on the internal memo, said.

“Given the timing of her directive, I assume our district manager has yielded to pressure from alt-right homophobes and transphobes.”

Starbucks Workers United had its own take on the company’s attitude, in a press release posted as a series of tweets.

“For the last two weeks, Starbucks workers have taken to social media to report the company is no longer allowing Pride decorations in-store. This seems to be the first year the publicly ‘pro-LGBTQ+’ company has taken this kind of stance,” it began.

“Taking a cue from Target, who bowed to anti-LGBTQ+ pressure and removed Pride merchandise, corporate and district management are taking down the Pride decorations that have become an annual tradition in stores.

“In union stores, where Starbucks claims they are unable to make ‘unilateral changes’ without bargaining, the company took down Pride decorations and flags anyway—ignoring their own anti-union talking point.”

But the firm’s discrimination against LGBTQ people apparently extends beyond the absent visuals in its stores—and it started long before Pride Month. SWU, quoting workers, reported “last October, some workers reported their transgender health benefit plan changed, causing them to pay out of pocket fees and lose access to certain providers.”

“If Starbucks was a true ally, they would stand up for us, especially during a time when LGBTQ+ people are under attack. A company that cares wouldn’t turn their back on the LGBTQ+ community to protect their already astronomically high profits,” the tweets said.

SWU concluded by declaring unionization and writing anti-discrimination policy into a contract is the way to end the company’s prejudice.

“True allyship with the LGBTQ+ community is negotiating a union contract that legally locks in our benefits, our freedom of expression, and ways to hold management accountable,” the SWU release concludes.

That may take a while. Starbucks has shown few signs of bargaining in good faith, despite National Labor Relations Board orders that it do so.

Except in scattered instances with a few local stores—the latest in Brooklyn—Starbucks, led by its former CEO Howard Schultz and the union-busters his regime hired, has refused. The grassroots organizing drive has won union recognition votes at more than 320 Starbucks stores, covering over 8,000 workers, around the U.S.

But when public pressure forced Starbucks bosses to sit down with workers’ reps, the union-busters called for their caucus after five minutes, before SWU had a chance to present and explain its contract proposals, which it posted publicly on its website.

Instead, the bosses walked out and never came back. They repeated that performance in the very next scheduled session, giving the excuse that workers from around the country should not be allowed to Zoom into the telecast.


Mark Gruenberg is head of the Washington, D.C., bureau of People’s World. He is also the editor of the union news service Press Associates Inc. (PAI). Known for his reporting skills, sharp wit, and voluminous knowledge of history, Mark is a compassionate interviewer but tough when going after big corporations and their billionaire owners.

Remembering Gary Dotterman: Anti-racist Oklahoman, Vietnam vet for peace, and irrepressible gay Communist / by C.J Atkins

Main image: Gary Dotterman addresses a rally in 1973. Inset: Dotterman recently. | Photos via Gary Dotterman

Originally published in the People’s World on June 22, 2023


Fighter against racism and Jim Crow segregation in 1960s Oklahoma. Vietnam vet turned peace activist. Advance man for Robert F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign who was standing next to the candidate the night he was assassinated. Gay rights pioneer who pushed the Communist Party USA to turn away from its homophobic past. Advocate of socialism on two different continents.

Those are just a few of the many lives of Gary Wayne Dotterman, who died on May 10, 2023, in Ipatinga, Brazil.

Gary Dotterman was born in Tulsa, Okla., on June 11, 1944, the first child of Joe Dotterman, a union barber who counted among his clients the notorious gangster Pretty Boy Floyd, and Pansy Dotterman, an accomplished seamstress. His sister, Mary Jo, was born four years later. The family lived in a wooden tenement building in a multiracial poor neighborhood on the edge of the business district in Tulsa, the oil capital of the world at the time.

The Tulsa of Gary’s youth was a city rigidly divided by race and wealth, barely 20 years on from the Greenwood Massacre. It was a place, as Dotterman frequently said, where 1,600 families made over $1 million a year while 16,000 other families lacked indoor plumbing. As he remembered it:

“You knew the class you were in from the neighborhood you were born into. If you were on the east side, you were middle class, and if you were south of downtown, you were rich. If you were too far out, you were a dirt farmer. If you were north of Archer, you were Black. And if you were west of Main Street, you were white trash. I was west of Main.”

Gary Dotterman handing out leaflets during the campaign to stop Oklahoma from becoming a right-to-work state, 1959.

The Dottermans firmly believed education was the only way their children might escape poverty, so they enrolled Gary and Mary Jo in some of Tulsa’s best schools. At the age of 12, Gary’s lifelong interest in political action was sparked. Volunteering on campaigns in exchange for free Coca-Colas, he learned the ins-and-outs of door-to-door campaigning. In 1959, he volunteered on the AFL-CIO’s campaign to keep Oklahoma from becoming an anti-union “right-to-work” state. The fight was a victorious one; Oklahoma wouldn’t go right-to-work until 2001.

A short time later, he was hired by a local white attorney, Charlie Pope, who was running for city council. Dotterman was sent to drop literature, hang posters, and do some front-porch politicking in a place where no one else who worked for the campaign would go—Tulsa’s Black community. For weeks, Gary lived with the family of Ed Goodwin, owner of the Oklahoma Eagle, the oldest Black newspaper in the state. Gary was the only white person living in the community; he called the experience “the best education for a poor white boy that I had ever had.”

By 16, Dotterman said he began to “fantasize about someday becoming governor.” The experience of growing up poor himself, seeing the conditions forced on Black Oklahomans, and working with the labor movement made him dive into Democratic Party politics and the growing Civil Rights Movement. “I was never happier than when I was handing things out, organizing, getting coffee, meeting everyone I could meet,” he recalled when looking back on those days.

His Civil Rights works landed Dotterman in jail; he was beaten by police when attending a demonstration and locked up “for trying to get Black folks registered to vote.” He joined the fight to integrate Tulsa restaurants and even made his way to D.C. for the 1963 “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom,” where he heard Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. speak.

Aspiring to one day be governor of Oklahoma, Dotterman was active in the Tulsa Democratic Party club as a teenager.

“The union work and the Civil Rights movement changed me from a person that was doing this for myself to someone who incorporated the ideals of solidarity, civil rights, and ending racism as part of my being,” he wrote in a letter to family members in 2019. “From then on, I became an activist working to make a better world for all.”

The following year, upon graduating high school, Dotterman joined the U.S. Navy and volunteered for service in Vietnam, seeing the military as a way to pay for college. When he signed up, Dotterman said he believed the U.S. government’s narrative that the battle in Southeast Asia was a “fight for democracy,” but he said he soon started to understand it was a “fight for control and profits.”

The absurdities of imperialism and capitalism began to torture his mind in Vietnam, “from killing other humans to how we just pushed our garbage into the ocean.” In a chapter he contributed to the book Alternative Oklahoma, Dotterman described the psychological horrors of being sent to murder people on the other side of the world:

“Our mission was to patrol the coast of Vietnam and conduct search-and-destroy missions on rural villages…. I was assigned to a 50-caliber machine gun. Since we were told anyone might be the enemy, I was ordered to destroy local fishing boats and kill their crews. Our missions were intended to count the bodies of villagers and of other beings that had walked the earth and boost the body count for Secretary McNamara’s war. My last shore mission in 1965 was called ‘Dagger Thrust.’ I counted bodies and shot anything that wasn’t already dead.”

Washington demanded high body counts to give the image of impending victory, so adults, children, cats, dogs, chickens, cows, and monkeys were all counted as Viet Cong, he said. His ship was also part of a mission to “show the flag” off the coast of Indonesia—a means of demonstrating that U.S. military power supported General Suharto as his army murdered 200 striking workers and Communists in Jakarta.

Unable to accept what he saw and what he was being ordered to do, Dotterman began writing critical letters to family and friends—and to newspapers back home. In a letter published in the Tulsa Democrat, he pleaded: “The Viet Cong have no ships or highly-trained military troops, but they do have something that is causing us to lose this war…. They use facts against us, drawing a picture of U.S. troops as destroyers…. We are on the wrong side.”

Gary Dotterman at his machine gun station aboard the USS Leonard F. Mason, off the coast of Vietnam in 1964.

If his critical missives about U.S. war policy hadn’t already marked Dotterman for discipline, his growing acceptance of his own sexuality certainly did the trick. While on shore leave in Tokyo, Gary “took full advantage of everything” the city had to offer and “made many friends in Japan”—the type of friendships that the U.S. Navy did not allow its sailors to enjoy. After superiors found about his Tokyo friendships, Dotterman was hauled away by heavily-armed Marines and locked in the brig.

For weeks, he was kept isolated “in a metal box,” and threatened with being shot. Dotterman was held in limbo for months, not knowing what his fate might be. Out of desperation, he wrote to President Lyndon Johnson requesting a court martial. Then, just as suddenly as he’d been arrested, Dotterman was thrown on a plane, shipped to San Francisco, and discharged from the Navy—no explanation given.

“I had volunteered to go to Vietnam, but I returned to the States feeling like a war criminal,” Dotterman said, “not because of my friendships in Tokyo, but because of my complicity with the heinous crimes we committed in Vietnam.”

Back on American soil, Gary threw himself into anti-war work, searching for a way to make amends for his actions in Asia. “A soldier was something for the military to use and then throw away…. I knew my brothers in ’Nam were killing and being killed for someone else’s profit, not for freedom.”

Dotterman, circled at left wearing black armband, marches in a Tulsa demonstration following the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., April 1968.

“The odor of burning human bodies…and the memories of women and children crying for help inside the homes that we had set fire to” were visions he had to force from his mind every night. Like many veterans experiencing what would later be known as PTSD, he sought refuge in the bottle, beginning an alcohol problem that would afflict him for years. His sexuality, too, gave Dotterman endless stress. Seeing the example of White House aide Walter Jenkins, who had to resign in disgrace after being arrested with another man in a YMCA restroom, showed him the high cost of being gay in politics.

He also reconnected with buddies in the Tulsa Democratic Party and was asked to organize an Oklahoma visit by President Johnson. After a small peace vigil at the LBJ rally ended with police beating demonstrators, Gary had seen enough. He and some other returned soldiers founded the Oklahoma chapter of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

In 1968, he ran unsuccessfully for state representative in Oklahoma. Even in the conservative Sooner State, though, the VVAW managed to bring out hundreds to campaign for peace. Dotterman said, “This battle was the best of the worst, and we as vets must not forget that when we began to speak, the heartland of America began to listen.”

Dotterman leading a protest to save The Other Side, a Boston gay bar, 1973.

In the 1970s, Dotterman moved to D.C. and continued his political and labor activism—organizing with Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Workers and the International Ladies Garment Workers Union; working on the presidential campaigns of Robert F. Kennedy, George McGovern, and Edward Kennedy; and finally becoming comfortable enough in his own body to join the movement for gay liberation. For two years, he worked in New York for Jews for Urban Justice and also had a stint with the National Welfare Rights Organization.

In 1981, he went to Massachusetts to work on a Senate campaign. “I opened a couple of gay bars in Boston,” he said, “and stayed.” From 1981 to 1983, he published the magazine Gay Guide to New England. Like many in the gay community during this time, Gary also, unfortunately, lost a lover—Johnny Cyrus—to the AIDS crisis.

In 1983, Dotterman became a staffer for a Boston city councillor, but four years later, right-wing members of City Council banded together to fire him after his involvement in a campaign to raise money for a group fighting against anti-gay discrimination. He sued the council for unjustified termination but continued to work at his job every day even though he wasn’t being paid.

“The only support I got was from the ACLU, two unions, a Black member of City Council, and the Massachusetts Communist Party,” he would later say. It was then that “the best thing ever happened to me,” according to Dotterman. He attended a fundraising event for the Daily World newspaper (now known as People’s World), where Boston CP activist Laura Ross walked up to him and asked him for a dollar. He said, “What for?” Ross responded, “Your party membership initiation fee…. You’ve walked with us too long not to be one of us.”

Dotterman said that for 30 years he had feared being a member of the Communist Party might affect his political career. But after being fired, he said he knew the right wing would come after progressives whether they were actually Reds or not, so he decided it was time to “show the flag.” He joined the CPUSA that night.

Eventually, Dotterman prevailed in his lawsuit and got his job back. Around this time, he also met Geraldo Ribeiro Dias, the man who would become his husband and the love of his life for the next 28 years.

Gary Dotterman for Boston City Council, 1993.

In 1993, Dotterman put himself forward as a candidate for an at-large City Council seat for the first time (he’d try again in 2002). He ran on a platform demanding living wages, day care for working parents, better school funding, police reform, and anti-discrimination ordinances focused on racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism. He garnered over 5,000 votes.

Dotterman moved on to take up teaching at the University of Massachusetts and also devoted more of his time to organizing the Communist Party in the state. He became head of the Center for Marxist Education in Cambridge.

Elected to the National Committee of the CPUSA, Dotterman became one of the most outspoken figures in the party pushing it to renounce its long history of homophobia and discrimination against gay and lesbian members. Though the Communist Party had stopped expelling its queer members many years before, there had never been a full accounting of the past nor a reconciliation over its intentional aloofness from and outright criticism of the gay liberation movement.

At the CPUSA’s 27th National Convention in 2001, Dotterman submitted a resolution committing the organization to join the fight for LGBTQ liberation. “I remind my comrades,” he said from the convention floor, “that it is time that we march with our brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters in the GLBT movement as well as any movement.” To build support, he worked the delegates, talking up the resolution and handing out buttons with a pink triangle and a CPUSA emblem bearing the slogan, “An injury to one is an injury to all.” That convention is where I first had the chance to meet Gary; I still hold on to that button as a memento of the history made at that meeting.

Gary visiting the grave of Karl Marx in London.

The resolution passed, and soon after, the Communist Party joined the New York City Pride parade for the first time.

Upon his retirement in 2009, Gary and Geraldo made the decision to move to the latter’s native Brazil. However, the country did not yet recognize marriage equality. The couple decided to apply for permanent residence for Gary anyway, and surprisingly, were successful. Legally, theirs became the first same-sex marriage granted legitimacy by the Brazilian state—more than three years before marriage equality became law.

In his new country, Dotterman continued his socialist activism, becoming involved with the Partido Comunista do Brasil (PCdoB). He also continued his decades-long tradition of playing Santa Claus every December, though now in Rio de Janeiro rather than at a Sears in Tulsa. The money he earned from being Saint Nick went toward covering the cost of meals he cooked for homeless persons in his neighborhood every Sunday.

In 2019, Geraldo Dias, Gary’s “Dinho,” died. Dotterman was heartbroken but said he would join his departed love in a short time. In a Facebook post after Dias’ passing, Gary wrote, “Remember, I still have some work to do with my comrades first.”

Returning to the United States for the Communist Party USA’s 31st National Convention later that summer, Dotterman completed part of that work. Present at the gathering were fraternal delegates from Vietnam. Gary asked for the opportunity to meet with the foreign guests. In discussions held on the sidelines of the convention, he got the chance to finally exorcise some of the ghosts that had haunted him since his time in the Navy.

He apologized directly to the visitors from Vietnam, seeking forgiveness for the terror that he and other American soldiers had inflicted on their country so many decades before. He recognized that the youth of the U.S. had been fed propaganda and sent to die in a rich man’s war, but he sought absolution all the same. The guests from Vietnam listened intently. Then, they threw their arms around his neck, embracing him as a comrade in the fight for peace and international friendship.

Gary got a side gig playing Santa Claus at a Sears department store in Tulsa in 1967 after returning from Vietnam. Every year after, he donned the red Saint Nick suit to bring joy to children no matter where he was in the world. Here he is as Papai Noel in Brazil.

Dotterman then returned to Brazil, where the COVID pandemic kept him for the next three years. In my correspondence with him, he regularly invited my partner and me to visit Brazil, with the guarantee of a free place to stay and a warm welcome from his adopted family there. I said we would certainly come for a visit, but I regret never taking him up on the offer in time. In April 2023, Gary was hospitalized for heart problems, which eventually progressed to multiple organ failure. On May 10, he died.

José Reinaldo Carvalho, a member of the PCdoB Central Committee, told People’s World: “Gary’s death is a great political loss for Brazilian and American Communists. I express my solidarity with his family and closest friends and my feelings of mourning—as a Communist, as a comrade, and as a leader of the party.”

CPUSA National Co-Chair Rossana Cambron from Los Angeles did not have the chance to work closely with Dotterman, but she recalled the generosity he once showed to her family, despite having never met them. “Gary provided housing for my son and a fellow student when they went to a symposium in Massachusetts and had nowhere to stay,” Cambron said. “It showed to me that he had a giving heart because he did not really know us other than as comrades.”

Gary Dotterman with the love of his life, Geraldo Dias.

Though no longer a member of the Communist Party himself, former CPUSA National Chair Sam Webb remembered Gary as “irrepressible and fearless.” Discussing the role Dotterman played in the party in the 1990s and early 2000s, Webb said: “Gary, probably more than anybody else, helped us acknowledge a historical and painful wrong, expand our vision of freedom, love, and desire, and recognize the humanity and righteousness of the LBGTQ community.”

Dotterman not only joined the party despite its past homophobia, he also nudged it to change itself, “with a sense of compassion, forgiveness, and joy.” Webb said that Dotterman’s “footprint in the party’s annals is large indeed.”

Reflecting on his own life as a Communist and fighter for LGBTQ liberation in the pages of People’s World in 2002, Gary Dotterman wrote:

One of the pink triangle buttons distributed by Gary Dotterman at the CPUSA’s 27th National Convention in 2001. The buttons were part of an effort to build support for a constitutional amendment committing the party to the struggle for LGBTQ liberation. | C.J. Atkins / People’s World

“There are many things that can divide the movements—homophobia, anti-communism, racism, and male supremacy, just to name a few. It is incumbent upon all the democratic forces to find points of unity, to work together, and build relations and trust in the face of our common enemies.

“To that extent, I hope more Communist Party contingents march in Pride parades. It is time to see our banner marching in every Pride parade. Many Communists are there and have been there from the start, but the world needs to see us more.”

This summer, as the fascist faction of the Republican Party leads a crusade against LGBTQ Americans—especially trans members of the community—Communists are there, marching in Pride parades in every major city in the country and plenty of small towns as well.

The Communist Party that Gary Dotterman fought for—a party where LGBTQ people are not only recognized as part of the democratic coalition needed to win socialism but are themselves leading activists—has come to pass.

Gary Dotterman — ¡Presente!

VIDEOS: Watch and listen to interviews with Gary Dotterman where he discusses the rich experiences of his life.


C.J. Atkins is the managing editor at People’s World. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from York University in Toronto and has a research and teaching background in political economy and the politics and ideas of the American left. In addition to his work at People’s World, C.J. currently serves as the Deputy Executive Director of ProudPolitics.

DeSantis goes on anti-LGBTQ rampage before announcing presidential run / by Brendan Farrington and Anthony Izzaguirre

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis holds up all the anti-LGBTQ and racists bills he signed during ceremony at the Coastal Community Church in Lighthouse Point, Fla. | Wilfredo Lee / AP

Originally published in the People’s World on May 19, 2023


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP)—Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed bills Wednesday that ban gender-affirming care for minors, target drag shows, restrict discussion of personal pronouns in schools, and force people to use certain bathrooms.

DeSantis has made anti-LGBTQ legislation a large part of his agenda as he prepares to seek the Republican presidential nomination. He signed the bills in front of a cheering crowd at the evangelical Cambridge Christian School in Tampa. The ceremony had a campaign-like feel, with DeSantis tossing Sharpies to a crowd, as opposed to when he privately signed measures on abortion and gun rights.

The state’s legislative session, scheduled to end this week, has been dominated by divisive cultural issues, with Republican allies of DeSantis approving his priority bills on sexual orientation, gender identity, race, and education that are expected to aid the governor in his presidential bid.

The Senate on Wednesday voted to expand the “Don’t Say Gay” law, a major calling card of DeSantis, with a sweeping bill that prevents school staffers or students from being required to refer to people by pronouns that don’t correspond to the person’s sex.

Dozens of activists stage a sit-in outside Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office and force people to step over them to enter as they protest the governor and his policies. | Alicia Devine / Tallahassee Democrat via AP

It also bans classroom instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation up to the 8th grade, legally reinforcing a DeSantis administration move to prohibit such lessons in all grades. Additionally, the bill strengthens the system in which people can lodge challenges against school books, another DeSantis initiative that has led to the removal of material he and his supporters argue are inappropriate for children.

“Think about what we’re doing, honestly. Think about how this will affect families that don’t look like yours,” said Sen. Tracie Davis, a Democrat. “They’re still families. They’re Florida families. But we’re treating them like they’re outsiders and we’re telling them we don’t want them here.”

The House also approved a proposal to ban people from entering bathrooms that do not correspond to their sex, a bill aimed at transgender bathroom use.

Democrats opposed the bills, and LGBTQ rallies were held at the Capitol during the session that ended two weeks ago. But Republicans have a super-majority in both chambers and easily approved the bills for DeSantis’ signature.

“It’s kind of sad that we even have some of these discussions,” DeSantis told the crowd, standing behind a lectern with a sign reading “Let Kids Be Kids.”

DeSantis presented a narrative that expert panels in the nation’s major medical associations have said is false, such as the idea that children are routinely being “mutilated.” While he said he is protecting parents’ rights, his opponents say he is denying the rights of parents with transgender kids.

“They have cloaked themselves in being the party of less government and parental rights, and what we’re seeing now is the total opposite,” said Democratic state Sen. Shevrin Jones, who is gay. “Every other parent has the right to raise their child the way that they want to as long as your child is not gay, trans, bisexual. That’s freedom for some parents, but not for all parents.”

The gender care law also bans the use of state money for gender-affirming care and places new restrictions on adults seeking treatment.

Three Florida parents have asked a federal court to issue a temporary restraining order immediately blocking the new law’s enforcement. Attorneys for the families, who have a pending challenge to the state Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine, will be in court on Friday to argue that their children should be able to receive medical care as the case continues. The families are represented by Southern Legal Counsel, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Human Rights Campaign.

Planned Parenthood immediately started canceling gender-affirming care appointments after the bill was signed as the organization assesses the law’s implications.

Transgender medical treatment for children and teenagers is increasingly under attack in many states and it has lately been subject to restrictions or outright bans. But it has been available in the United States for more than a decade and is endorsed by major medical associations as appropriate care for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Their guidelines generally prevent surgery for minors.

Treatment typically begins with an evaluation for the distress caused when gender identity doesn’t match a person’s assigned sex. With parental consent, persistent dysphoria can be treated with hormones, but typically not until age 16. The guidelines also say surgery should be reserved for people 18 and older.

But DeSantis spoke to applause at the bill signing.

“We never did this through all of human history until like, what, two weeks ago? Now this is something? They’re having third-graders declare pronouns? We’re not doing the pronoun Olympics in Florida,” DeSantis said.

The gender-affirming care ban and the law targeting drag shows go into effect immediately. The bathroom restrictions and the law banning schools from forcing children to “provide his or her preferred personal title or pronouns” take effect July 1.

Jones said the governor’s choice of venue displayed the unpopularity of his campaign platform.

“If he’s so confident in his policies, don’t go hiding behind signing the bills at a Christian school or place where you’re more prone to get praise for your bigotry,” Jones said. “Do it out in the community. “

Republican Rep. Randy Fine, who sponsored the ban on gender-affirming care for minors, invoked his religion to defend the state’s actions.

“God does not make mistakes with our children,” Fine said.

Demonstrators protest outside the Florida House chambers against bills on gender-transition bans, bathroom use, and keeping children out of drag shows. | Brendan Farrington / AP

Jones called Fine’s take on the Bible disingenuous.

“For anyone to use Scripture in the same breath as you are being discriminatory and hateful towards a community of people, it doesn’t work like that,” Jones said. “You can’t take a book that was built on love and turn it around and fit your narrative.”

Separately, Republicans in the House gave final passage to a DeSantis priority bill that bans colleges from using state or federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

Republican lawmakers in at least a dozen states have proposed more than 30 bills this year targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in higher education.

DeSantis is expected to formally announce his presidential candidacy after the end of the legislative session. He has spent significant time in recent months traveling to battleground states and elsewhere to promote his conservative agenda and trumpet his policies on race, gender, and education.


Brendan Farrington is Tallahassee Correspondent, Associated Press.

Anthony Izaguirre is Associated Press reporter for Florida.