News Blog

NEAT Launches Idaho Action to Stop Attacks on Trans Kids

3/20/2020

by Jeff B White

If you ever played sports or participated in group activities as a child, you know how important that feeling of being on a team was to you. Imagine being told as a child that you weren’t allowed on that team because of who you are and now you understand the insidiousness that is Idaho’s House Bill 500 (HB500). This is why NEAT has launched an emergency phone banking campaign with Moving Towards Freedom to demand Idaho Governor Little veto this and other anti-transgender bills (more info or get involved at www.theNEAT.org/Idaho).

Not only does HB500 ban transgender youth from participating in sports, but it would also force girls who present as masculine to undergo invasive physical testing. It violates basic privacy rights by requiring educators and coaches to identify and separate transgender youth and potentially “outing” them to their peers and parents. This bill attempts to repair an issue that does not exist by enshrining discrimination into school policy denying basic privacy rights.

As well, HB509 would bar transgender people from updating their gender marker on their birth certificate. This would cause transgender people to be unable to properly identify themselves and defeats the very purpose of identifying documentation. Yet another basic human right that Idaho lawmakers are attempting to seize from transgender people, causing irreparable harm. The right to privacy and identity is essential to people during the gender transition process, according to the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and others.

“We believe in the privacy and dignity of transgender people - especially transgender young people - and that the right to identify oneself is vital to a safe existence,” said NEAT Founder and Executive Director Brian Silva. “This is why we a proud to fight for these basic rights for transgender Idahoans.”

0 Comments

Pride is a Protest. But Pride is Also Joy!!

3/12/2020

0 Comments

by Jeff B. White

Last month in San Diego at the annual gathering of Pride and LGBTQ+ serving organizations from across the western United States of America and Mexico, NEAT Founder and Executive Director Brian Silva spoke about the clear bridge between Pride and advocacy:

“Pride is a protest. But Pride is also joy. We cannot have that joy without protesting for our rights. But we cannot protest for our rights without having that joy in our hearts.”

Brian gave the closing address to the CAPI conference at the invitation of the host San Diego Pride and spoke about NEAT's approach to collaborative action for LGBTQ+ Justice and how Pride organizations can use NEAT to deliver year-round programming. He discussed how, in the current landscape, collaboration can be a powerful tool for Pride groups to engage year round.

"San Diego Pride is an organization that proudly utilizes our staff, resources, and grassroots models of organizing to engage in education and advocacy work all year round. It is a model of Pride we are hoping to instill in Pride organizations around the world. NEAT's ability to make that work accessible to organizations of every size meant we knew that having Brian Silva speak at our closing plenary was going to be a perfect fit," said Fernando Lopez, San Diego Pride Executive Director.

Brian gave an overview of our current community state including the three Title VII employment cases before the Supreme Court and anti-trans legislation that would impose fines and even jail time for parents and doctors who provide medically appropriate care for transgender kids - something the Alabama Senate just did. In other states, laws are being proposed that would ban trans athletes from playing sports on same gendered teams. He brought up that with 26 transgender and gender nonconforming people being murdered last year, fatal violence against transgender people, especially against trans people of color, has been on the rise.

"I was extremely grateful when I was asked to speak to my fellow advocates about how we can engage and work together towards a common goal of equality and justice for all Americans," said Brian.

During his talk, Brian pointed out that the model created by NEAT facilitates the ability for a year round push for education, advocacy, and outreach, instead of only in the month of June. As well, he says that NEAT’s proven tactics and simple training makes it possible for Prides and LGBTQ+ organizations nationwide to utilize our model, instead of rebuilding what we know already works.

0 Comments

Intersections: Gee v. June Medical Services -- Rally and Arguments

3/10/2020

0 Comments

In December, Intersections discussed the Gee v. June Medical Services case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, and how reproductive rights and related healthcare needs disproportionately affect the LGBTQ community. On Wednesday, March 4, 2020, oral arguments were heard in this case before the nation’s highest court.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, who brought the case challenging the Louisiana abortion law, organized a large rally in front of the Supreme Court. NEAT was present and able to get a few photos of the rally in the slideshow below.

As a refresher, the case is centered on a Louisiana law requiring doctors who work out of healthcare centers providing abortions to also have admitting privileges at a local hospital (within 30 miles). This may sound generally reasonable, but in reality it’s an indirect way of closing healthcare facilities where abortions are available and skirting the legal principles established by the historical Roe v. Wade decision. Notably, the Supreme Court overturned an identical law by the State of Texas three years ago. Gee is a way for anti-abortion interests to test the new membership of the Supreme Court in an attempt to limit or overturn that recent decision.

The facts supporting the Louisiana case are slightly different than the Texas case, but the outcome of enacting the law would largely be the same: nearly all of the medical facilities where abortions are available as an option to patients would be required to close. The legislature and respondents claim the law is to protect patients who have complications that need emergency care, but there is little evidence that is a problem that needs to be addressed. Louisiana already has a low number of medical treatment facilities for its population and, in 2019, it was ranked one of the lowest states in the union for healthcare. Closing all of these clinics--which generally provide more than only access to abortions--would be a disaster. The Louisiana legislature would do well to focus on adding healthcare options for its citizenry instead of removing them.

People who watch the Supreme Court closely generally feel that the oral arguments held no surprises. The justices largely had questions based on their expected ideological viewpoints. Petitioner focused on the highest court’s long-standing practice of deferring to its previous decisions or “settled” law. The Trump Administration argued in support of the Louisiana law. Justice Alito focused on a technical aspect of the case--whether the clinic who challenged the law had a right to file the case, attempting to follow a constructed and misguided path that only women who are affected by the law could bring the legal challenge; other justices did not appear to engage in that discussion heavily. Most of the questions from the bench focused on what facts in these scenarios create an “undue burden,” which is a key component of the analysis of the Texas law that was overturned by the court more than three years ago. A decision regarding this Louisiana law is expected near the conclusion of the court’s term at the end of June 2020.

0 Comments

<<Previous

NEAT Launches Idaho Action to Stop Attacks on Trans Kids

Pride is a Protest. But Pride is Also Joy!!

Intersections: Gee v. June Medical Services -- Rally and Arguments

Archives

Categories