The Nebraska Legislature kicks off its new session a few weeks from today and issues related to gender identity are likely to be part of the mix.
LGBTQ+ advocates said they are in familiar territory, trying to establish a voice in the debate. Last year, a Nebraska bill to ban transgender students from playing school sports consistent with their gender identity narrowly failed. Republican Gov. Jim Pillen said he will try again this year.
Grant Friedman, legal fellow for the ACLU of Nebraska, said anyone opposed should try to set aside time with lawmakers to explain their concerns. From his perspective, Friedman argued policymakers should know other matters need attention.
"Getting folks to realize they're there to make Nebraska a better place for everyone and focus on the issues that need to be dealt with," Friedman urged. "Not kind of these 'fringe' issues that are being blown out of proportion across the country."
With Nebraska's budget on shaky ground and the need to address affordable housing gaps, he said advocates can pinpoint a number of topics they want lawmakers to look at instead. Polls show most Americans oppose transgender restrictions but Republicans' recent campaign messages have found some captive audiences. Backers of the bills said their mission is to protect students and families.
The ACLU is part of a coalition including OutNebraska, serving as a guide for LGBTQ+ individuals navigating a divisive political environment. Friedman emphasized local government is an avenue to push for protections if state and federal lawmakers are not showing a collective interest in advancing the rights of the LGBTQ+ population.
"The three areas in which you tend to see your city protections are going to be workplace, housing and public accommodations," Friedman outlined.
Friedman added they have found some allies among faith leaders willing to push for unity as marginalized communities fall under the political spotlight. Groups like the Trevor Project said bills deemed hostile toward LGBTQ+ populations can have a damaging effect on the mental health of community members.
Disclosure: OutNebraska contributes to our fund for reporting on LGBTQIA Issues, Reproductive Health, and Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A coalition of New Mexico groups is supporting a bill this session to require "Comprehensive Human Sexuality Education" for public school students.
New Mexico is among 40 states to require sex-education instruction but according to Planned Parenthood, there is no guarantee the instruction is high quality or covers topics young people need to stay healthy, including information about HIV.
Nathan Saavedra, program manager for Equality New Mexico, said Senate Bill 258 would require sex education curricula is medically accurate.
"Our hope mostly is to save lives," Saavedra emphasized. "We know that sex education does save lives and it improves the health of all youth. It decreases bullying and harassment. Sex education is harm reduction, from our perspective."
In addition to Equality New Mexico, the state's ACLU organization and the New Mexico Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs support the more comprehensive approach. By contrast, last fall the Florida Department of Education ordered local school districts teaching sex education to promote abstinence and exclude discussion of contraception.
Saavedra noted many students, including those who are LGBTQ+, do not know what they should be doing to protect themselves and would benefit from discussions covering sexual orientation and gender identity.
"We're trying to get the point across and the law in place so those students no longer have to feel less than, or know less than, their peers," Saavedra stressed.
New Mexico's current standards for sex education surpass many other states but access is often dependent on where a student lives. As written, the bill would provide resources to rural and smaller districts to launch comprehensive programs. The proposed legislation still would allow parents to exempt their children from the sex-ed portion of required health courses.
Disclosure: Equality New Mexico contributes to our fund for reporting on Civil Rights, Human Rights/Racial Justice, LGBTQIA Issues, and Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Montana lawmakers are considering three bills on gender. They are all versions of previous bills, which either failed or were struck down in court, but some new drafts have higher stakes.
Two bills would determine if or how transgender people can use certain bathrooms and changing rooms and participate in school sports. A third seeks to prohibit access to gender-affirming health care and to criminalize doctors and parents who, according to the bill, "knowingly procure or provide" such care.
Zuri Moreno, state legislative director for the advocacy group Forward Montana, said some lawmakers have described transgender people as "out of compliance."
"It's an overreach of our government to try to force people across our communities to comply with what they think is correct gender presentation," Moreno argued.
Proponents said the bills would "prevent harassment" and protect the "welfare of children." Moreno countered the proposition that lawmakers should have a say in families' private medical decisions or they understand athletes' needs more than teachers and coaches, is a dangerous one.
The bills parallel a January executive order from President Donald Trump defining "sex" and directs federal agencies to rescind materials discussing "gender ideology." Moreno pointed out organizers across Montana have been preparing for the state bills.
"The governor, in his State of the State, did direct the legislature to get these types of bills to his desk," Moreno noted. "But I think it's important for everyone to remember that our legislature doesn't work for the governor. They work for their constituents."
Legislators have referred all three bills to committee after hearings last week. Moreno stressed regardless of the fate of the bills, debates on them are harmful. Among LGBTQ+ youth, 90% said their well-being has been negatively affected by recent politics, according to a 2024 survey from The Trevor Project.
Disclosure: Forward Montana contributes to our fund for reporting on Civic Engagement, LGBTQIA Issues, Reproductive Health, and Youth Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Opening arguments begin today in a lawsuit challenging North Dakota's ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth.
The case stems from a law change the state legislature approved in 2023, mirroring action in other conservative-led states.
With some exceptions, the ban brings criminal penalties against doctors if they provide care, like puberty blockers, to transgender people under the age of 18.
Brittany Stewart senior staff attorney with the legal non-profit Gender Justice, which represents the plaintiffs. She said these laws prevent families from seeking critical healthcare for their child.
"Young people who are dealing with gender dysphoria, which is a legitimate medical condition recognized by all the medical associations," said Stewart, "this is the care that helps alleviate symptoms, and those symptoms include extreme anxiety and depression."
Her organization reports families having to drive up to seven hours for doctor appointments.
Republicans behind the ban argue they're trying to protect children, noting young people aren't mature enough for these decisions.
But ban opponents say parents and doctors are heavily involved in discussing the lengthy process, and that gender-affirming surgery is rare for minors.
A separate legal challenge out of Tennessee is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. And Stewart noted that the courts have frowned on similar laws in a neighboring state.
"The Montana Supreme Court just upheld the injunction that is halting their gender-affirming care ban," said Stewart. "And they did find that the ban violated that individual right to personal autonomy."
Testimony in the North Dakota trial is expected to last a little more than a week. Since it's a bench trial with no jury, Stewart said it'll likely take several months for the judge to decide the outcome.
Meanwhile, an opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case is expected this summer.
get more stories like this via email