The Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence is taking part in a meeting with a U.S. health official this week to discuss ways to make the state safer against gender-based violence.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Assistant Secretary of Health, Admiral Rachel Levine, will be in Boise on Friday for a roundtable as the state legislative session gets underway.

Idaho lawmakers have restricted rights for transgender and gender-expansive people in recent sessions, including a bill passed last year banning gender-affirming care for young people. Levine called it a concerning development.

"Like all Americans, transgender people need to be able to access care from their health care providers for any health challenge or any condition," Levine explained. "As well as primary care and preventative care, but also gender-affirming care, and that's youth and adults."

Idaho is one of 22 states to ban gender-affirming care for minors. Levine is touring the country to assess the mental and behavioral health of members of LGBTQIA+ communities. She is the first openly transgender official confirmed to an executive branch position.

Levine emphasized restricting health care for transgender people is harmful and unscientific.

"There is certainly a compelling body of evidence established over a number of decades that transgender medicine is standard-of-care medicine," Levine pointed out. "Transgender medicine is physical health care, but it is also mental health care and in circumstances, it's literally suicide prevention care."

A host of attendees will be at the meeting, including representatives from the ACLU, City of Boise, health organizations and local churches.

The Pentagon will begin removing transgender troops from the military after the Supreme Court ruled last week that a ban could be enforced as lawsuits progress.

In January, President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning transgender people from serving. As the Pentagon put the policy in place, it faced a number of legal challenges.

Navy veteran Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America, said the court's decision has left many transgender service members in Maryland in a difficult situation.

"People are worried about what comes next, where they're going to live, what their health care situation is going to be, how they're going to be employed, how quickly they're going to be purged from the military," said Church. "And all of these things are also happening at the same time that they're still wearing the uniform and continuing to carry out their jobs, whether that be here or on deployment. They're taking care of our nation and they're also wondering if they're going to have a job."

In the executive order, Trump wrote that transgender people lack the "humility and selflessness" to serve in the military.

At an event last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also said the military is done with pronouns.

Some estimates put the number of transgender service members at higher than 15,000, just under 1% of troops.

Opponents of the ban say nearly 75% of transgender troops have served for more than a decade, adding transgender people are twice as likely to have served in the military.

Church said that if the Pentagon wants to have a lethal and effective military, then transgender participation is necessary.

"You're looking at many, many, many years and a lot of investment that's going to be lost by the Department of Defense in the interest of bias," said Church. "Most of this policy has been continued to proved to be rooted in animus and bias, and not in actual benefits to our national security."

A Gallup poll in February found 58% of Americans support allowing transgender people to openly serve in the military.

That's a drop from 71% in 2019, largely driven by declining support among Republicans.




get more stories like this via email

LGBTQ+ advocates in South Dakota are reeling from passage of another state law they said harms their community. Now, there is concern possible changes to the federal budget could eliminate a tool that provides a sympathetic ear.

The Trump administration's emerging federal spending plan includes possible cuts to funds that cover a specialized service under the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. The specific feature gets routed calls from LGBTQ+ youth who have expressed suicidal ideation.

There are unknowns about what service disruptions would look like. But in a worst-case scenario, Rachel Polan, president of Sioux Falls Pride, said not having someone on the line who understands them would be a blow.

"Some of these kids don't have any supportive voices in their life," Polan observed. "They are exploring an identity that maybe they came out and were rejected by family or friends in their area."

The Trevor Project found LGBTQ+ youth are four times as likely to attempt suicide than their peers. The group is among those reporting the White House's plans following a leaked memo. The Health and Human Services agency is undergoing a major reorganization officials say aligns with the vision of its new Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The specialized 988 service has logged more than 1.2 million crisis contacts since its launch.

The news comes several weeks after South Dakota's governor signed a bill to prohibit trans students from using communal facilities at public schools matching their gender identity. The governor said it represents freedom from a "woke" agenda.

Polan countered affected youth might feel even more isolated as a result, and potentially losing easier access to a trained voice to hear them out could make things even worse.

"Especially in our rural areas in South Dakota where counseling services might not be acceptable for some of these youth, acceptable or accessible," Polan explained. "I could definitely see more tragedies, self-harm, suicidal behaviors, and unfortunately, more deaths could occur."

Advocates stressed it is even more important to maintain the crisis service for this population. Congress does have a say in the next budget and it is unclear how the administration's push for cutting discretionary funds will play out when those talks ramp up toward the Oct. 1 deadline.


get more stories like this via email

Anyone who uses a cell phone or laptop shares hundreds of personal data points, and a New Mexico advocacy group wants that information better protected.

Nathan Saavedra, programs manager for Equality New Mexico, said personal information such as gender, marital status, household income and educational level are catalogued by tech organizations and data brokers.

"We see data privacy as the primary gap that exists, especially in New Mexico, for protecting all people," he said. "And this is especially true for LGBTQ folks, women or anyone who is seeking reproductive or gender-affirming health care, immigrants, political dissidents."

Two privacy bills introduced in New Mexico's legislative session this year - the Community Safety and Privacy Act and the Patient Records Privacy Act - failed to pass. Saavedra said he believes when it comes to sharing data, consumers should always have the ability to "opt-in" rather than "opt-out," which assumes consent for data gathering unless users actively decline.

Saavedra admitted that the term "data privacy" can be confusing, but he said the current political climate makes it important to understand because hostile agencies can use information to discriminate, harass and persecute people. He noted that at President Donald Trump's inauguration last year, the most exclusive seats were reserved for powerful tech CEOs, who also are among the world's richest men.

Saavedra said he sees it as a sign the Trump administration won't prioritize confidentiality.

"So, we see data privacy and the information that is viewable by these data brokers or any organization or even an individual who wishes to purchase or find this data is a main priority for protecting vulnerable New Mexicans," he said.

He added that Equality New Mexico will continue to push lawmakers to pass new data privacy laws.

A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found 71% of Americans were worried about government use of people's data. Additionally, 67% said they understand little to nothing about what companies are doing with their personal data.