Florida governor shows signs of changing views on gay adoption ban



(Florida) While answering reporter questions in Tallahassee, Florida Governor Charlie Crist indicated that he might consider legislation to change a law that prevents same sex couples from adopting.

When questioned whether he would support changes to the law, Gov. Crist told reporters, “I’d have to think about it.”

Three hours later, however, Gov. Crist reaffirmed his support for “traditional families” only to adopt while speaking at an event in Jacksonville as a part of his statewide tour for “Explore Adoption Day.”

In 1977, Florida passed a law that made it the only state in the country to ban gay adaption. The American Civil Liberties Union is currently suing to have the law overturned. ACLU and other groups believe that preventing gay adoption prevents some children from being adopted.

“Excluding a class of people is harmful to children, particularly those in our state who have had gay foster parents,” ACLU spokesman Larry Spalding told The Associated Press.

Law Extends Parental Rights for Gays

Washington Post – D.C. WIRE

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Lesbians in the District no longer will need the written consent of their partners to adopt children born to their partners through artificial insemination, under a new law that took effect Saturday.

The name of a consenting spouse or unmarried partner will appear on the child’s birth certificate as the legal parent, a status that previously had to be obtained by same-sex parents through a complicated adoption process.

The Domestic Partnership Judicial Determination Parentage Act of 2009 puts the city out front when it comes to children born of same-sex parents, according to the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington (GLAA) and American University law professor Nancy Polikoff.

“With the enactment of this measure, the District has become the first jurisdiction in the country to enact a statute specifically providing children born through artificial insemination with two legal parents from the beginning even when those parents are a same-sex or different-sex unmarried couple. A similar law goes into effect January 1, 2010, in New Mexico,” according to a news release the groups issued today.

“A mother should not have to adopt her own child,” said Polikoff, who helped draft the legislation that was shepherded by D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large). “When a heterosexual married couple uses artificial insemination to have a child, the husband does not have to adopt the child born to his wife. He is the child’s legal parent automatically. Now the child of a lesbian couple will have the same economic and emotional security accorded the children of heterosexual married couples who use artificial insemination.”

The enactment of the law follows a new law that recognizes same-sex couples married elsewhere as legally married in the District. The D.C. Council is expected to legalize gay marriage in the city later this year after legislation is introduced.

— Nikita Stewart

Senate Votes to Expand Federal Hate Crimes Laws

New York Times,
July 17, 2009

Filed at 7:43 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — People attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender would receive federal protections under a Senate-approved measure that significantly expands the reach of hate crimes law.

The Senate bill also would make it easier for federal prosecutors to step in when state or local authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue hate crimes.

”The Senate made a strong statement this evening that hate crimes have no place in America,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said after the chamber voted Thursday to attach the legislation as an amendment to a $680 billion defense spending bill expected to be completed next week.

The House in April approved a similar bill and President Barack Obama has urged Congress to send him hate crimes legislation, presenting the best scenario for the measure to become law since Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., first introduced it more than a decade ago.

Republicans will have the opportunity to propose several more changes to the hate crimes bill on Monday, but that will not change its status as part of the must-pass defense bill.

Passage of the bill would effect the most significant extension of hate crimes law since Congress first acted in 1968 after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

The 1968 law defines hate crimes as those carried out on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. It also limits federal involvement to when the victim is engaged in a narrow range of activities, including attending a public school, serving as a juror or participating in an event administered by a state or local government.

The proposed legislation expands federal hate crimes to include those perpetrated against people because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also removes restrictions on federally protected activities.

”There is no room in our society for these acts of prejudice,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. ”Hate crimes fragment and isolate our communities. They tear at our collective spirit.”

Some 45 states have hate crime statutes, and investigations and prosecutions would remain mainly in state and local hands. But the bill provides federal grants to help state and local officials with the costs of prosecuting hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles. The federal government can step in after the Justice Department certifies that a state does not have jurisdiction or is unable to carry out justice.

Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights group, said it ”will provide police and sheriff’s departments with the tools and resources they need to ensure that entire communities are not terrorized by hate violence.”

The Senate approved the measure by voice vote after a 63-28 procedural vote was needed to allow its consideration as part of the defense bill. The 28 no votes were all Republicans. Five Republicans voted for it, giving supporters the 60 votes they needed.

Opponents of the bill, including conservative religious groups, argued that it infringes on states’ rights and could intimidate free speech.

”The bill could potentially imperil the free speech rights of Christians who choose to speak out against homosexuality — which could even be extended to preaching against it,” The Christian Coalition of America said in a statement.

Supporters countered that prosecutions under the bill can occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality, even if their statements are followed by another person committing a violent action.

To emphasize the point, the Senate passed provisions restating that the bill does not prohibit constitutionally protected speech and that free speech is guaranteed unless it is intended to plan or prepare for an act of violence.

The bill is named for Matthew Shephard, a gay Wyoming college student who was murdered in 1968.

The FBI receives reports of nearly 8,000 hate crimes each year. Of those, about 15 percent are linked to sexual orientation, which ranks third after those involving race and religion.

——

The Senate hate crimes bill is S. 909.

NEA calls for LGBT rights

By Jennifer Vanasco, editor in chief, 365gay.com
07.08.2009 9:25am EDT

(Washington) The National Education Association adopted two resolutions calling for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights at its annual conference last week.

The resolutions say that the organization opposes the “discriminatory treatment of same-sex couples and its belief that such couples should have the same legal rights and benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples.” They also call for the “passage of a federal statute prohibiting federal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.” The NEA also committed itself to supporting the enactment of LGBT equality at local, state and federal levels.

The NEA falls short of asking for gay marriage – instead, it says:

“NEA does not believe that a single term must be used to designate this legally recognized “equal treatment” relationship, and recommends that each state decide for itself whether “marriage,” “civil union,” “domestic partnership,” or some other term is most appropriate based upon the cultural, social, and religious values of its citizenry.”

The National Education Association is the nation’s largest professional employee organization with over 3.2 million members. Members work at every level of education — from pre-school to university graduate programs.

Designated beneficiaries in Colorado

July 1, 2009

Today marks the first day that unmarried or same sex couples can file to be designated beneficiaries in the state of Colorado. Thanks to our legislature and governor, we can now receive a number of important rights to grant to the person of our choice including:

Property transfer

Designated beneficiary for life insurance, trusts, pension plans,and retirement plans

Hospital visitation

Medical decisions

Organ donations

Workman’s comp benefits.

Coloradoans should immediately take advatage of this. The steps to do so cost nothing. Go to designatedbeneficiaries.org, print out the form, get it signed and notarized, and then file it with the county clerk and recorder’s office. Just like that you’ve got State of Colorado protected rights!

Thanks to all the state legislators for their hard work and to Governor Ritter for signing this important piece of legislation.

Indian Court Overturns Gay Sex Ban

July 3, 2009, New York Times

NEW DELHI —In a landmark ruling Thursday that could usher in an era of greater freedom for gay men and lesbians in India, New Delhi’s highest court decriminalized homosexuality.

“The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognizing a role in society for everyone,” judges of the Delhi High Court wrote in a 105-page decision, India’s first to directly address rights for gay men and lesbians. “Those perceived by the majority as ‘deviants’ or ‘different’ are not on that score excluded or ostracized,” the decision said.

Homosexuality has been illegal in India since 1861, when British rulers codified a law prohibiting “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.” The law, known as Section 377 of India’s penal code, has long been viewed as an archaic holdover from colonialism by its detractors.

“Clearly, we are all thrilled,” said Anjali Gopalan, the executive director and founder of the Naz Foundation, an AIDS awareness group that sued to have Section 377 changed.

“It is a first major step,” Ms. Gopalan said during a news conference in Delhi, but “there are many more battles.”

Thursday’s decision applies only in the territory of India’s capital city, but it is likely to force India’s government either to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or change the law nationwide, lawyers and advocates said.

Outside the hall where the Naz Foundation news conference was held, dozens of young men and women gathered to celebrate, along with a group of hijras, men who dress and act like women who classify themselves as belonging to neither gender. “It is a victory of human rights, not just of gay rights,” said one 22-year-old man who only identified himself as Manish.

Gay men and women have rarely been prosecuted under Section 377 in India in modern times, but it has been used to harass, blackmail and jail people.

Britain legalized homosexuality in England and Wales in 1967, but many of its former colonies, including Singapore, Zimbabwe and Malaysia, still retain strict laws against same-sex relations.

India’s society is generally unwelcoming of homosexuality except in the most cosmopolitan circles. It is not uncommon for gay men and women to marry heterosexuals and have families, while carrying on secret relationships with members of the same sex.

In their decision, Chief Justice A. P. Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar declared Section 377, as it pertains to consensual sex among people above the age of 18, in violation of important parts of India’s Constitution. “Consensual sex amongst adults is legal, which includes even gay sex and sex among the same sexes,” they said.

The old law violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees all people “equality before the law;” Article 15, which prohibits discrimination “on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth;” and Article 21, which guarantees “protection of life and personal liberty,” the judges said.

Acceptance of homosexuality has thawed somewhat in recent years in some urban areas. Gay pride parades in Indian cities last weekend attracted thousands of marchers, and several recent Bollywood movies, like “Dostana,” have included gay themes and characters, often played by Bollywood’s biggest heterosexual stars.

Still, the decision was condemned from many corners in India. “This is wrong,” said Maulana Abdul Khaliq Madrasi, a vice chancellor of Dar ul-Uloom, the main university for Islamic education in India. The decision to bring Western culture to India, he said, will “corrupt Indian boys and girls.”

The High Court’s decision should be overturned, said Murli Manohar Joshi, the leader of the main opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. “The High Court cannot decide all things,” he said.

The ruling comes after a decade-long, broad-based campaign organized by gay rights advocates, authors, celebrities, lawyers and AIDS awareness groups from around the world. India has one of the world’s largest populations of people with AIDS, and Section 377 was viewed by many advocates as a hurdle to education about safer sex.

Now that the High Court has ruled against Section 377, some say the next step is a change in the way that society views gay people.

“The real problem is still the stigma attached,” especially outside big cities, said Ritu Dalmia, one of India’s best-known chefs, who lives with her girlfriend in New Delhi.

Change particularly needs to happen in rural India, she said in an e-mail message Thursday afternoon. “I have met women who were forced to sleep with men so that they could be ‘cured’ of homosexuality,” she said.

“Today is a historical moment where at least some tiny steps have been taken, but there is still a very, very long road ahead,” she said.

New York State Allows Payment for Egg Donations for Research

June 26, 2009, New York TImes

Stem cell researchers in New York can now use public money to pay women who give their eggs for research, a decision that has opened new possibilities for science but raised concern among some bioethicists and opponents of such research.

The decision by the Empire State Stem Cell Board, announced two weeks ago, is believed by the board to be the first in the country allowing state research money to be used for this purpose. The board agreed that women can receive up to $10,000 for donating eggs, a painful and sometimes risky process.

Until now, researchers have relied on unused embryos from in vitro fertilization, as well as reprogrammed skin cells, for their work. Eggs, which offer other avenues for research, have proved more difficult to obtain.

Proponents say compensating women for their eggs is necessary for research, and point out that women who give their eggs for fertility purposes are already paid. Others worry that the practice will commodify the human body and lead to the exploitation of women in financial need.

“What we’re doing is making it in some ways more reasonable for women who are interested in donating for research to do so,” said Dr. Robert Klitzman, director of the new master’s degree program in bioethics at Columbia University and a member of the stem cell board’s ethics committee. “And at the same time, the goal is to move the science ahead, but we don’t want to just move science ahead regardless of people’s rights.” The board’s ethics and finance committees voted to approve compensation.

National Academy of Science guidelines prohibit paying women for eggs used in stem cell research, but researchers say recruiting unpaid donors has been unsuccessful.

“There are many questions you can only answer by studying human eggs,” said Dr. George Q. Daley, a stem cell researcher at Harvard and at Children’s Hospital Boston. “I think it’s a gold step for New York State, and it will mean a tremendous advantage for New York.”

Dr. Daley’s research has so far used poor-quality eggs discarded after in vitro fertilization, a process he said has yielded modest returns but no stem cells.

However, Dr. Daley said, concerns that payment alone could induce women to give eggs were valid.

In New York, payments will be carefully evaluated by an institutional review board, Dr. Klitzman said. But that safeguard did not assuage the concerns of some critics that money, and not altruism, would motivate women to give their eggs.

“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that this is going to create a kind of undue inducement, a scenario in which a person can feel unduly compelled to take advantage of a situation,” said the Rev. Thomas Berg, director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, a Roman Catholic research group, and the only member of the stem cell ethics committee to vote against compensation.

Stem cells, the origin of all cells in the human body, have the potential to transform medicine by providing new ways to treat diseases and disorders that include cancer, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases and paralysis. But because stem cell research often involves human embryos, its financing has been a source of controversy for more than a decade. Congress bans the use of tax dollars for any research that results in the destruction of human embryos. In March, President Obama removed restrictions on federally financed stem cell research, but the Congressional restrictions are still in place.

States responded to the federal financing restrictions by pledging money of their own, including $600 million from the New York Legislature in 2007 for an 11-year stem cell research plan. Scientists say the New York board’s decision to permit compensation, reported online Thursday by The Washington Post, is likely to give the state an advantage.

Father Berg, who opposes stem cell research and in vitro fertilization, said he had found “strange bedfellows” in bioethicists who share his concern. Among them is Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, who said he feared that compensation would lead poor women to ignore the risks egg donation can pose.

“The image of women having their eggs harvested in a market is one that the industry is going to find difficult to destigmatize,” he said. “That notion of being treated as an object to derive those kinds of materials is not one that will sit well.”

The internal guidelines of some New York stem cell research centers, including Rockefeller University, Cornell University and the Sloan-Kettering Institute, prohibit paying for eggs. But for researchers without those prohibitions, it opens possibilities, said Susan Solomon, founder and chief executive of the New York Stem Cell Foundation.

“If you’re donating oocytes, there is time and burden,” Ms. Solomon said. “And in our society, we compensate for time and burden.”

IVF Savings: Consider Shared Egg Donation

By Eleni Himaras

Would-be parents who want to work with an egg donor, but who don’t have the $30,000 or so in-vitro fertilization costs, have some hope. Many fertility centers give their recipient patients the option of splitting the cost of receiving an egg donation with another couple.

“It’s really great for the younger patients who haven’t had a chance to really acquire any finances,” says Dr. Bruce Rose of Infertility Solutions, P.C., a clinic in Allentown, Pa.”It gives them the chance to have a child not otherwise possible.”

Sharing Means Saving
This process can save patients up to 50% of the costs in this step in the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) process. In some cases what could typically cost $30,000 to $40,000 can come down in price to $15,000.

Other fertility treatment discounts are available, too. Dr. Carlos E. Soto-Albors, senior partner at the Northern California Fertility Medical Center in Roseville, Calif., is making IVF more affordable for patients by decreasing the cost each time they have the procedure, whether it is because they did not conceive the first time or because they want a second child.

“If they wait a year or two [to save additional monies for a second child] it will hurt their chance of getting pregnant,” he says.

Even With Fewer Eggs, Success Rates Are Similar
According to Soto-Albors, the most obvious drawback of sharing an egg donor is that each couple only gets half of the total oocytes.
Typically, when eggs are harvested, doctors will pick the healthiest two or three to turn into zygotes and implant into the mother. In a single-donor program, that can leave up to 10 eggs that can be frozen for use in the future if the procedure was unsuccessful or they want a second child.

But Soto-Albors says couples who share have a comparable conception rate as with those who do not share an egg donor.

“In 2008, we did 39 embryo transfers on the non-shared and 25 of those got pregnant,” he says. “That comes out to 64%.”

In the shared program, they implanted 11 women and seven got pregnant. That’s an identical 64% success rate.

At Soto-Albors’s practice, patients in the non-shared program pay $24,725, and those in the shared pay $16,775, but these numbers vary by clinic.

“When we started it years ago, I was expecting the success rate of the shared program to be smaller,” says Soto-Albors. But in the 10 years he’s been offering the program, the rates have only differed by, at most, 5%.

Fla. Bar support in gay adoption case upheld

(Tallahassee, Fl.)  The state Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the Florida Bar’s right to oppose the state’s ban on gay adoption.

Liberty Counsel, a faith-based legal group, had asked the high court to prohibit the bar’s Family Law Section from filing a friend of the court brief in an appellate court that was considering Florida’s ban of adoptions by homosexuals. The justices ruled 5-2 in the case on Thursday.

The bar brief supported a trial judge’s ruling that declared the ban unconstitutional. That decision is on appeal to the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Miami.

The high court majority ruled Liberty Counsel failed to show the brief violated its constitutional rights or that the bar broke its own rules.

Introducing the Family Leave Insurance Act 2009

Source: Proud Parenting

The Family Leave Insurance Act of 2009 [H.R. 1723], introduced on March 25 by four House Democrats, would amend the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide up to 12 weeks of paid leave benefits to workers who need to care for an ill family member or new child, or to treat their own illness. Along with its paid leave provisions, which CCH says drew the most attention, H.R. 1723 also would amend the Act to grant FMLA leave to employees who need to care for an ill domestic partner or the child of a domestic partner – thereby affording the protections of the FMLA to GLBT employees.

Currently, the FMLA does not require employers to provide leave to care for a same-sex partner or spouse, because federal law does not recognize same-sex relationships. In addition, it is unclear whether, in every instance, the FMLA would cover the child of a same-sex partner or spouse if the employee is not the child’s legal parent. Employers are not mandated by the FMLA to provide an employee leave for the birth and care of a child to which an employee is not a legal parent unless a local court determines it to be so.