Federal Updates
Administration Updates
Trump nominates Mark Morgan as the new head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Trump gutted the Department of Homeland Security last month, announcing that he wanted to go in a “tougher direction.” This month, he nominated Mark Morgan to lead the deportation machine that is ICE. Morgan has been a vocal supporter of Trump’s anti-immigration agenda, including backing his calls for a border wall, the decision to declare a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, and the decision to send asylum seekers to sanctuary cities. Morgan’s nomination must be approved by the U.S. Senate.
Trump nominates Patrick Shanahan as Secretary of Defense
Patrick Shanahan has been the acting Secretary of Defense since January 1, 2019, after Trump asked for James Mattis’ resignation. This month Trump formally nominated him for Secretary of Defense. His approval in the Senate is uncertain following the release of a memo detailing orders to restrict the information that Pentagon official can share with Congress, arguably impeding Congress’ constitutionally mandated oversight role. Shanahan has also shown a willingness to be complicit in Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda. He authorized transferring a total of $2.5 billion to help build the wall at the U.S.-Mexico border and has over 4,000 troops supporting Customs and Border Protection.
Immigrant Justice
Proposed rule would force immigrant families out of public and subsidized housing
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a proposed rule that would prohibit “mixed-status” families — i.e. households that include both individuals who are eligible and ineligible for housing assistance based on their immigration status — from living in public and other subsidized housing.
This isn’t really about stopping undocumented immigrants from accessing housing resources. Under current regulations, people who are undocumented already cannot receive housing subsidies. The housing subsidy for mixed-status eligible households is prorated to exclude ineligible individuals from assistance. Rather, the rule scapegoats immigrants and their families for the affordable housing crisis that the Trump Administration’s policies – like cuts to housing assistance – have fueled. It is also mean-spirited and would have devastating impact.
It would force families of mixed immigration status to choose between three options: break up to receive housing assistance, forgo the assistance, or be kicked off the program. HUD’s own analysis shows that 108,000 people would be affected, about 70% of whom are citizens or legal residents and 55,000 children. The public comment period is open until July 9.
Reports of a new public charge proposal
On May 3, Reuters reported that the Trump Administration is considering making it easier to deport U.S. lawful permanent residents (LPRs, commonly known as “green card” holders) because they used public programs that help them meet their basic needs. The rule has not been formally proposed or finalized, and may never be.
The regulations would dangerously expand the public benefits considered when making a “public charge” determination — a term used to describe someone who depends or may come to depend on the government for subsistence – to include cash welfare, food stamps, housing aid, and Medicaid. This is similar to the public charge proposed rule from October 2018, which, despite not being finalized, has already harmed one in seven adults in immigrant families. But it would affect a different group: LPRs. It is important to note that no changes to the public charge determination have been finalized yet.
Trump releases latest hardline immigration plan
On May 16, Trump announced a new immigration plan that would make it harder to get a green card based on family ties or claim of asylum. The number of people allowed to legally enter the U.S. would stay the same, but “merit-based” immigration would be prioritized.
The plan, developed by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, did not contain many specific details. It includes limiting the asylum system, finishing the border wall, and limiting the family members who can apply for family-sponsored visas. It did not mention Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA), the Dreamers, or a path to citizenship. The proposal is unlikely to pass the House of Representatives, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling the plan “dead-on-arrival.”
Trump directs agencies to force immigrants’ sponsors to reimburse government for public benefits
On May 23, Trump issued a presidential memorandum directing his administration to begin the process of enforcing an anti-immigrant Clinton-era welfare reform law. The law requires the sponsors of lawful permanent residents (LPRs), generally family members who are U.S. citizens, to reimburse the government for any federal public assistance programs the LPR used.
Trump asked his administration to find out which sponsors have to pay the government back for federal aid that was provided to their sponsee. The sponsor could be prohibited from being a sponsor if they are found delinquent, resulting in more immigrant families being separated. This is another way that the Trump Administration is trying to punish immigrant families for trying to meet basic human needs.
Trump Administration planned mass arrest of migrants in major U.S. cities
The Washington Post reported that ICE planned to arrest thousands of parents and children of Central American migrant families in New York, Chicago, and other major cities. The goal was fear-mongering and vengeance: The plan would target the families that had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border after Trump’s failed family separation policy. Anti-immigration hardliners in the Trump Administration, such as Stephen Miller, hoped the massive, inhumane show of force would send a message to immigrant families.
The raid was supposed to be the first step towards arresting 10,000 children and adults. Former Homeland Security Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, and former acting Director of ICE, Ronald Vitiello, put a stop to the plan because of fears that ICE was not prepared and that there would be public backlash. Both have since been forced out of the Trump Administration.
Win for ten women of trans experience seeking asylum
Ten women of trans experience won their asylum cases and have been released from a Texas detention center. People of trans experience are often fleeing discrimination and violence from their home country, and are at heightened risk of harassment when traveling through Central America. Then, once they arrive in the U.S. seeking asylum and safety, people of trans experience are met with more maltreatment, assault, and discrimination in immigration detention. Asylum case denials have hit a record high — 65% — under the Trump Administration, making this victory even more significant. About 20 transgender women still remain in immigration detention in the Texas Facility.
Health Care Access
Proposed 1557 rule would eliminate protections for transgender people and those who have had abortions
On May 24, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a proposed rule drastically altering the scope of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 1557 is the non-discrimination section of the ACA. It bars health care programs that receive federal funds from discriminating against people based on race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex. Discrimination on the basis of sex has traditionally encompassed discrimination based on gender identity and pregnancy decisions.
The proposed rule, however, would eliminate all protections for transgender people and people who have had abortions. The rule also removes a requirement that health companies notify patients about non-discrimination protections with taglines to inform people with limited English proficiency how to access language services.
No one, regardless of their gender identity, pregnancy decisions, or English-language proficiency, should be denied access to quality and competent healthcare services and information. You can read PWN-USA’s call to action to oppose the proposed rule, here.
Refusal rule has been finalized
Early in the month, HHS finalized its refusal of care rule. The rule gives people and organizations in the health care field broader latitude to refuse services, referral and even information to patients because of “religious or moral objections.” It could give pharmacists, health care providers and institutions the power to refuse to provide a number of services, including abortion-related care, contraception, gender affirming care, and vaccinations.
This is a part of a larger trend from the Trump administration to give health care institutions, state and local government sweeping license to discriminate against transgender patients and people who seek abortions. The rule is scheduled to go into effect in July, but multiple lawsuits have already been filed to block it.
Dangerous proposed changes to Medicare Part D protected classes will not be finalized
In a significant victory for health care advocates around the nation, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare (CMS) issued a final rule that does not include proposed changes to the Medicare Part D protected classes. In November 2018, the Trump Administration proposed a plan to cut Medicare costs by changing a requirement that health plans that provide Medicare prescription coverage cover all the drugs included for six “protected classes”— mainly impacting people with cancer, HIV/AIDS, depression, schizophrenia, and other conditions.
The change would have allowed health plans to exclude protected class drugs in certain circumstances and to require step therapy and prior authorization, two cost-saving techniques that can delay or interrupt access to medication.
Because the changes were not finalized, Part D enrollees living with HIV and other serious conditions will continue to be able to access the best treatment for them without interruption.
U.S. House of Representatives committee holds hearing on drug pricing
The House Oversight Committee held a hearing to investigate the pharmaceutical industry’s contribution to skyrocketing prescription drug prices. The hearing specifically focused on Gilead’s pricing of Truvada as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and included intense questioning of Daniel O’Day, the CEO of Gilead Sciences. House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked why Truvada costs between $1,600 and $2,000 per month in the U.S. compared $8 per month in Australia. She later answered her own question, “because Australia has universal health care.”
The high price is an insurmountable barrier for many. Currently, of the 1.1 million people could benefit from Truvada for prevention, only about 20 percent actually are taking it.
MORE Health Education Act passed the House
The House passed the Marketing and Outreach Restoration to Empower Health Education Act of 2019, or H.R. 987, the MORE Health Education Act. The bill would include $100 million in funding for marketing and public education programs about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange.
Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives are using H.R. 987 as a way to achieve broader health care reform and undo many of harmful changes that the Trump Administration has pushed through. They have attached a package of bills to H.R. 987 that would, for example, block changes to short-term, limited-duration health plans (otherwise known as “fake” health plans because they can circumvent core ACA protections) and includes drug pricing reform.
Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice
Anti-abortion legislation in the states
Anti-abortion fervor is sweeping state legislatures around the nation. So far this year, nine states have passed laws that severely limit or effectively ban access to abortion. Many more have passed or are considering other ways to limit access to abortion.
Abortion is still legal and constitutionally protected in the U.S. Alabama’s total abortion ban is not yet effective and being challenged by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood in the courts. Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio have passed bills effectively banning the procedure by prohibiting abortion after 6 or 8 weeks, before most people know they are pregnant.
None are in effect and all are expected to involve lengthy battles in the courts. Bans in Kentucky, Iowa, and Mississippi have been judicially blocked this year. Utah and Arkansas also enacted extreme pre-viability abortion bans this year, banning the procedure after 18 weeks. Utah’s law is already enjoined, meaning it cannot go into effect until a court determines its constitutionality.
These assaults on women’s rights and bodily autonomy for people who can get pregnant are increasingly invasive and dangerous. No one should be forced to give birth against their will. The Missouri abortion ban is not yet in effect, yet the state health department is using its inspection power to end access to abortion. Four clinics have closed in the state over the past decade because of the hyper-regulation of abortion providers. Now, the last clinic left standing could be forced to close because the health department refuses to renew its license. This would make Missouri the first state to not have any clinic to access safe, legal abortion services since 1974, after Roe v. Wade was decided. May 31, a judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing the closure from going into effect while the case moves forward.
Some states are fighting back. The Illinois House, for example, recently passed the Reproductive Health Act, HB 2495, which would repeal anti-abortion provisions of the state law and protect the fundamental right to an abortion.
Below is a chart, tracking just some of the anti-abortion bills that have been introduced, pending, or blocked around the nation in the first five months of 2019 alone. You can find more information here.
The U.S. Supreme Court declines to take up the issue of Roe v. Wade, for now
State legislatures have been passing a spate of extreme, unconstitutional abortion bans intentionally to set up a Supreme Court challenge of Roe v. Wade, the case that established a fundamental right to access abortion care. This month, the Supreme Court weighed in on an Indiana abortion law. The law did two things: 1) require that fetal remains from an abortion or miscarriage be buried or cremated; and 2) ban abortions based on the fetus’s sex, race, or disability status at any point in pregnancy (a.k.a. a “selective abortion” ban).
The 7th Circuit stuck down both provisions. The Supreme Court partially disagreed. They reversed the 7th Circuit’s decision regarding the fetal remains provision. But they also declined to say anything about the selective abortion ban. This means that the ban will not go into effect, but the fetal remains provision will.
Ending the selective abortion ban is a victory for abortion rights. Race- and sex-selective abortion bans are based on the racist belief that certain cultures prefer sons over daughters and targets people of color – particularly Asian American women – for heightened scrutiny of their pregnancy-related decisions. No person — regardless of race, age, ability, gender, or class — should have to explain why they need abortion care.
House Committee uses the budget to stop the Global and Title X Domestic Gag Rule
The U.S. House of Representatives is using the power of the purse to defend access to abortion. The U.S. House Appropriations Committee included language in two funding bills that would block the Trump Administration’s Title X domestic gag rule and the global gag rule.
The global and domestic gag rules make federal funding contingent on health care providers withholding essential information about safe, legal abortion care from their patients. They force providers to make a cruel choice: Accept restrictions that jeopardize the health of your patients and destroy the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, or lose vital funds that enable you to provide those patients with quality care.
While repealing the two gag rules would help protect abortion access in the U.S. and abroad, the Appropriations Committee also included the Hyde Amendment, a harmful anti-abortion rider that sharply limits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion care.
LGBTQ Rights, Safety, and Justice
Draft rule would allow homeless shelters to turn away people of trans experience
The Office of Budget and Management released the summary of a HUD draft proposed rule that would allow homeless shelters to discriminate against people of trans experience. Shelters and other recipients of federal housing funds could turn someone away because of their gender identity or refuse to house them with people of the same gender identity. For example, a trans woman could be rejected entirely from a shelter or forced to use and stay in men’s facilities.
The rule would, if published and finalized, gut Obama Administration protections for transgender people experiencing homelessness. People of trans experience are already disproportionately likely to face poverty, homelessness, harassment, and violence because of anti-trans discrimination. This rule would exacerbate discrimination against, and poses an immediate threat to, the trans community.
The Equality Act passes the U.S. House of Representatives
In a historic first, the Equality Act, H.R. 5, passed out of the U.S. House of Representatives with a vote of 236-173. This marks the furthest the bill has gone through the legislative process since it was first introduced in 2015. The bill would amend existing federal civil rights non-discrimination law, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
It is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate. Nevertheless, this is an important affirmation of the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ community in the face of the Trump Administration’s proliferation of harmful and dangerous anti-LGBTQ policies.
Economic Justice
Proposed changes to the poverty line could impact eligibility for essential public programs
The Trump administration announced a plan to lower the federal poverty line. The proposal would use a lower measure of inflation when adjusting the federal poverty line each year. Because many public programs use the federal poverty line to calculate eligibility, the change would cause millions of people to lose eligibility to basic assistance programs – such as Medicaid, Medicare Part D, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps), Women, Infants and Children (WIC), school breakfast and lunch programs, Head Start, and subsidies and cost sharing under the ACA – over time. Currently, the administration is asking for public comments, due June 21.
State Updates
California
An important bill that would prioritze the health and safety of sex workers in the state, S.B. 233, passed the state senate. The bill would protect sex workers from arrest when reporting a violent crime and would prevent condoms from being used as evidence to arrest or prosecute for “prostitution.”
San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted this month to ban the use of facial recognition technology by police and local government agencies. This makes them the first U.S. city to do so. The ordinance comes as the national debate about pervasive government surveillance, civil liberties, and bias and error in the developing technology continues to grow.
Colorado
Colorado lawmakers passed HB 19-1032, a comprehensive sex education bill. It includes a mandate that all sex education classes be comprehensive, discussing the full range of sexual health and reproductive health options; teach informed consent; and that all pictures, descriptions and definitions be respectful and non-stigmatizing. The bill was passed with the fierce advocacy of PWN Colorado–read more about that here. The bill was signed by Governor Polis on May 31.
Denver voters approved a measure that would effectively decriminalize hallucinogenic mushrooms. Hallucinogenic mushrooms remain illegal under state law, but the referendum instructs Denver police to make arresting people for use or possession of hallucinogenic mushrooms “the lowest law enforcement priority in the City and County of Denver.”
Florida
State lawmakers eviscerated the progress that Florida voters demanded by a commanding 65% majority at the ballot box November 2018. Amendment 4 would have restored voting rights for most people with a felony conviction after they have completed their sentence. It would have resulted in 1.4 million Floridians re-gaining their right to cast a ballot–including one in five Black Floridians. The Florida law permanently disenfranchising people convicted of a felony dates back to 1868 and was rooted in an effort to prevent freed slaves from being able to vote after the Civil War.
This month, lawmakers passed a bill along party lines that would take away the path to re-enfranchisement for many. The bill requires people with felony convictions to pay all court-ordered financial obligations in order to have their voting rights restored. It is worth noting that Florida charges exorbitant fees to people convicted, before, during, and after incarceration. This change is classist at its core: the affluent will be able to pay to have their voting rights restored while those with less means will not.
The bill is with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is expected to sign it into law.
Florida lawmakers also passed a bill that would create a public registry of people who buy sex. Those who support the bill claim it is an anti-trafficking measure. However, sex workers and advocates warn that it will end up harming sex workers, making them more vulnerable to violence and exploitation.
Nevada
Governor Sisolak signed AB 431 into law, achieving a momentous voting rights victory for the state this month. Similar to the original intent of Amendment 4 in Florida, the law will restore the voting rights of all Nevadans who have been released from prison. Previously, the timeline and process for having voting rights restored depended on factors like the category of crime and prior convictions. It was very complicated. Nevada has now simplified its law, ensuring that more than 77,000 Nevadans will re-gain one of their most basic civil rights — the right to vote.