Showing posts with label Trump Anti LGBT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump Anti LGBT. Show all posts

February 22, 2019

Elections are Coming and Trump Wants to Sell How He Protects The LGBTQ Community But He Lies(This is How)

Election season is coming and Trump is now preaching how he protects "LGBT_Q" like he promised, But we know he lies and lies and lies. With the help of the Independent (which I don't really think is), I will give you a bunch of specific actions he has taken to hurt the community. All of the letters which are people in the "LGBT_Q" community 
These are few actions with many implications Trump is taken against the LGBTQ community: 
1. In February of 2017, the administration withdrew guidance that helped public schools implement Title IX, under which discrimination on the basis of sex was illegal. The withdrawal left transgender students unprotected.
2. Donald Trump nominated judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court. Gorsuch previously wrote a dissent arguing against a ruling that required states to list same-sex parents on birth certificates.
3. In April 2017, under President Trump, the Justice and Labor Departments cancelled conference calls with LGBTQ+ organisations, which for years gave the LGBTQ+ community a voice.
4. On 26 July 2017, President Trump announced on Twitter that transgender individuals would not be allowed to serve “in any capacity” in the US Military.
5. The Trump administration attempted to expand circumstances in which federal contractors and private employers could cite religious freedom as a reason for discrimination. 
6. The Department of Education said it would dismiss complaints from transgender students who were not allowed to use school bathrooms that matched with their gender identity, according to The Washington Post
7. Under President Trump, the Justice Department rolled back protections for transgender inmates that were put in place by President Obama.
The new guidelines introduced by the US Bureau of Prisons would see inmates housed by their biological sex rather than the gender they identify with.
8. Mr. Trump has repeatedly failed to recognise June as Pride Month.
Salt and pepper on the spoiled Trump's brekfast eggs:

Out writer Matthew Rodriguez, who wrote that the administration's announcement this week that it would seek to decriminalize homosexuality in countries around the world was a "racist tactic."
Rodriguez wrote that "rather than actually being about helping queer people around the world, the campaign looks more like another instance of the right using queer people as a pawn to amass power and enact its own agenda."
The author uses as an example of his argument the push to center the decriminalization efforts on Iran, a country president Trump has often verbally attacked.
“We know Trump is very focused on Iran and is looking for ways to demonize it in the public opinion and this is one area where you know the US and European countries see eye-to-eye on Iran,” NBC reporter Josh Lederman, who reported on the Trump administration's LGBT plan, says in an interview with Rodriguez. 
“So it makes [sense] for them to focus strategically on that rather than sanctions, where there’s been a big gulf between the U.S. and its allies," Lederman added.
Iran has a history of executing gay men accused of rape, and LGBT activists in the country contend that the charges are falsified in order to criminalize and obscure consensual same-sex partnerships. 

January 23, 2019

Trump Administration Rolled Backwards The Clock for LGBT and People Living with HIV


Last weekend marked the two-year anniversary of Donald Trump’s presidency. In that time, we have witnessed the rollback of rights and protections for LGBT people and people living with HIV that took decades to win. It is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate the full extent of harm now taking place. But it is undeniable that our communities are much more vulnerable to discrimination in health care, social services, employment, education, and access to basic government services.

One of the most shocking moves occurred earlier this month when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the inauguration of Brazil’s new president Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro, a former Army captain and longtime congressman who operated at Brazil’s political margins because of his far-right political views, campaigned on a racist, misogynistic, and homophobic platform. In October 2018, a transgender woman and a drag queen were both murdered, with the attackers in both incidents invoking Bolsonaro’s name. On his first day in office, Bolsonaro signed an executive order prohibiting the country’s human rights ministry from hearing any concerns from the country’s LGBT community.

Image result for pompeo and bolsonaro picture
 Pompeo left, Bolsonaro, right
Despite this, Pompeo tweeted out a photo of himself meeting with Bolsonaro thanking him for a great meeting to “reinforce our shared commitment to democracy, education, prosperity, security, and #humanrights.” Trump, meanwhile, has praised Bolsonaro as a “great leader.” Pompeo’s diplomatic move coupled with Trump’s rhetoric marked an effective end to previous U.S. foreign policy that treated LGBT rights as a foreign policy goal. This shift endangers the safety of LGBT people around the globe.

                                  Image result for pompeo and bolsonaro tweets picture

Other moves that have undermined efforts to fight stigma against LGBT people and people with HIV, include the dismissal, in March 2018, of a Peace Corps volunteer in Cambodia after he tested positive for HIV. After receiving treatment in the United States and learning that he could keep his viral load near zero by taking daily medication, thus making it practically impossible to transmit the virus to anyone else, the 23-year-old told his Peace Corps health officer that he wanted to complete the remaining 18 months of his two-year term. But he was told that the Peace Corps did not accept volunteers who are HIV positive.

In fact, the Peace Corps agreed to stop automatically terminating HIV positive volunteers in 2008 after the ACLU advocated on behalf of a Peace Corps volunteer serving in the Ukraine who had become HIV positive. Under Trump, however, the Peace Corps has reversed this policy change. It also denied pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, for HIV prevention to Peace Corps volunteers who have requested it.

Domestically, the Trump administration has maintained steady attacks on transgender people. The Federal Bureau of Prisons announced in May 2018 that it will use “biological sex” to make initial determinations in the type of housing transgender inmates are assigned and will place transgender prisoners in facilities that conform to their gender identity only “in rare cases.” This reverses a 2016 policy that housed adult prisoners based on their gender identity, not their birth sex. The move is sure to undermine the safety and security of one of the most vulnerable prison populations and negates decades of progress on LGBT rights and protections that were reflected in 2012’s implementation standards for the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

Despite numerous attempts to implement a ban on transgender troops from serving in the military that has been blocked by the courts, the Trump Administration continues to look for innovative ways to discriminate. On the advice of the Family Research Council, an evangelical organization actively opposed to LGBT rights, the Trump Administration has tried to frame the transgender ban as a military readiness issue, despite evidence showing that transgender individuals are able to carry out their official duties with the same effectiveness as their cisgender counterparts and that there are no medical impediments to their service in the military.

Perhaps the most insidious move by the Trump Administration is its continued efforts to legalize discrimination under the guise of religious liberty. In January 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services created the Division of Conscience and Religious Freedom under the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). This division was created following a 2017 executive order by President Trump directing agencies to expand religious freedom protections in ways that could increase discrimination against LGBT individuals and same-sex couples. Also in early 2018, OCR collected public comments regarding a new proposed rule stating that “freedom from discrimination on the basis of religious belief or moral conviction…does not just mean the right not to be treated differently or adversely; it also means being free not to act contrary to one’s beliefs.” 

This exceptionally broad language opens the door for health care providers to deny not just general health care services to LGBT people, but also specific services such as STI screening to gay men, fertility treatments to lesbian couples, or gender affirmation treatment to transgender people if the provider holds anti-LGBT religious beliefs.

Taken alone, any one of these initiatives is a horrible step backward. Taken as a whole, though, it will take decades to unravel the damage.

Sean Cahill Ph.D. is director of health policy research for The Fenway Institute and co-author of the policy brief “Trump Administration continued to advance discriminatory policies and practices against LGBT people and people living with HIV in 2018.”

January 4, 2019

Trump Admin Considers A Rollback to Cancel All Civil Anti Discrimination Laws

The Trump administration is considering a far-reaching rollback of civil rights law that would dilute federal rules against discrimination in education, housing and other aspects of American life, people familiar with the discussions said.

A recent internal Justice Department memo directed senior civil rights officials to examine how decades-old “disparate impact” regulations might be changed or removed in their areas of expertise, and what the impact might be, according to people familiar with the matter. Similar action is being considered at the Education Department and is underway at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Under the concept of disparate impact, actions can amount to discrimination if they have an uneven effect even if that was not the intent, and rolling back this approach has been a longtime goal of conservative legal thinkers. Past Republican administrations have done little to erode the concept’s application, partly out of concerns that the Supreme Court might disagree, or that such changes would be unpopular and viewed as racist.

Civil rights advocates said diminishing this tool could have sweeping consequences.

“Disparate impact is a bedrock principle,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Through the courts, we’ve been able to marshal data and use the disparate-impact doctrine as a robust tool for ferreting out discrimination.”

In New York, a lawsuit alleges that a large apartment complex in Queens will not rent to anyone with a criminal record, and that this has the effect of discriminating against African American and Latino renters. The suit is pending, relying on disparate impact to make the case.

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker listens as President Trump speaks at a roundtable discussion of the Federal Commission on School Safety Report. A Justice Department memo asks senior civil rights officials to assess the impact of removing decades-old “disparate impact” regulations. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

In Maryland, civil rights groups complained to the federal government after the state shifted transportation money from a light-rail project that would have helped mostly African American residents of Baltimore. The money instead went to bridge and road projects that served mostly white residents elsewhere in the state. A Transportation Department investigation into the matter was closed this summer.

In education, the Obama administration reached settlements with school systems such as the one in Lodi, Calif., where an investigation found widespread disparities in student discipline. African American students, for instance, were five times as likely as white peers to receive out-of-school suspensions for willful defiance or disruption.

In 2014, the Obama administration formally advised school systems they may be guilty of racial discrimination if students of color are punished at higher rates.

When investigators and courts incorporate disparate impact in a review, they are looking at more than the intent of laws or practices. They are also evaluating whether a policy’s impact varies based on race, ethnicity or other factors. Regulations across the government implementing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its amendments define discrimination as including this unintentional form of bias.

The Trump administration signaled its hostility to this approach in a report issued last week by the Federal Commission on School Safety, which recommended rescinding the school discipline guidance. In a sharply worded and controversial chapter, the report said the validity of disparate impact analysis “cannot be squared with the Supreme Court’s holdings.” The administration revoked the guidance a few days later.

Disparate impact was written into the original regulations that implemented Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin by entities, including schools, that receive federal funding. The school safety report argued that earlier administrations had adopted the concept without regard for what the underlying statute said. It said that interpretation was of “questionable validity” and “dubious, at best.”

One person familiar with the administration’s planning said the strong language in the school safety panel’s report “really signals the direction that the administration is going in.” To that end, the Education Department is considering replacing the original Title VI regulation, this person said. He and others spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to describe internal discussions. 

One option under consideration includes “clarifying” the Title VI regulation to make its use consistent with the Trump administration’s legal views. Another option would replace the regulation with a new one, which would require a formal and lengthy process of public notice and comment.

Those options are separate from the Justice Department memo, which was described by a person familiar with the document as a starting point for moving toward removing disparate-impact-based regulations across the federal government.

In June, the Department of Housing and Urban Development published a notice announcing that it plans to consider revising its 2013 regulation on disparate-impact claims in the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion and other factors in sale, rental or financing of housing. The agency signaled that it was reconsidering how the regulations affect the insurance industry, which has challenged them in court.

Data showing that a policy resulted in uneven consequences is not sufficient to prove a discrimination claim. A school or other institution accused of discrimination under the concept of disparate impact can defend itself by showing the policy is justified and that no other method exists to accomplish a goal.

The Supreme Court has recognized disparate-impact claims, but in a 2015 housing case, its use was upheld by a narrow 5-to-4 vote, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, now retired. Some conservatives have speculated that the new court, with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in Kennedy’s place, might decide the same matter differently.

Much — but not all — of the disparate-impact law could be changed by the administration because the concept was incorporated through regulations, which administrations are free to change by following a formal process. A broad-based rewrite of regulations could affect areas such as transportation and environmental law, as well as education and housing. But it would be harder to make changes to voting and employment law, experts say, because the concept of disparate impact is overtly written into the underlying statute, not just the regulations.

Supporters of disparate-impact analysis say it is a critical tool because finding “smoking gun” evidence to prove someone intended to discriminate is difficult. And even if the intention wasn’t to discriminate, advocates say institutions should be held accountable for discriminatory effects.

“Most people don’t have access to what’s going on in somebody’s mind. Even if a decision was intentionally discriminatory, it’s going to be very difficult to prove,” said Ajmel Quereshi, senior counsel with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

But conservatives have long argued that proving discrimination should require proof that someone intended to treat people differently. And they say that if people are being judged by numbers, they may feel pressure to make decisions based on racial quotas.

“The disparate-impact approach requires decision-makers to make decisions with an eye on race. That is exactly what the civil rights laws are supposed to prohibit,” said Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank focused on race and ethnicity. He said he has lobbied Trump administration officials to write the idea out of federal regulations.

Disparate-impact analysis, he argued, is not necessary to combat “true discrimination.” He said he also tried to persuade officials in the George W. Bush administration to do the same, without results. “The Bushes were very skittish on civil rights issues,” he said.

“I’m sure that my counterparts are saying this is a radical change,” Clegg added. “Yes, it’s been used for a long time, but it’s been controversial for a long time.”

November 20, 2018

Trump Admin pushed national 4-H youth org to withdraw Policy Welcoming LGBT Members

The Trump administration pushed the national 4-H youth organization to withdraw a controversial policy welcoming LGBT members — a move that helped lead to the ouster of Iowa's top 4-H leader earlier this year, a Des Moines Register investigation found.
The international youth organization, with more than 6 million members, introduced the new guidance to ensure LGBT members felt protected by their local 4-H program. The document and their attempts to broaden membership in the LGBT community was a smaller part of a larger, multi-year effort to modernize the federally authorized group.
Several states posted the national guidance on their websites, including Iowa, where it prompted fierce opposition from conservatives and some evangelical groups.
Within days of the LGBT guidance's publication, Heidi Green, then-chief of staff for U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, requested that it be rescinded, Sonny Ramaswamy, then-director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the federal department that administers 4-H, told the Register.
Afterward, a NIFA communications manager sent an "urgent" email to at least two states — Iowa and New York — urging the 4-H organizations there to remove the LGBT guidance from their websites, the Register found.
The subsequent decision to take down the policy set off a firestorm this spring that engulfed 4-H programs in at least eight states — including Iowa, IdahoWisconsin, California, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and New York.
And it eventually precipitated the firing of Iowa 4-H director John-Paul Chaisson-Cárdenas, a fierce advocate of the LGBT policy, the Register found after conducting extensive interviews and examining more than 500 pages of state and federal communications. 
The 4-H policy's removal comes amid other moves by the Trump administration to roll back federal protections that the previous administration saw as also covering gender identity — or the deeply held sense of who one is that may differ from the sex organs with which one is born.
The Trump administration previously declared it would place limits on transgender troops serving in the military, and it rescinded a 2016 Dear Colleague letter issued by Obama’s Education Department that said prohibiting transgender students from using facilities such as restrooms that matched their gender identity violates federal anti-discrimination laws.
The administration also attempted to remove questions about gender identity from the 2020 census. And, in October, the New York Times obtained a leaked memo from the Department of Health and Human Services that seeks to define gender as “either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with.”
The move would “essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million” transgender Americans, the Times reported.
The Trump administration to date has declined to comment on the leaked memo.

October 23, 2018

Outcry Over Trump's Plans to Civilly Erased Transgenders #WeWontBeErased

 There has been an outpouring of anger in the US from politicians, celebrities and human rights groups over a report alleging the US policy on gender recognition could be changed.
Protesters in New York. One holds a sign saying 'The future isn't binary'
 Demonstrators in New York protested against the report on Sunday evening
The change would rescind previous policy which eased trans recognition.
Instead, it would define gender solely on the genitalia people are born with.
The administration of former President Barack Obama adopted a definition of gender in federal policy which made it easier to allow individual choice and self-determination.
The Trump administration has previously tried to roll back transgender recognition in areas such as the military and in schools - but it has not commented on the latest report. 
Activists fear the changes allegedly being proposed could in effect "define out of existence" Americans who currently identify as transgender - a community who are said to number at least 1.4 million people.
Transgender and gender non-confirming people have been sharing their personal stories and response to the report using the hashtag #WeWontBeErased.

What do media reports say?

The news report published by the New York Times on Sunday said a memo the newspaper had seen from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed establishing a legal and fixed definition of sex under Title IX - a federal civil rights law that outlaws gender discrimination.
Two protesters hold up a flag for Transgender and Gender Non-comforming peopleImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionProtesters in Washington State Park hold up a flag for the transgender and gender non-conforming community
The report alleges that the department argues the current lack of clarity allowed civil rights protections to be wrongfully extended to some individuals during the Obama administration.
The proposed change would instead mean people's sex would be legally fixed as either male or female by their genitalia. 
"Sex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth," the department proposed in the memo, according to the Times.
"The sex listed on a person's birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person's sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence," the memo allegedly says.
The Wall Street Journal has also reported on the issue - saying HHS officials hope to release a rule change, but says internal disputes mean it is not clear how extensive it will be.
No-one from the Trump administration has so far commented on the reports.

What has the reaction been? 

The report has generated an angry response from some people in and outside of the US, including swathes of the LGBTQ community.
Advocacy groups organised a demonstration on Sunday evening in New York and another protest is planned outside the White House in Washington DC on Monday Morning. 
In a series of Tweets on Sunday, the National Centre for Transgender Equality described the changes as an "abomination" and "a reckless attack" on transgender lives.  

We're not going anywhere - transgender people can't be erased with a memo. Post a selfie. Call a friend. Attend our rally tomorrow. Everything to show them that we
 Human Rights Campaign, one of the country's leading LGBTQ rights groups, said the change would set a "destructive precedent". 
Chairman Chad Griffin described the alleged proposal as "the latest effort in a consistent, multi-pronged campaign by the Trump-Pence White House... to undermine the rights and welfare of LGBTQ people."
"Defining 'sex' in this narrow language tailored to the talking points of anti-equality extremists is part of a deliberate strategy to eliminate federal protections for LGBTQ people," he went on.
Members of the transgender community took to social media to protest against the proposal - sharing personal stories and selfies of themselves and family members using #WontBeErased. 

I am a son.
I am a daughter.
I am a father.
I am a mother.
I am a grandfather.
I am a grandmother.
I am a friend.
I am a neighbor.
I am a coworker.
I am a student.

We are transgender. ⚧ 

October 3, 2018

Trump's State Dept Just Made Life Much Harder For Gay Diplomats

The Trump administration on Monday stopped granting visas to the same-sex partners of diplomats and officials at U.S.-based international organizations, reversing a policy put in place by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton in 2009.
Straight couples have always needed to be married in order for the partner of a diplomat or U.N. official to receive a visa of their own. The same was not true of same-sex couples, for whom a domestic partnership was enough for both to receive visas.
Now, diplomats and officials at these organizations who are in same-sex relationships will face the choice of either getting married or separating. For those same-sex partners already in the U.S. and currently holding a visa, a deadline has been set. If by the start of 2019 they’re not married, they have 30 days to leave the country.
The justification for this move is that gay marriage is now legal in the U.S., so it’s only fair that gay and straight couples play by the same rules. The U.S. mission to the U.N. explained the change in July, Foreign Policy reports:
“Same-sex spouses of U.S. diplomats now enjoy the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex spouses,” the U.S. mission wrote in a July 12 note to U.N.-based delegations. “Consistent with [State] Department policy, partners accompanying members of permanent missions or seeking to join the same must generally be married in order to be eligible” for a diplomatic visa.
In a statement to NBC News, a State Department spokesman doubled down on this reasoning, saying the policy change is “to help ensure and promote equal treatment” between straight and gay couples.
But this line ignores the reality in most countries, where gay marriage is not legal. That means many gay couples would have to come to the U.S. on a tourist visa to get married before they could return for one of them to work for the U.N. Some couples could also face a decision between getting married in order to stay together in the U.S., or being persecuted back home.
“The problem with the new policy is that it doesn’t take into consideration the fact that LGBTI people still face a very challenging global environment,” U.N. human rights official Fabrice Houdart told NBC News. Or, as former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power put it in a tweet, the move is “needlessly cruel & bigoted.”

Featured Posts

Fewer People Think LGBT Face Discrimination But Is That True?

 Over the past decade, the gay rights movement has had a lot to celebrate. Within a single generation, a politically divided countr...