CDC Releases New Data on HIV Infections 2006-2009

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their latest analysis of HIV infections from 2006-2009 today. The full report (pdf) is available online. This is the first time the CDC has been able to estimate HIV infections from actual HIV test data, thanks to the passage of HIV names reporting legislation which has been enacted by several states (including California) in recent years. 2009 is the most recent year for which data is available so far.

A key excerpt from the press release:

According to the new estimates, there were 48,600 new HIV infections in the United States in 2006, 56,000 in 2007, 47,800 in 2008 and 48,100 in 2009.  The multi-year incidence estimates allow for a reliable examination of trends over time.  They reveal no statistically significant change in HIV incidence overall from 2006 to 2009, with an average of 50,000 for the four-year period.  In 2009, the largest number of new infections was among white MSM (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800).  Hispanic MSM (6,000) and black women (5,400) were also heavily affected.   

“While we’re encouraged that prevention efforts have helped avoid overall increases in HIV infections in the United States, and have significantly reduced new infections from the peak in the mid-1980s, we have plateaued at an unacceptably high level,” said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention.  “Without intensified HIV prevention efforts, we are likely to face an era of rising infection rates and higher health care costs for a preventable condition that already affects more than one million people in this country.”

Some of the key take-aways from the report are:

• Overall HIV incidence in the U.S. has been relatively stable, with approximately 50,000 annual new infections

• New infections among young men who have sex with men (MSM) increased 34% between 2006 and 1009

• Young, black MSM (aged 13-29) is the only subpopulation in the U.S. to experience a statistically significant increase from 2006 through 2009
• New HIV infections increased 48% – from 4,400 in 2006 to 6,500 in 2009

• The new data confirm that HIV continues to disproportionately affect MSM of all races/ethnicities
• MSM represent 2% of the total U.S. population, but accounted for 61% all new HIV infections in 2009
• Among MSM in 2009, white MSM represented the greatest number of new HIV infections (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800) and Hispanic MSM (6,000)
  

Read that line again: "MSM represent 2% of the total U.S. population, but accounted for 61% all new HIV infections in 2009." People who says HIV/AIDS is not a "gay" issue don't know what the heck they are talking about!

Obama Names 4th LGBT Judicial Nominee

Michael Fitzegerald becomes President Obama's

4th openly LGBT nominee to the federal judiciary

Wow! Just days after Paul Oetken became the first openly gay man was confirmed as a U.S. District Court judge to the Souther District of New York, President Obama has named a 4th openly LGBT individual to become a federal judge with lifetime appointment. He is Michael Fitzgerald and joins Ali Nathan, J. Paul Oetken and Ed Dumont as openly LGBT federal judicial nominees of the Obama administration. The Oetken nomination has passed the Senate, the Nathan nomination is on the floor and there is no scheduled action on the Dumont nomination planned.

Here's the press release from the White House on the Fitzgerald nomination:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 20, 2011

President Obama Nominates Michael Walter Fitzgerald to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama announced his nomination of Michael Walter Fitzgerald to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

"I am honored to nominate Michael Walter Fitzgerald to the United States District Court," President Obama said.  "His impressive career stands as a testament to his formidable intellect and integrity.  I am confident he will serve the people of California with distinction on the District Court bench."

Michael Walter Fitzgerald: Nominee for United States District Judge for the Central District of California

Michael Walter Fitzgerald has been a named partner at the law firm of Corbin, Fitzgerald & Athey LLP in Los Angeles, California since 1998, where he handles civil and criminal litigation in both federal and state courts.   Previously, he worked at the Law Offices of Robert L. Corbin PC from 1995 to 1998 and at the law firm of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe from 1991 to 1995.  Between 1988 and 1991, Fitzgerald served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Los Angeles.  Upon graduation from law school, he clerked for the Honorable Irving R. Kaufman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Fitzgerald received his J.D. in 1985 from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) and his A.B. magna cum laude in 1981 from Harvard University.

### 

US Applies Crack Sentencing Reform Retroactively

News you might have missed over the weekend: The U.S. Sentencing Commission has decided (unanimously!) to follow the lead of Congressional action in reducing the penalty disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1 (still not what it should be which is 1:1) and apply these lesser penalties retroactively to (primarily Black and Brown) people who are currently serving excessive time in jail for crimes involving crack:

The Los Angeles Times has the story:

About 12,000 federal prisoners nationwide may soon be going home, some as much as three years early, under a U.S. Sentencing Commission decision to allow retroactive reductions in prison terms for inmates convicted of crack cocaine offenses.
The commission voted unanimously Thursday to bring "unfairly long sentences" for crack offenders, mostly African Americans, more in line with the shorter terms given to powder cocaine offenders, often white and sometimes affluent.

Patti B. Saris, the panel's chairwoman, said that when Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act last year, it "recognized the fundamental unfairness of federal cocaine sentencing policy," and the commission sought to bridge the disparity between the two prison sentences.
"Justice demands this result," added Ketanji Brown Jackson, the commission's vice chairman.
When the reductions go into effect in November, the average crack sentence will be cut by about 37 months, and the federal Bureau of Prisoners said the reductions could save more than $200 million in the next five years. Nearly 6% of the federal inmate population would be released.
The reductions are not automatic. Prisoners must file a petition, and will be required to show they are no longer a risk to society. Inmates who used weapons in their crimes or have lengthy criminal histories may not be eligible.
The commission's mail, about 43,500 letters and emails, ran overwhelmingly in favor of the reductions. The Sentencing Project, a Washington group that pushes for reform in sentencing laws, also strongly encouraged approval of the reductions.
Kara Gotsch, director of advocacy for the Sentencing Project, said the panel's vote "confirms that fairness and equal treatment under the law are fundamental principles of our criminal justice system."
But Republicans, most notably Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, opposed the reductions. He had lobbied the commission not to grant the early releases, warning it "merely gets criminals back into action faster."

Good ol' boy Lamar Smith of Texas, always willing to stand up and demonstrate why people should never vote for Republicans. Thanks!

The main take-away is that this move is a move in the right direction towards adding some sanity to what is our insane "War on drugs" public policy.

UN Passes Historic Resolution On LGBT Rights

The United Nations has passed a landmark resolution acknowledging that LGBT rights are human rights. The  United Nations Human Rights Council has formally adopted the resolution I blogged about earlier by a vote of 23 in favor, 19 opposed and 3 abstentions (very close!).

The list of which countries voted which way is provied by TransGriot:

The UN resolution passed with 23 countries voting in favor, 19 countries against and 3 countries abstaining

The nations voting YES were: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, Thailand, UK, USA, Uruguay.

The nations voting NO were:  Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uganda.

Abstentions: Burkina Faso, China, Zambia

Absent: Kyrgyzstan, Libya (suspended)

The resolution text includes (pdf):

Expressing grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity

1.  Requests the High Commissioner to commission a study to be finalised by December 2011, to document discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world, and how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity;

2.  Decides to cenvene a panel discussion during the 19th session of the Human Rights Council, informed by the facts contained in the study commissioned by the High Commissioner and to have constructive, informed and transparent dialogue on the issue of discriminatory laws and lractices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity;

3.  Decides also that the panel will also discuss the appropriate follow-up to the recommendations of the study commissioned by the High Commissioner;

4.  Decides to remain seized of this priority issue.

Note that the United States voted in favor of the resolution, which was sponsored by Brazil and South Africa. Recall that, the next time some idiot tells you it doesn't matter if Obama or a Republican is President.

Obama Administration List of LGBT Commitments

The Obama Administration’s Commitment to Winning the Future for the LGBT Community

Goodwin Liu Cloture Vote Set For Thursday

Finally! The United States Senate is poised to vote Thursday on ending debate on the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. MadProfessah has been following the process of this nomination very closely, since it was first made last Spring. Republicans in the Senate killed the nominations of Liu to the 9th U.S. Circuit and Ed Chen to the U.S. Northern District of California right before the November 2010 election.

When the 112th Congress convened in January 2011, President Barack Obama re-nominated both Liu and Chen and last week the United States Senate confirmed Chen by a vote of 56 to 42.

Majority Leader Harry Reid filed a cloture vote on Tuesday afternoon which means that sometime on Thursday a vote will be held to end debate on the Liu nomination. Liu, 40, if approved to the appellate court, could become a likely Supreme Court nominee in a 2nd Obama administration. He is extremely well-qualified, personable and has an amazing life story.

Many, many progressive organizations are urging people to contact their Senators to vote in favor of the Liu nomination. Here's an excerpt of what Alliance for Justice has to say about Liu's nomination:

Goodwin Liu is extremely well qualified to be a circuit court judge. 

• He has sterling academic qualification. Liu attended Stanford University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa in 1991.  He was co-president of the student body and the recipient of the Lloyd W. Dinkelspiel Award, the University’s highest honor for outstanding service to undergraduate education.  He went on to receive his M.A. at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar in 1993.  He later graduated from Yale Law School in 1998, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal.
•  He received the highest possible rating from the ABA: “unanimously well-qualified.”
• Liu has broad experience in the academic, public and private sectors, providing the varied experience and perspectives that make a great judge. He served in the public sector at the Corporation for National Service and the U.S. Department of Education, and practiced law in the private sector at O’Melveny & Myers. He currently is Associate Dean and Professor of Law at University of California Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). 

Goodwin Liu is a mainstream nominee with strong support from across the ideological spectrum, including Republican lawyers and academics.

• Liu’s views are well within the legal mainstream and are not ideological. For example, his academic writings include support for charter schools and school vouchers.
•  He has won strong praise from individuals representing a wide variety of ideologies, interests, and viewpoints: 
•  Kenneth Starr, former Whitewater prosecutor and appeals court judge called Liu “a person of great intellect, accomplishment, and integrity,” and “an extraordinarily qualified nominee.” 
• Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) said Liu’s writing “reveals his commitment to the Constitution.”
• Former Congressman Tom Campbell (R- Calif.) said that “Liu will bring scholarly distinction and a strong reputation for integrity, fair-mindedness, and collegiality to the Ninth Circuit.”
• Richard Painter, who worked on the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito as President George W. Bush’s chief ethics counsel, wrote that Liu is an “exceptionally qualified, measured, and mainstream nominee” who the Senate should “vote to confirm.”
•  Christopher Edley, Dean of the University of California, Berkley, Law School, said that Liu “has wonderful values, but at the end of the day, he’s not ideological.”
• Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) noted, “[h]e’s as sharp as they come, with a kind demeanor and a good temperament . . . [a]nd he’s someone who has earned the broad respect of his colleagues on the left and the right.” Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) echoed these sentiments, stating, “He is a proven authority on constitutional law with a keen intellect.”
• A bipartisan group of education policy experts, wrote that, “… his record demonstrates the habits of rigorous inquiry, open-mindedness, independence, and intellectual honesty that we want and expect our judges to have. His writings are meticulously researched and carefully argued, and they reflect a willingness to consider ideas on their substantive merits no matter where they lie on the political spectrum. Moreover, we are confident in Professor Liu’s ability to decide cases based on the facts and the law, regardless of his policy views. His scholarship amply demonstrates that kind of intellectual discipline, and our high regard for his work is widely shared.”
• The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, endorsed his nomination, writing that “We are confident he will further the cause of justice and follow the law and Constitution for all parties that come before his Court, again including crime victims and peace officers.”
• Twenty-seven former federal judges and prosecutors wrote to protest attacks on Liu’s record, saying that “rhetoric surrounding the criticism of his nomination has reached an unacceptable level, beyond what is appropriate in a civil, spirited debate,” and concluding that, “We applaud Professor Liu’s commitment to ensuring the constitutional rights of defendants facing the death penalty. Contrary to his critics’ claims, his commitment to the Constitution is commendable and vital for anyone seeking a position in what is often the court of last resort for individuals seeking to protect their constitutional rights.” 

Goodwin Liu’s story exemplifies the American Dream.

• His parents are immigrants from Taiwan, and although born in Georgia, he learned English only when he began attending public school in kindergarten. After moving to California, he overcame struggles with language to rise to co-valedictorian of his high school class, and then went on to academic distinction at Stanford, Oxford, and Yale.
• He would be only the second Asian American serving on a federal court of appeals, and the only Asian-American judge in active service on the Ninth Circuit, which includes Western states with large Asian-American populations.

I met Professor Liu when he testified in opposition to Proposition 8 in 2008 and strongly support his nomination to the 9th Circuit.

Witt Wins! U.S. Settles Major DADT Case

Major Margaret Witt 

In a major victory for LGBT rights advocates, the federal government has declined to continue litigating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" case of Witt v. Department of the Air Force, settling the case with Major Margaret Witt and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state. Witt had won an important 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2008 where the judges said that laws impacting sexual orientation should receive "heightened scrutiny" and that it was unlikely that DADT would survive such judicial review.

Today, Witt announced that she would retire from the Air Force, receiving full benefits, and that the government had agreed to expunge her discharge from her military records, thus ending the lawsuit.

Servicemembers'' Legal Defense Network (SLDN) hailed the result:

(Washington, D.C.) Today, Army Veteran and SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis released the following statement regarding the announcement that  Major Margaret Witt will receive full retirement, the government will drop its appeal of the federal court ruling in her favor, and the unlawful 2003 discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be removed from her military service record:  

“We congratulate Air Force Major Margaret Witt and her legal team on the stunning victory announced today.  Major Witt is a decorated veteran, discharged under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ after 18 years of sacrifice for our country as an operating room and flight nurse. Today’s events underscore once again the unjust nature of this discriminatory chapter in American history.  Her case established a new rule of law in the Ninth Circuit, and her voice and story were pivotal in building support for the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ This is not just a victory for Major Witt – it’s a victory for justice and for service members everywhere.”

It should be interesting to see what impact setlling the Witt case has on the other major DADT case still pending in the 9th Circuit, Log Cabin Republicans v. United States which has as its focus the complete elimination of the DADT policy and establishment of non-discrimination procedures based on sexual orientation in the U.S. armed forces.

LOOK: The United States Is A Low-Tax Country

Hat/tip to Matt Yglesias. 

Obama Nominates Out Lesbian As Federal Judge

Alison Nathan, has becomes Obama's first
 out lesbian federal judicial nominee

The Obama administration has nominated the third openly LGBT person to the federal bench: Alison (Ali) Nathan. Nathan, a former associate White House counsel, joins J. Paul Oetken and Edward Dumont as openly gay Obama judicial nominees. Currently, there is currently one openly gay federal judge on the bench, African American lesbian Deborah Batts.

Here is what the official White House announcement of the Nathan judicial nomination looked like:

Alison J. Nathan:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New YorkAlison J. Nathan currently serves in the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York as Special Counsel to the Solicitor General, a position she has held since 2010.  From 2009 to 2010, Nathan served as a Special Assistant to President Obama and an Associate White House Counsel.  Prior to joining government service, she spent a number of years as an academic, first as a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at Fordham University Law School from 2006 to 2008 and later as a Fritz Alexander Fellow at New York University School of Law from 2008 to 2009.  From 2002 to 2006, Nathan was an associate in the New York and Washington, D.C. offices of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.  Nathan served as a law clerk for the Honorable John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court of the United States from 2001 to 2002 and as a law clerk to the Honorable Betty B. Fletcher of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from 2000 to 2001.  Nathan received her J.D., magna cum laude, in 2000 from Cornell Law School, where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Cornell Law Review.  She received her B.A. in 1994 from Cornell University.

It should be noted that these are some of the only openly LGBT judicial nominees in history. J. Paul Oetken is the first openly gay man to be nominated for the federal judiciary, which are lifetime appointments. None of these appointments are at the appellate court level, yet, but hopefully that will happen soon, or at the very least during Obama's second term.

Immigration Equality Hails CIS Policy Change

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 28, 2011

CONTACT: Steve Ralls
(202) 347-7007 / sralls@immigrationequality.org

IMMIGRATION EQUALITY HAILS GOVERNMENT DECISION ALLOWING LESBIAN AND GAY COUPLES TO FILE GREEN CARD APPLICATIONS

ANNOUNCEMENT FOLLOWS CALLS BY GROUP TO END SEPARATION OF FAMILIES

WASHINGTON, DC – Immigration Equality, the national experts on immigration rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, hailed an announcement today from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that the agency will allow Americans with spouses from abroad to apply for green cards while courts weigh constitutional challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

“USCIS has issued guidance to the field,” USCIS Spokesman Christopher Bentley announced, “asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues.”

“Today’s statement is the first domino to fall for LGBT Americans with foreign national spouses,” said Rachel B. Tiven, the group’s executive director. “As Immigration Equality noted in our letters to both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, we believe that no spousal application should be denied until DOMA’s constitutionality is settled. Immigration Equality has been fighting for LGBT immigrant families since 1994. In that time we have counseled more than 10,000 families – and for them, today’s news is a sign that relief is finally on the way.”

Last week, Immigration Equality’s legal team filed a green card application on behalf of Edwin Blesch, an American citizen, and Tim Smulian, his South African husband. Despite being legally married in South Africa – a marriage recognized in Edwin’s home state of New York – the couple has struggled to remain together. Edwin struggles with failing health and increasingly depends on Tim as his primary caretaker. The couple joined Immigration Equality in hailing today’s announcement.

“Every day, we live with the very real possibility that, despite following every law and every policy of the United States, Tim will be forced to leave the country, and I will be left without my caretaker and the love of my life,” Blesch said in a statement. “Today’s news gives us great relief, and great hope that we may soon be able to put that worry behind us. For the first time, we can begin to plan the rest of our lives together without fear that we will be torn apart.”

Couples who believe they may be impacted by today’s decision are encouraged to contact Immigration Equality’s legal team for free, confidential advice at www.immigrationequality.org/contactus.php.

# # #

Immigration Equality is a national organization that works to end discrimination in U.S. immigration law, to reduce the negative impact of that law on the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and HIV-positive people, and to help obtain asylum for those persecuted in their home country based on their sexual orientation, transgender identity or HIV-status. Through education, outreach, advocacy, and the maintenance of a nationwide network of resources, we provide information and support to advocates, attorneys, politicians and those who are threatened by persecution or the discriminatory impact of the law.

US Immigration Confirms Suspension of Married Binational Deportations

Excellent news on the LGBT Immigration front! Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly has been able to get a spokesperson from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to confirm that USCIS has suspended action on deportation cases involving same-sex married binational couples who would have a legitimate petition for permanent residence if the Defense of Marriage Act were not in effect.

Following up on reports from this weekend, Metro Weekly just received confirmation from Christopher Bentley, the spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, that cases of foreign partners who are married to a same-sex partner and would otherwise be eligible for a green card are on hold in light of questions about the continued validity of the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Bentley writes, "USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues." 

He notes, however, "USCIS has not implemented any change in policy and intends to follow the President's directive to continue enforcing the law." 

The legal distinction means that although DOMA is still being enforced, the USCIS is using its discretion to hold off on denying green card applications where applicable.

This is pretty amazing news!

White House Issues Statement on U.N. LGBT Actions

FACT SHEET

Joint Statement on the Rights of LGBT Persons at the Human Rights Council 

At the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva 85 countries joined a Joint Statement entitled “Ending Acts of Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based On Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.”  This follows previous statements on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons issued at the United Nations, including a 2006 statement by 54 countries at the Human Rights Council, and a 2008 statement that has garnered 67 countries’ support at the General Assembly.  The United States is amongst the signatory states to both previous efforts.  The United States co-chaired the core group of countries that have worked to submit this statement, along with Colombia and Slovenia.

Key facts about the new statement:

·         A core group of over 30 countries engaged in discussions and sought signatures from other UN member states for the statement.  In many places, United States diplomats joined diplomats from other states for these conversations.

·         This statement adds new references not seen in previous LGBT statements at the UN, including:  welcoming attention to LGBT issues as a part of the Universal Periodic Review process, noting the increased attention to LGBT issues in regional human rights fora, encouraging the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue addressing LGBT issues, and calls for states to end criminal sanctions based on LGBT status.

·         20 countries joined this statement that were neither signatory to the 2006 or 2008 statements.

·         The statement garnered support from every region of the world, including 21 signatories from the Western Hemisphere, 43 from Europe, 5 from Africa, and 16 from the Asia/Pacific region.

The full list of signatories and text of the statement follows:

Joint statement on ending acts of violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation & gender identity

Delivered by Colombia on behalf of: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, the Central African Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala,  Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the former-Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, the Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu, and Venezuela

1.      We recall the previous joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, presented at the Human Rights Council in 2006;

2.      We express concern at continued evidence in every region of acts of violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity brought to the Council’s attention by Special Procedures since that time, including killings, rape, torture and criminal sanctions;

3.      We recall the joint statement in the General Assembly on December 18, 2008 on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, supported by States from all five regional groups, and encourage States to consider joining the statement;

4.      We commend the attention paid to these issues by international human rights mechanisms including relevant Special Procedures and treaty bodies and welcome continued attention to human rights issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity within the context of the Universal Periodic Review. As the United Nations Secretary General reminded us in his address to this Council at its Special Sitting of 25 January 2011, the Universal Declaration guarantees all human beings their basic rights without exception, and when individuals are attacked, abused or imprisoned because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, the international community has an obligation to respond;

5.      We welcome the positive developments on these issues in every region in recent years, such as the resolutions on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity adopted by consensus in each of the past three years by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, the initiative of the Asia-Pacific Forum on National Human Rights Institutions to integrate these issues within the work of national human rights institutions in the region, the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the increasing attention being paid to these issues by the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, and the many positive legislative and policy initiatives adopted by States at the national level in diverse regions;

6.      We note that the Human Rights Council must also play its part in accordance with its mandate to “promote universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without discrimination of any kind, and in a fair and equal manner” (GA 60/251, OP 2);

7.      We acknowledge that these are sensitive issues for many, including in our own societies. We affirm the importance of respectful dialogue, and trust that there is common ground in our shared recognition that no-one should face stigmatisation, violence or abuse on any ground.  In dealing with sensitive issues, the Council must be guided by the principles of universality and non-discrimination;

8.      We encourage the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to address human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity and to explore opportunities for outreach and constructive dialogue to enhance understanding and awareness of these issues within a human rights framework;

9.      We recognise our broader responsibility to end human rights violations against all those who are marginalised and take this opportunity to renew our commitment to addressing discrimination in all its forms;

10.  We call on States to take steps to end acts of violence, criminal sanctions and related human rights violations committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, encourage Special Procedures, treaty bodies and other stakeholders to continue to integrate these issues within their relevant mandates, and urge the Council to address these important human rights issues. 

# # #

LGBT Rights Debated at United Nations

The following joint statement has been circulated about the debate at the United Nations today about the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in the broader international human rights framework.

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL, 16th Session
22 March, 2010

NGO JOINT STATEMENT ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION,
GENDER IDENTITY & HUMAN RIGHTS

Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network; International Service for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, COC Netherlands, International Commission of Jurists, Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany LSVD, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights – RFSL, Solidaritas Perempuan (Women's Solidarity for Human Right),  Human Rights First, ILGA-Europe (European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association), Shirkat Gah- Women's Resource Centre, Center for Women's Global Leadership, Human Rights Council of Australia, Corporacion Humanas, LBL Denmark, International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT), Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID), International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, OMCT.

Madame Vice-President, I am pleased to speak to issues of sexual orientation, gender identity and human rights, on behalf of 119 NGOs (21 ECOSOC-accredited) from over 60 countries (see attached list), and more than 300+ participants from 23 countries who endorsed the Joint Statement during the Asia Pacific Outgames Conference last week.

We welcome the statement on violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, delivered by Colombia on behalf of a broad grouping of 83 States from all UN regions. We also welcome the comments from the delegate from Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group that “laws that criminalize sexual orientation should be expunged.”
 
We commend the large core group of states advancing this initiative and we are particularly encouraged by the measurable increase in cross-regional support for these issues in recent years. It is hard to imagine that any State committed to human rights could disagree with the principle that States have a collective responsibility to end human rights violations against all those who are marginalized.

Numerous Special Procedures and Treaty Bodies have documented or commented on violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, including use of the death penalty, killings, torture, criminal sanctions, police harassment, rape, beatings, and disappearances.[1]  We urge all Special Procedures, treaty bodies and other stakeholders to continue to integrate these important issues across all of their mandates.

As UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon stated in this room in January of this year:[2]

“I understand that sexual orientation and gender identity raise sensitive cultural issues. But cultural practice can not justify any violation of human rights...(W)hen our fellow humans are persecuted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, we must speak out…(H)uman rights are human rights everywhere, for everyone.”

And as High Commissioner stated to the Council during this session:[3]

“We are not trying to create new or special rights. We are simply trying to address the challenges that prevent millions of people from enjoying the same human rights as their fellow human beings just because they happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.”

In closing, Madame Vice-President, we would like to reiterate that the Council cannot simply refuse to address or discuss human rights violations against any individuals, without violating its own mandate, as provided in GA resolution 60/251. We look forward to future dialogue within this Council, with the support of those States which did not yet feel able to join the statement, but which share the concern of the international community at these systemic human rights abuses.

[1] International Commission of Jurists: http://www.icj.org/IMG/UN_references_on_SOGI.pdf.
[2] Remarks by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on 25th January 2011, during a special sitting of the UN Human Rights Council:
http://www.arc-international.net/global-advocacy/generalassembly/un-sg-statement-to-hrc-on-sogi-issues-.htm
[3] Interactive Dialogue with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, Item 3, 16th session of the HRC.

The Obama Administration strongly supported the statement and inclusion of LGBT rights into the United Nations' purview.

Graphic Illustrating Obama's Budgets

Hat/tip to DailyKos.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Entire Health Care Law

Gee,  I wonder if the Republicans will be complaining about this form of judicial activism?

From The New York Times:

A second federal judge ruled on Monday that it was unconstitutional for Congress to enact a health care law that requires Americans to obtain commercial insurance, evening the score at two-to-two in the lower courts as conflicting opinions begin their path to the Supreme Court.

Like a Virginia judge in December, Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., said he would allow the law to remain in effect while the Obama administration appeals his ruling, a process that could take two years. But unlike his Virginia counterpart, Judge Vinson ruled that the entire health care act should fall if the appellate courts join him in invalidating the insurance requirement.

“The act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker,” Judge Vinson wrote.

In a 78-page opinion, Judge Vinson held that the insurance requirement exceeds the regulatory powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Judge Vinson wrote that the provision could not be rescued by an associated clause in Article I that gives Congress broad authority to make laws “necessary and proper” to carrying out its designated responsibilities.

“If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain,” Judge Vinson wrote.

Insanely, the entire law can be struck down because Democratic staffers forgot to include a severability clause in the legislation in the last minute scramble to pass the legislation in Spring 2010. Those staffers should be fired! Oh wait, the voters already did that in November 2010!

It is unlikely that Judge Vinson's law will survive appellate review. Even if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, there are many other ways to fund the other changes that the health care law mandates.