Second, despite the incendiary claims by our opponents, this bill is a civil rights bill, nothing more and nothing less. As one of the primary sponsors of the bill, I want to make it explicitly clear what the bill does. Our state has existing civil rights laws. These laws prohibit discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, and education. Where we have historically protected against discrimination based upon race, religion, sexual orientation, and other protected categories, we would now be adding gender identity and expression. Additionally, our existing hate crimes laws would also be similarly amended to add to already-covered protected classifications. We are not making new laws or protections; we are only including a class of people in existing protections who currently face high rates of violence and discrimination.
Finally, I want to thank Rep. Driscoll and Rep. Lewis for their leadership and last week for filing the bill as an amendment to the House budget. Making policy changes as a part of the budget is not uncommon, and a number of non-budgetary amendments filed by Democrats and Republicans alike were adopted. While we ultimately made the decision to table the amendment, I want supporters of the bill to know that Rep. Driscoll and Rep. Lewis have my appreciation. Their efforts helped us continue to build momentum and support for its passage.
I also want to thank Speaker DeLeo, Senate President Murray, and Committee Chairs Rep. O’Flaherty and Sen. Creem for their willingness to continue the dialogue on this important legislation. We have had two public hearings and three advocacy days where transgender citizens and their family members shared their experiences. For the past six months we have provided monthly updates to legislators about the all-too-common incidents of discrimination and violence facing transgender people in the Commonwealth. We have seen the press begin to recognize the illogical and misleading arguments by our opponents.
Our supporters in the legislature know the importance of this civil rights bill, and know that Massachusetts citizens are proud that our state continues to advance civil rights. And with a majority of the House and Senate co-sponsoring this bill, I am confident that we will be successful in securing its passage.
Thank you Carl, it’s great to have the update and the chance to talk to one of the primary sponsors of this important bill.
<
p>When you say, “this bill is a civil rights bill, nothing more and nothing less,” what is the right in question? Is it just to dress and act and as use whatever pronoun one prefers, or is the right for anyone to actually be whichever sex one chooses? The first claim is innocuous, and is what most people think of when agreeing that people should be able to do that stuff without being fired or denied service or housing. But the second claim would entail much more, it would imply a right to surgery and fertility services (hospitals and clinics are among the public accommodations listed in the existing law), which would certainly add to the strain on health insurance costs and medical resources, whether they are part of mandated coverage or not. It would also imply that there is a right to use experimental stem cell derived opposite-sex gametes to conceive children as the new sex. If that is what you mean by “nothing less”, that is a very big deal, and deserves some honest answers.
The bill covers very specific civil rights statutes. These do NOT include health care mandates or medical procedures. There are completely separate statutes for health care mandates, and this bill does not alter them in any way.
<
p>As I mentioned in the post, the very specific existing laws that prohibit discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, and education would be amended to include gender identity and expression, in addition to the existing hate crimes laws.
And fertility and IVF treatments are already mandated coverage. So it is very vague whether this bill will mean they have to give the same full enjoyment of their services to transgendered people as if they were their new sex. A court is going to want to know what the intention of the legislation was, which is why I was asking you specifically about whether the civil right being claimed is to actually be either sex, including attempting reproduction as either sex, or is it just to dress and act and “express” yourself as either sex, but specifically does not imply a right to actually be and fully function as either sex. I think it needs to have one of those “nothing in this law declares a right to attempt to reproduce as either sex”, otherwise it would seem to assume that there is a right to reproduce as either sex. Is that indeed your assumption?
If this is such an important civil rights bill then why did the Reps back down on bringing the amendment for a vote during the budget debate as the promised? Shouldn’t this matter have been debated? Why did they chose to withdraw the amendment and back down when there is a majority in the house who are co-sponsors?
<
p>If the supporters of the bill “know the importance of this civil rights bill” as you say, then why is it that the bill has languished in committee for 3 years?
<
p>You thank Speaker DeLeo but for what? In one of his first statements as speaker he promised GLBT advocates that the house would take up and pass this bill. Now the legislative session is almost over and he has not made good on his promise.