South Dakota's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth is scheduled to go into effect on July 1.

But opponents are looking into what the future holds for the policy after a similar law in Arkansas suffered a legal defeat. This week, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against the Arkansas law, the first state to ban such care. Earlier this year, South Dakota joined other conservative-led states in adopting their own bans.

Samantha Chapman, advocacy manager for the ACLU of South Dakota, said the court's decision is significant.

"This is officially setting a precedent for laws that have passed across the country," Chapman contended. "Similar to the one here in South Dakota."

Chapman pointed out many of the laws have similar language, due to the coordination of special-interest groups pushing Republican lawmakers to pass them. Opponents of gender-affirming care contend it is too risky for minors, arguing they might regret the decision. But several key medical groups say the care is essential.

The judge said Arkansas' ban violated the constitutional rights of transgender youth, and noted lawmakers who pushed for the passage of Arkansas' law relied on testimony "grounded in ideology and not science." Chapman feels the same can be said for what happened in South Dakota.

"Constituents should be asking their lawmakers why they passed this reckless and costly legislation," Chapman stressed.

She warned the legal bills for Arkansas have piled up since the state has been defending the law in court, noting the same could happen for South Dakota if a lawsuit is filed. The regional ACLU is still reviewing the decision, and said it cannot assess any potential action yet in South Dakota. Meanwhile, Arkansas officials say they plan to file an appeal.


get more stories like this via email

Hate crimes against members of the LGBTQ+ community have risen for the second year in a row, according to the latest "State of Pride" report from the California Department of Justice.

Between 2022 and 2023, the report showed hate crimes motivated by anti-LGBTQ bias increased more than 86% across the state.

Toni Newman, chair of the nonprofit Trans Can Work, explained the importance of finding solutions.

"The death of trans women in the United States remains a critical issue highlighting racism, transphobia, and systemic violence," Newman emphasized. "(For) transgender women, particularly those of color, there's disproportionately high rates of violence."

So far in 2024, the Human Rights Campaign has tracked 20 violent deaths of transgender and gender-expansive people, about half at the hands of intimate partners. It said 70% were people of color, and 35% were Black transgender women.

Becky Monroe, deputy director of strategic initiatives and external affairs for the California Civil Rights Department, wants victims to know they can call the new hotline at 833-8-NO-HATE or go to the website CAvsHate.org.

"We provide services in over 200 languages if people call," Monroe explained. "If you go on our website, we have a statewide network made up of hundreds of community-based organizations that are able to serve."

California versus Hate connects callers with trauma-informed counselors. Monroe added they can refer victims to law enforcement upon request.


get more stories like this via email

By Eduardo Miranda Strobel / Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi reporting for the Kent State NewsLab-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

Concerns of transgender Ohioans and advocates have heightened since the passage of the "Bathroom Bill" last month.

TransOhio condemned HB 183, which passed as an amendment to an unrelated bill on June 26.

"Hate mongers in Columbus want to see trans and gender nonconforming Ohioans stripped of their right to exist in public spaces," said Dara Adkison, executive director of TransOhio, in a press release issued after the vote. "They can make our lives harder, but they can't make us not a part of this state."

If the bill becomes law, it would have tangible consequences for Ohio's trans students.

"I started testosterone just about two months ago now, so I plan on using the men's restroom and stuff at school, and HB 183 would make it quite literally illegal for that to happen, which is not fun," said Robin Baradarvar, a sophomore at Centennial High School in Columbus.

Sponsored by Rep. Adam Bird (R-New Richmond) and Rep. Beth Lear (R-Galena), HB 183 would require trans students in Ohio K-12 schools and colleges to utilize bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their assigned genders at birth.

The bill, also called the Protect All Students Act, passed out of the Ohio House Higher Education Committee with a 10-5 vote on April 10. It was awaiting further consideration until HB 183 was added as an amendment to SB 104, a revision to the College Credit Plus Program, which allows students in grades 7 through 12 to earn college credits. The amended College Credit Plus bill passed by a 60-31 vote, mostly along party lines.

The Ohio Channel recorded the debate on the House floor.

"Our schools are places to provide academic instruction and protection for all kids," Lear said during the debate. "No young girl who's uncomfortable with her body and thinks that she might be a boy is safe going into a boys' locker room or bathroom. She's just not. And it's up to us to make the choices to do what's best for all kids because this will protect all of them."

Rep. Jena Powell (R-Arcanum) urged others to vote yes on the amendment.

"I hope that my little boy one day is going to grow up in a world where he does not have to think, wow, is a girl, or is a boy going to come in my bathroom? And they have a safe space in the state of Ohio," Powell said during the debate.

Bird's proposal was met with opposition from Democrats.

"It is when students know that they belong in their communities that they are best able to learn and reach their full potential," Rep. Beryl Piccolantonio (D-Gahanna) said during the debate. "This bill actually makes life more difficult, even for school district staff who are already under immense pressure and stress. The language that is in this bill is overbroad and is unclear, and there's no funding provided for any building modifications that would be required."

Rep. Joseph Miller (D-Amherst) said he was disappointed Ohioans are putting efforts into shaming trans children and young adults for wanting to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.

"I would say that 183 is problematic because of that, it doesn't protect all students and their rights to use a facility that recognizes their gender," Miller said in an interview before the vote.

HB 183 would also restrict students from using overnight accommodations with those of a different gender.

It would not restrict cases of assistance of young children and people with disabilities or emergencies in bathrooms and locker rooms.

"Trans kids just want to go to the bathroom and pee," Adkison said in an interview. "It would be great if our legislators were more focused on their education and less what their genitals are."

Both sponsors of HB 183, Reps. Bird and Lear, were contacted but did not make themselves available for an interview.

Eight percent of the trans population 13 and older live in states that ban them from using bathrooms and facilities that align with their gender identity in every government-owned space, including K-12 schools, colleges, and more. This includes trans people living in Florida and Utah.

Ten other states have implemented restroom bans of some kind.

For androgynous people, there can be conflict in the bathrooms between girls thinking they are too masculine or boys thinking they are too feminine, Baradarvar said.

"It's a very scary thing being a trans person," Baradarvar said. "Especially if they don't have a single-sex bathroom, which isn't very common in schools right now, or at least high schools. So, it's kind of traumatizing."

The Senate is expected to vote on the amended bill after returning from summer break. If it passes there, the bill will then be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine.


This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

Twenty years after Massachusetts became the first state to permit marriage equality, a majority of same-sex married couples say it had a profound positive impact on their lives. A new report finds it strengthened couples' relationships, provided legal protections, financial security and greater acceptance among family and friends.

Abbie Goldberg, Clark University psychology professor, said marriage equality is part of a public health agenda.

"They have access to health insurance. They are physically and mentally healthier. They're able to share the sort of challenges and work of raising children," Goldberg said.

Still, Goldberg noted nearly 80% of couples surveyed worry about the future of marriage equality. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have both suggested the high court revisit Obergefell v. Hodges - the decision that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015.

The report reveals same-sex married couples are also concerned about what they consider to be an increasingly hostile environment in the United States. More than 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced since last year - including bans on classroom conversations or books about LGBTQ+ people.

Concerns are forcing couples nationwide to consider relocating to more-friendly states, including Massachusetts, or even out of the country, Goldberg said.

"It's creating not just legal uncertainty but propelling them to think about the future in ways that require time, money, planning," she continued.

Goldberg added marriage equality created families, and the report reveals the positives to ensuring people are protected. Almost 60% of participants said marriage provided more stability or security for their children, and often created new in-laws, who could help.


get more stories like this via email