Latest news with #HouseBill778
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
LGBTQAI advocates protest Texas House bills targeting transgender rights
Equality Texas organized a rally on Friday with several advocacy partners to protest House Bill 229 and House Bill 778, which speakers argued would negatively impact the lives and freedoms of transgender Texans. House Bill 229, led by Rep. Ellen Troxclair, R-Borne, would require each government entity to only record the sex at birth of individuals, prohibiting such agencies from recognizing a transgender individual's gender identity or a person who identifies as "non-binary," meaning they do not identify as either male or female. Troxclair dubs it the "Women's Bill of Rights," saying the definition of sex needs to be clarified and codified to protect women, a common talking point to exclude transgender women. "We can't have women's rights if we don't even know what a woman is," she said in a Texas Public Policy Foundation video earlier this session. "We need to define what a woman is to bring clarity, certainty and uniformity in the way women are treated under Texas law." Of course, sex and gender can be far more complicated. The United Nations estimates that about 1.7% of the population is born with intersex traits, meaning sexual characteristics that "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies." Furthermore, the Williams Institute estimates about 1.6 million people over age 13 identify as transgender in the U.S. alone, including 92,900 adults in Texas. Major medical groups reject insurance exclusions or limitations on gender-affirming care, and all world health and major medical associations recognize transgender youth, according to GLAAD, an advocacy organization for LGBTQ rights. House Bill 778, led by Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, would put health insurance agencies on the line for "all possible adverse consequences" related to a gender transition and all follow-up appointments to monitor the patient's health. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: LGBTQ advocates rally against Texas House Bills 229, 778. Here's why
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
House considers bills aimed at transgender life, legal documents; advocates respond with rally
AUSTIN (KXAN) — The Texas House of Representatives will meet Friday to consider a number of bills, and could vote on two bills aimed at transgender life in Texas, according to the chamber's calendar for the day. House Bill 229 and House Bill 778 drew attention from a coalition of LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, who will rally Friday in opposition to the bills, according to a joint press release issued by Equality Texas on Thursday. The rally will include civil rights nonprofits and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, including: ACLU of Texas, Equality Texas, Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, Texas Freedom Network and the Transgender Education Network of Texas. HB 229 would mandate a gender binary and define it in Texas law. It would also require Texas governmental agencies to define every person as either male or female on records. 'The legislature finds that males and females possess unique immutable biological differences that manifest prior to birth and increase as individuals age and experience puberty,' the original bill reads, 'biological differences between the sexes mean that males are, on average, bigger, stronger, and faster than females … leav[ing] females more physically vulnerable than males to specific forms of violence, including sexual violence.' The bill does not include an exception for intersex Texans. 'Under HB229, all Texas agencies and Departments would be required to enforce a narrow definition of gender that excludes trans and intersex Texans,' wrote Equality Texas in the release. 'This would complicate the work of any department that uses such records, and would make ordinary daily life exceedingly complicated for trans people who would not be permitted to update their government documents.' When the House State Affairs committee heard the bill on April 25, 26 people spoke against the bill and 210 people registered their opposition. Six people testified in support and three others registered support, according to the Texas Legislature's website. According to the Legislative Budget Board, implementing HB 229 could cost the state $2.5 million in order to update computer systems at DSHS and the Texas Department of Public Safety. HB 778, filed in November 2024, was one of the earliest bills of the session, as KXAN previously reported. The bill would require health insurers who cover gender transition therapy, medications and surgeries to also cover treatment to 'manage, reconstruct from, or recover from' gender transition. Bill author Rep. Jeff Leach reported to the committee that 'individuals who have reversed their transition' told him that 'they chose to do so due to … adverse consequences,' according to the bill's analysis. 'HB 778 seeks to ensure adequate health care coverage and assistance to those individuals dealing with adverse effects from undergoing gender transition treatment or procedures or have decided to reverse their transition,' Leach's bill analysis states. While the bill appears to potentially increase coverage for transgender Texans by including hormone level tests and recovery from surgeries, opponents said they fear the bill would have a chilling effect on insurers. 'If implemented, HB778 would increase liability for any insurer that covers trans health care, making them responsible for infinite possible outcomes after such care. In practice, this would make trans care prohibitively expensive for most people, and would likely drive many insurers to drop coverage for such care,' Equality Texas said. The bill had a public hearing on April 2. Twelve people spoke in favor of the bill, with five other attendees registering their support; 14 people spoke in opposition, and 156 people registered as being against the bill, according to legislative records. If the bills pass in the House, they will head to the Texas Senate for consideration. If enacted into law, both bills would take effect on September 1. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New fight, old arguments: Senate, House panels debate contested circuit court elections
Maryland Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader testifies before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in support of legislation to get rid of contested elections for circuit court judge. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters) Maryland Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Fader and Carroll County Circuit Judge Maria L. Oesterreicher agree that the state's current system of choosing circuit court judges at the ballot box allows for the broadest possible pool of candidates. They disagree on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. That was the crux of arguments that stretched over several hours of testimony Wednesday, as Senate and House committees held back-to-back hearings on a proposed constitutional amendment to change the way circuit judges are selected. District and appellate judges in the state stand every 10 years for retention elections — voters give a thumbs up or down on whether the judge should continue on the bench. But circuit judges stand for election every 15 years, and when they do they can face challengers who file to run against them, just like candidates in any other political race. Critics say the system opens the door to unqualified candidates and forces sitting judges to act like partisan candidates instead of impartial jurists. 'This is a bill that is aimed at increasing public trust and confidence in the judiciary, minimizing perceived conflicts and ensuring that every judge in the state has been thoroughly vetted and found most fully qualified by a neutral panel before taking office,' Fader said to the Senate committee. But supporters say the system gives voters a full voice in the selection of judges, and that contested elections increase diversity on the bench by opening the door to candidates who are not part of the network of lawyers who nominate judges. Oesterreicher cites herself as a case in point. 'I remain the only female that has ever been placed on our circuit court,' Oesterreicher, who won in a 2018 election, said of the Carroll County bench. 'This [a proposed constitutional amendment] is not the proper way to fix the issue of judicial selections.' The hearings Wednesday before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on Senate Bill 630 and the House Judiciary Committee on House Bill 778 are the latest in a decades-long fight over contested circuit judge elections. More than 75 bills have been introduced since the 1980s to change the process, all unsuccessful so far. But the debate was renewed almost three years ago, when the Maryland Judicial Conference appointed a judicial work group to study the issue. After nearly two years of study, the group released a 63-page report last year which concluded that contested elections present ethical concerns and pose a risk to judges' safety in the current political atmosphere. It recommended doing away with the process and making circuit judges face retention elections every 10 years, like all other judges in the state. In both the House and Senate hearings, Maryland State Bar Association President Raphael Santini, a supporter of the bills, pointed to former Prince George's County Circuit Judge April Ademiluyi, who won the judgeship by unseating sitting Judge Jared M. McCarthy in the 2020 election. But by 2023, Ademiluyi had been charged with violating multiple provisions of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. After an investigation by the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities, the Maryland Supreme Court in May 2024 ordered Ademiluyi removed from the bench for engaging in 'egregious misconduct.' Critics of the current system said it allows candidates like Ademiluyi to bypass a vetting process by local commissions of lawyers. Those commissions review the credentials of would-be judges and recommend nominees to the governor, who makes the initial appointment of judges — with Senate confirmation — when there is a vacancy on the bench. Montgomery County Circuit Judge Kathleen Dumais, a state delegate for nearly two decades and co-chair of the judicial work group, said the commissions help make sure the governor receives a list of qualified candidates 'who reflect the community.' To make sure that nominees reflect their communities, former U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams Jr. — who co-chaired the work group with Dumais — said at the Senate hearing that the report recommends that vetting commissions seek input from the public and specialty bars. Those bars are associations of attorneys established by race, gender, legal specialty and sexual orientation. But hours later in the House hearing, Del. Aaron M. Kaufman (D-Montgomery) asked Claudia Barber, an opponent to the judicial bill, if she thinks the judicial nominating committees and the legal establishment 'is somewhat clubby.' 'Yes, it is clubby, and to a certain degree, it is also political,' said Barber, who ran unsuccessfully for an Anne Arundel County Circuit judgeship in 2016 and 2024. 'It's cliquish. It's all of that. Which is why oftentimes the best is not always chosen.' Rob Daniels, who ran an unsuccessful circuit court campaign last year in Baltimore County, testified that the judiciary still does not include anyone from the LGBTQ+ community. 'The impetus for this bill seems to be the false conclusion by the judicial selections work group that we've resolved the diversity issue so popular elections are no longer needed,' said Daniels, chair of the LGBTQ Bar Association. 'But the work group has moved the goal posts in the diversity fight by ignoring the dearth of LGBTQ judges in our state.' A few lawmakers asked whether it's a good idea to restrict voters' voices in the selection of circuit judges. 'Whenever we start having these discussions about taking away the public input and we leave it at the discretion of solely the governor…then the people that I represent aren't getting their fair input into the discussion,' said Sen. William G. Folden (R-Frederick). If the measure passes, the question would go to voters in the November 2026 election, to decide whether to amend the Maryland Constitution to make the change. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
