Maryland Senate Committee Kills Transgender Nondiscrimination Protections

Though the success of marriage equality in Maryland was an important achievement, the state still lacks nondiscrimination protections for its transgender community, and it seems that won’t be changing anytime soon. Today the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee voted 6-5 to kill the Fairness for All Marylanders Act, which would have prohibited discrimination based on gender identity in housing, employment, and public accommodations.

One of the Democrats who voted against the protections was Sen. Norman Stone, who in 1967 voted to maintain the state’s ban on interracial marriage and who opposed same-sex marriage in 2012. Another was Sen. James Brochin, who was actually convinced to vote for marriage equality because of how “appalling” opponents’ testimony was. Apparently when the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg testified that trans people are “suffering” from a “delusion” and require therapy instead of protections, it just wasn’t appalling enough.

Only 16 states protect trans people from discrimination, and Maryland is apparently not becoming the 17th anytime soon.

View the original article here

Elizabeth Warren Slams Republicans For Trying To Weaken Consumer Finance Protections

At a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) rebuked Republicans for blocking Richard Cordray’s confirmation as director of her brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. After a bitter confirmation fight in 2011, President Obama bypassed the Senate using a recess appointment to grant Cordray a temporary term until the end of 2013. Republicans are threatening to filibuster him this time around unless the CFPB is drastically restructured.

Warren declined to question Cordray, who has testified a dozen times. She then directed scrutiny to her Republican colleagues, calling them out for using her former lieutenant’s confirmation as an excuse to undermine the Bureau:

What I want to know is why every banking regulator since the Civil War has been funded outside the appropriations process — but unlike the consumer agency, no one in the U.S. Senate has held up confirmation of their directors demanding that that agency or those agencies be redesigned…I see nothing here but a filibuster threat against Director Cordray as an attempt to weaken the consumer agency. I think the delay in getting him confirmed is bad for consumers, it’s bad for small banks, bad for credit unions, for anyone trying to offer an honest product in an honest market. The American people deserve a Congress that worries less about helping big banks and more about helping regular people who have been cheated on mortgages, on credit cards, on student loans and on credit reports. I hope you get confirmed. You have earned it, Director Cordray.

Watch it:

Warren herself was ousted from the running for CFPB director in an effort to avoid a confirmation battle with Republicans. Still, Senate Republicans are intent on holding up the confirmation of any director to the Bureau. In a letter to Obama last month, 43 Senate Republicans vowed to filibuster any nominee unless they are allowed to hobble the agency’s authority.

Republicans have tried to weaken the Bureau from its inception, claiming it lacks transparency. Unlike other financial regulatory agencies, which are dependent on Congress for funding, the CFPB is intended to be an independent agency with independent funding. If Republicans get their way, the CFPB will lose this independence, making it vulnerable to the partisan shenanigans and funding shortages that have derailed other regulators.

Cordray’s first term demonstrates the CFPB’s efficacy as an independent agency. In one year, the agency has increased supervision over mortgage lenders, brokers, consumer reporting agencies, and large banks, set up programs to help consumers better understand loan agreements and recoup refunds from deceptive and illegal practices, and wrote new rules to prevent wrongful foreclosures.

View the original article here

Rep. Huelskamp: Employment Protections ‘Reward Homosexual Behavior’

As momentum for LGBT employment nondiscrimination protections increases, conservatives have begun to retaliate, claiming such policies somehow create special privileges for LGBT people. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), one of the most anti-gay members of Congress, made just such a claim on Tony Perkins’ radio show on Tuesday. According to Huelskamp, equal protections under the law for gays and lesbians are “radical ideas” that “selectively reward homosexual behavior”:

HUELSKAMP: The response from the general leadership is: gosh, we can’t talk about social issues. But the President can? Someone has to stand up and defend the seventy percent position that most Americans support traditional marriage, most Americans understand the value of family, they understand it’s under attack and they understand that, they see it, they believe it. So we got to stand up. I’ve always been confused by Republicans that refuse to support a seventy percent position and say, ‘gosh we can’t take our stand there.’ But whether it’s Obamacare, whether it’s these radical DoD [Department of Defense] proposals coming out of the White House or changing all the employment rules to specifically and selectively reward homosexual behavior, those are really radical ideas and most Americans do not accept them.

So we’ll have an opportunity to hear from the President but again don’t forget he is a lame duck President, he’s not running for election again and I think this could be the most radical we’ll hear from him in a long time because it is Obama unleashed. We’re going to hear tonight probably exactly what he would like to do and he promised he’s going to change America and he’s still after that agenda and that goal.

Listen to it (via RightWingWatch):

A “reward” implies something special or extra that other people are not entitled to. The only “reward” of employment protections for gay people is getting to keep their jobs. Granting benefits to the same-sex partners of military servicemembers does not create “a new class of beneficiary” as the Family Research Council claimed on Tuesday; the only reason there is a separate class is because some families are still treated different than others.

It’s clear that opponents of equality would prefer that the LGBT community remain second-class citizens. When they object to basic nondiscrimination protections, the special “reward” they’re afraid of is fairness under the law.

View the original article here

Colorado Committee Kills Bill Giving Legal Protections To Teaching Climate Change Denial And Creationism In Schools

By Jessica Goad

Earlier this week, a key legislative committee in Colorado voted down a bill that would give teachers at the state’s schools and colleges legal cover to teach the questioning of climate change and other subjects that “cause controversy” in the classroom.  The bill directed teachers to:

… create an environment that encourages students to intelligently and respectfully explore scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution, global warming, and human cloning.

H.B. 13-1089 was sponsored by Rep. Stephen Humphrey (R) who explained:

This bill is not a curriculum change that would force educators to teach intelligent design or creationism.  It simply provides legal protections to those teachers who would like to provide their students with a complete education on both the strengths and weaknesses of these hotly debated scientific subjects.

The Colorado House Education Committee, of which Democrats are the majority, voted down the bill on a party line vote.

Colorado is not the only state to see such bills, even if their radical anti-science message did not gain traction there.  Legislators in five other states have introduced bills allowing teachers to deny evolution and climate change.  Interestingly, they all bear resemblance to “model” legislation that has been promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative corporate front-group that puts together draft bills for use by state legislators.

In the past, ALEC has drafted model bills such as the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act,” which requires teachers to “encourage an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas.”  ALEC has also been behind bills that block putting a price on carbon, turn over public lands to states and private companies, and roll back state renewable electricity standards.  One of the co-sponsors of the bill in the Colorado Senate is a dues-paying member of ALEC.

The Heartland Institute, an extremist group that once compared people who believe in global warming to the Unabomber, has also been linked to these types of bills.  Heartland is still a member of the ALEC task force that originally wrote the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act, and is also designing climate-denial curriculum.

The fight over teaching climate change denial in schools has just begun.  As Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education put it:

This victory in Colorado was too close. People in Colorado and elsewhere need to understand that these bills would be nothing but trouble: scientifically misleading, pedagogically unnecessary, and likely to produce administrative, legal, and economic headaches.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Senate Waters Down Privacy Protections For Online Video Streaming

Last week, the Senate quietly agreed to allow video streaming companies such as Netflix to share data on of their customers’ streaming histories for up to two years — after only asking their permission once. The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), had previously mandated that consent be obtained from an individual each time their video-watching history was shared. It also requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant, court order, or grand jury subpoena to acquire that history, and prevents companies from sharing it for marketing purposes — provisions which all appear to remain in place.

The new bill has already been adopted by the House, and is now on its way to President Obama’s desk. Adam Serwer at Mother Jones has the latest:

Last Tuesday, the Senate quietly altered a key privacy law, making it much easier for video streaming services like Netflix to share your viewing habits. How quietly? The Senate didn’t even hold a recorded vote: The bill was approved by unanimous consent. (Joe Mullin of Ars Technica was among the first to note the vote.) [...] Video streaming companies that want to share your data now only need to ask for your permission once. After that, they can broadcast your video-watching habits far and wide for up to two years before having to ask again.

VPPA was originally passed in 1988 following outrage at the publication of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video rental history by a Washington newspaper. (An irony, as Serwer notes, given Bork’s own hostility to privacy rights.) The law caused headaches for Netflix’s attempt to integrate their services with Facebook, an arrangement the company has brought to over 40 countries but has yet to debut in the United States. Netflix recently challenged the application of the law to online streaming video, but was rebuffed by a federal district court.

Both Facebook and Netflix lobbied enthusiastically in the second half of 2012 for the changes to the VPPA, spending $1.6 million dollars and $400,000, respectively. Those efforts paid off with last week’s alteration.

The change was originally intended as a trade-off: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) inserted language that would’ve strengthened privacy protections for email and other personal online documents under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA), even as it declawed the VPPA. But then the House passed a version of the VPPA update without the balancing update to the EPCA. That forced a negotiation, and the Senate eventually gave in to the House’s version.

Leahy has called for the Congress to take up the issue of strengthening EPCA’s online protections again next year. But as Serwer dryly points out, “not even the CIA director losing his job in the wake of an FBI investigation that led to no actual charges could provoke Congress into updating the country’s digital privacy laws. So Leahy’s calls for reform appear likely to go unanswered.”

Wording in the first paragraph has been altered for clarity. As far as ThinkProgress is aware, the provision concerning consent to share data is the only aspect of VPPA that has been altered of those listed.

View the original article here

Ensuring that LGBT Victims of Domestic Violence Can Access Critically Needed Services and Protections

Posted by Lynn Rosenthal, Tonya Robinson on May 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM EDT

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994, but failed to include critical provisions that would ensure that all victims of domestic violence can access vital services and protections.  Victims are victims, and, if you have been battered, stalked or otherwise threatened with violence, you should not be turned away by a shelter or denied the assistance you need merely because the aggressor is the same sex as you or because you are transgender.  Yet, the legislation approved by the House Judiciary Committee and being considered this week on the House floor would allow just that.

The guiding principle behind VAWA and each of its subsequent reauthorizations has been an unyielding commitment to the notion that no sexual assault or domestic violence victim should be beaten, hurt or killed because they could not access the support, assistance and protection that they need.  In enacting VAWA in 1994, Congress acknowledged that the criminal justice system chronically failed to respond to the crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking, too often blaming victims and refusing to hold offenders accountable as violent criminals.  In reauthorizing VAWA in 2000, Congress included new VAWA programs and provisions to help particularly vulnerable populations, including younger victims, immigrant victims, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.  In the 2005 reauthorization, Congress once again strengthened the Act to improve the health care response to domestic violence, to include a new focus on prevention, and to expand protections for children exposed to violence. 

This year, the VAWA reauthorization bill passed by the Senate in April would remove barriers faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) victims, whose needs often are overlooked by law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and victim service providers. LGBT victims experience domestic violence at roughly the same rate as the general population.  Nonetheless, recent surveys show that LGBT victims frequently are turned away when attempting to access services. For example, according to a 2010 survey by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 45% of LGBT victims were denied services when they sought help from a domestic violence shelter, and nearly 55% were denied protection orders. 

Without LGBT-specific training, criminal justice personnel often underestimate the physical danger involved in same-sex relationships or fail to identify a primary aggressor and instead arrest both victim and perpetrator.  Even well-intentioned service providers may generate outreach materials that do not accurately or fully reflect the experience of LGBT victims, and thus inadvertently discourage individuals who have suffered abuse from seeking needed care.  In all these cases, bias or a lack of understanding contributes to an environment where the needs of LGBT victims are underserved.

The Senate bill would improve VAWA further, authorizing States and service providers to ensure that VAWA protections extend to all victims - including LGBT victims - of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.  The Senate bill includes three provisions that would help LGBT victims access VAWA-funded services. 

First, the Senate bill would add a LGBT-focused purpose area to the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant program, the largest VAWA program and the one that supports law enforcement, prosecution, court and victim service activities in every State.  This new purpose area would authorize States, at their discretion, to fund projects that focus specifically on improving responses to male and female victims of domestic and sexual violence whose ability to access traditional services is affected by their sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Second, the Senate bill would amend the Act’s definition of “underserved population” to recognize that LGBT victims face barriers to service.  Not only does this improvement send an important message to those who administer and receive VAWA funding, but it will ensure that organizations serving this community can obtain funding from a new grant program that focuses on underserved populations. 

Third, the Senate bill would protect LGBT victims from discrimination by prohibiting VAWA grantees from denying LGBT victims access to programs on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Plainly put, this provision would ensure that all victims of domestic violence are able to access life-saving services.  In contrast, the VAWA reauthorization bill reported out of the House Judiciary Committee, which is being advanced by House Republican leadership, excludes these critical protections for LGBT victims.

Opponents claim that the Senate bill’s LGBT provisions are a solution looking for a problem.  That is just not true.  Domestic and sexual violence against LGBT individuals is an unfortunate reality, as is violence against non-LGBT individuals – and we shouldn’t allow any victim of such abuse to go unprotected.

Lynn Rosenthal is the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women.  Tonya Robinson is the Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy.

View the original article here