Author: Marisa Conners

Dear Department of Labor: Don’t Cut the Women’s Bureau!

Posted on by Marisa Conners

On April 14, the Feminist Majority Foundation signed onto a letter led by the National Partnership for Women and Families and the Democratic Women’s Caucus, which emphasized the importance of the Department of Labor’s Women’s Bureau. Organizations that signed the letter also asked Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer not to close the agency or reduce its size.

This action comes a few weeks after Chavez-DeRemer reopened programs allowing employees from various Department of Labor agencies to retire early or resign on a deferred timeline. Employees had to opt into these programs by April 14 to be considered. As such, Equal Rights Advocates and other gender justice organizations are concerned that the Department of Labor may be preparing to close the Women’s Bureau as early as this week.

Over the past few months, the federal workforce cuts have already affected the Women’s Bureau, as agency employees were part of the group targeted by Elon Musk’s demand to share what they had accomplished in the past week or be fired. Furthermore, the anticipated staffing cuts to the Department of Labor have the potential to impact more vital programs, like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), as well as initiatives to prevent wage theft, protect healthcare and retirement, and strengthen the job opportunity infrastructure.

This research agency collects data on workplace disparities and makes policy recommendations to address them, providing valuable information to legislators nationwide. The Women’s Bureau has successfully handled issues of physical workplace safety, fair pay, pregnancy discrimination, and many gender gaps in the labor market.

The Century Foundation points out that the work of the Women’s Bureau created the basis for legislation such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The agency also administers grants to help women enter fields traditionally dominated by men through the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) program, which has historically been supported on both sides of the aisle.

From 1920 to 2022, the proportion of women in the labor force rose by almost 30 percent thanks to the efforts of the Women’s Bureau to improve gender equity. However, job growth for women has been slowing since last year, and the gender wage gap has widened. These economic metrics demonstrate a greater need for the Women’s Bureau, not a lesser one.

The Women’s Bureau is not an extreme initiative to prioritize women over people of other genders. The agency was established over a century ago for the safety of working women, and its research makes labor safer and more equitable for all people. Department of Labor: Don’t cut the Women’s Bureau!

Planned Parenthood Allies Rally at the Supreme Court

Posted on by Marisa Conners

“If we haven’t won, we’re not done!” For over five hours on April 2, allies and advocates for Planned Parenthood and reproductive justice gathered outside the Supreme Court from across the country, echoing various chants and hearing from an impressive array of speakers. This demonstration intentionally coincided with oral arguments in the Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic case, which is challenging whether recipients of Medicaid can sue their state to enforce their right to choose their healthcare provider.

Medicaid is a government-funded social service program that provides medical health insurance for eligible participants, typically those who are low-income, disabled, or pregnant. Lower courts have already ruled that Planned Parenthood is a medically qualified and willing provider, so it may not be excluded from South Carolina’s Medicaid program. Additionally, abortions are usually not covered by Medicaid funding.

Turning from side to side, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA-7) declared, “Let me say this on the left and on the right: the law is on our side.”

Supporters of Planned Parenthood, reproductive justice, and patients’ rights gathered in front of the Supreme Court building. Many organizations were represented, including Women’s March, the ACLU, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, the National Council for Jewish Women, the Human Rights Campaign, Popular Democracy, the Institute for Policy Studies, Repairers of the Breach, SEIU Committee of Interns and Residents, In Our Own Voice and more.

Sheila Katz, CEO of the National Council for Jewish Women, remarked that “the well-being of a person comes before ritual, before tradition, before anything.”

A brass septet played loud, upbeat music, battling with the music from the counter-protesters as attendees arrived in advance of the rally. Patients and speakers from Planned Parenthood’s partner organizations emphasized the ongoing attacks on Medicaid, the systemic failures of the American healthcare system and the importance of Planned Parenthood amidst these issues. Protesters also heard from Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX-7), Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA-7), Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA-28), Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX-16), Rep. Kelly Morrison (D-MN-3), Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR-3) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).

Counter-protesters in support of the conservative Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom also gathered to protest abortion and Planned Parenthood. A live band played Christian music and one person held up a sign showing a cartoonish skeleton of a fetus. The state of South Carolina’s argument, argued by Alliance Defending Freedom and backed by the Trump administration, is that the law governing Medicaid does not explicitly use language that creates a patient’s right to choose their healthcare provider.

As one of the pro-abortion speakers stated, “what the government is saying is that if you rely on the government for healthcare, you deserve less.”

“Our liberations are intertwined…when they come for one of us, they are coming for all of us,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign. As a pregnant queer woman, Robinson’s existence underscores her important message on the connection between LGBTQ+ rights and bodily autonomy.

While many speakers and protesters focused on abortion, others provided a reminder that Planned Parenthood offers a variety of services, including birth control, cancer screenings and STI testing. These services are all at risk as of April 1, when the Trump administration began withholding Title X family planning funding from Planned Parenthood providers.

Another argument against patients’ choice is that taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion. According to a speaker from Repairers of the Breach, an organization of activists, artists, and interfaith leaders promoting a moral policy agenda, “This is not budgeting. This is cruelty.”

News outlets have conflicting predictions for the justices’ June decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, with NPR reporting that it is difficult to tell where the justices stand, The Washington Post publishing that the justices are likely to side with Planned Parenthood and Reuters noting that the Court’s 6-3 majority creates a conservative leaning. If the Court sides with South Carolina, Amy Friedrich-Karnik from Guttmacher Institute writes that it will constitute “an attack on people with low incomes” and their ability to access reproductive healthcare, an effect that could spread across the nation.

The last speaker, Planned Parenthood President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson, contextualized the attacks on Medicaid and Planned Parenthood in the broader scope of our political landscape: “Planned Parenthood providers are operating on the front lines of fascism…All of healthcare is on the line, and this is what tyranny looks like.”

The Trump Administration and the Courts: A Review of Judicial Decisions since Inauguration Day

Posted on by Marisa Conners

States, organizations, and individuals have filed over 100 lawsuits challenging President Trump’s early actions. While many cases remain unresolved, most court rulings so far have found his administration’s actions to be unlawful. From transgender rights to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the Supreme Court and federal courts have repeatedly intervened to push back against the Trump administration’s agenda.

The Supreme Court has taken on two Trump administration-related cases thus far. In the first case, regarding a suit brought by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition about government foreign aid, the Supreme Court ruled that the district judge’s order for the federal government to restart aid payments must stand. 

The second case questioned the timeline for a president to appeal a lower-court ruling that reinstates a fired federal worker, specifically about President Trump’s firing of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel. The Court ruled temporarily on Feb. 21 that the president could not fire Dellinger, but a federal appeals court allowed the president to continue with Dellinger’s termination on March 5.

Of the many federal firing cases that have been filed, this one was the first to be heard by the Supreme Court, presenting a potential blueprint for future decisions. A federal judge also blocked the firing of Cathy Harris, chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board, a decision that the Trump administration is appealing. Similarly, a federal court halted the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In a rare judicial win for the Trump administration, a federal judge ruled that the unions representing federal employees did not have the standing to sue the Office of Personnel Management for issuing the “Fork in the Road” federal employee resignation offer. However, a separate and similar suit succeeded on March 13 when a federal district court ordered six agencies to reinstate improperly fired employees.

Federal courts have also considered cases relating to trans rights. Multiple judges have ruled to block the federal funding freeze to hospitals that provide gender-affirming treatment to minors and the administration’s attempt to place imprisoned trans women in men’s prisons on the federal level. However, these rulings only apply to the plaintiffs who brought the cases. Federal funding to hospitals has only resumed for Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Minnesota in that case, while the trans women who were not included as plaintiffs in various cases were recently moved to men’s prisons. Additional lawsuits are ongoing regarding the erasure of trans people from public life.

Hospitals are not the only entities at risk of losing federal funding. Judges have ordered the administration to release previously frozen funds for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), state programs, medical research for cancer and Alzheimer’s treatments, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. After some college diversity officers sued President Trump for pulling funding from educational institutions seen as upholding DEI, a judge ruled that the administration could not freeze current funding obligations to higher education institutions. 

A similar decision prevailed regarding the funding freeze to 22 states and DC that had been put in place while the administration considered whether the funding aligned with President Trump’s priorities. President Trump has implied that he would like the case on state funding to go to the Supreme Court so he might be granted more control over federal spending. In two cases, judges have issued “motions to enforce” due to the government’s lack of compliance.

Additional lawsuits have concerned birthright citizenship, immigration, DOGE, January 6 investigations, and CDC data. Federal courts have issued temporary orders stopping the end to birthright citizenship, blocking an attempt to suspend the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), and denying the Trump administration the ability to cut funding to refugee resettlement organizations. They have denied the authorization of immigration raids at places of worship, but only for the plaintiffs involved in the case.

On March 14, President Trump invoked the seldom-used Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport 137 alleged members of a Venezuelan gang to El Salvador. A federal judge temporarily blocked the action the next day following a lawsuit and ordered the planes to return, but the planes arrived in El Salvador on Sunday, March 16 anyway. An ACLU lawyer stated that the deportations may have been illegal if the administration acted before publishing Trump’s move to use the Alien Enemies Act, which seems to be the case. The case raises concerns about preserving due process for immigrants. The White House commented to the Washington Post that regardless of when the flights departed, one judge should not be able to block the president from acting. Additionally, Trump demanded that the judge who ruled in this case be impeached, a call that was rejected by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Federal judges have blocked DOGE’s access to Treasury Department payment and data systems, and 22 other suits against DOGE regarding various actions are still pending. A federal judge also declared that DOGE’s efforts to close the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Department were likely unconstitutional because dissolving agencies is a Congressional power. Furthermore, a judge issued a temporary restraining order to bar the Trump administration from releasing a list of FBI agents who had investigated the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Plaintiffs in the FBI case worried that those who were involved in the investigation would be fired. Further wins include a requirement for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to restore website pages on environmental justice, HIV treatments, fertility clinics, and diversity in clinical trials.

According to the New York Times’s lawsuit tracker, at least 46 rulings have paused President Trump’s actions, while only two — dismissing the federal resignation program suit and the ongoing ban on the Associated Press attending official White House press events — have supported his agenda. This implies that the Trump administration is often acting outside its legal abilities, in some cases even violating existing laws.

Given the administration’s unwillingness to release funding in compliance with court orders, and its attempts to subvert potential lawsuits, a showdown between the Executive and Judicial branches of government is looming. This is a threat to the American system of checks and balances. The Trump administration’s actions demonstrate a disregard for the laws of the land and a willingness to punish groups that push back against their agenda.

U.N. Commission on the Status of Women Hosts Event to End Child Marriage

Posted on by Marisa Conners

Panelists at the UN CSW event

On March 19, the 69th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women hosted a side event called “No Child Left a Bride: Successes & Setbacks in the Global Effort to End Child Marriage” in collaboration with Unchained at Last, an organization dedicated to ending child marriage in the United States. Panelists and attendees came together to share strategies, raise awareness of child marriage worldwide, and celebrate recent wins in Sierra Leone, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic. The event came as the world is just five years away from the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action’s goal of ending child marriage and forced marriage by 2030.

Panelists included Houry Geudelekian, the U.N. Coordinator of Unchained at Last; Fraidy Reiss, founder of Unchained at Last; the Honorable Dr. Isata Mahol, Minister of Gender and Children’s Affairs in Sierra Leone; Mona Sinha, Global Executive Director of Equality Now; Sarah Hendriks, Director of Policy, Programme & Intergovernmental Division for UN Women; Saba Lishan, Senior Technical Officer of the African Child Policy Forum; and Dr. Chelsea Clinton, Vice Chair of the Clinton Foundation.

In July 2024, Sierra Leone passed a law to set the minimum age for marriage to 18, wielding criminal penalties against violators to combat the ongoing issue of child marriage, particularly for girls, in the West African nation. Dr. Isata Mahol explained that the government did not stop at legislative solutions, combining the ban with emphases on education, data collection, and community-driven initiatives to ensure that the law is effectively implemented. She spoke on the importance of this issue even in the face of cultural practices, patriarchal systems, and religious beliefs, saying: “For the right(s) of the girl child are the rights of every child in the world.” Colombia’s law setting the marriage to 18 was enacted last month, while the Dominican Republic’s law was passed in January 2021.

Despite these wins for gender equality, the United States still permits child marriage in 37 states as of 2024, which is down from all 50 in 2017. Unchained at Last, an organization founded by Executive Director Fraidy Reiss after her experience with forced marriage, has been campaigning state by state to eliminate legal loopholes that permit this practice. Child marriage typically applies to young girls wed to adult men, and it impacted 300,000 minors from 2000 to 2018 in the United States. Reiss pointed out the interconnectedness of child marriage with similar issues like domestic violence, human trafficking, and access to sexual and reproductive rights, commenting, “We can’t solve those problems if we aren’t solving child marriage.”

189 countries adopted the goal of eliminating child marriage by 2030 at the Fourth World Conference on Women, held in 1995 in Beijing, China. It is part of a larger document, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which is an agenda for women’s empowerment and gender equality. While the panelists at the “No Child Left a Bride” event were proud to share the progress that has been made toward ending early unions, they emphasized that there is still a long way to go. According to Sarah Hendriks, “The world cannot claim progress if girls are still forced into these roles.” The panelists shared a common sentiment: that legislation to ban child marriage must be combined with additional policies, protections, and community engagement to be effective.

In the face of the global backlash against women’s rights, Mona Sinha told attendees that “the rollback of women’s rights in many parts of the world shows us that progress is not guaranteed.” She continued, saying “ending child marriage is not just a goal, it’s a necessity for so many other things: gender equality, economic justice, and the protection of fundamental human rights.” Dr. Chelsea Clinton advised advocates to “…protect where we can, defend where we must, and advance wherever possible” regarding progress made worldwide on eliminating child marriage.

Decline in Civil Liberties Gets U.S. Added to Global Watchlist

Posted on by Marisa Conners

CIVICUS, an international non-profit organization focused on civil rights and citizen action, added the United States to its Monitor Watchlist on March 9 in response to the Trump Administration’s threats to civic freedoms. This indicates that the non-profit has detected a rapid decline in liberties such as the freedom to assemble, freedom to associate, and freedom of expression.

The watchlist is produced by the CIVICUS Monitor, which observes developments in civic freedoms across most of the world. It features categories to demonstrate where a country or territory currently stands on civil liberties. From best to worst, they are: “open,” “narrowed,” “obstructed,” “repressed,” and “closed.” Although some nations may have lower classifications than the ones on the watchlist, the list represents nations where access to civil liberties is declining.

The U.S. was recently moved from an “open” status to “narrowed” to reflect the American government’s attempts to violate civil rights. Contributing behaviors include cutting foreign aid contracts, taking executive action against DEI, attacking the system of checks and balances, restricting the press, large-scale terminations of federal employees, and withdrawing from international efforts like the UN Human Rights Council. The government’s efforts to repress pro-Palestinian demonstrations and protestors constitute another policy of concern. Previously, CIVICUS Monitor placed the U.S. in the “obstructed” category following the first Trump Administration’s restriction of Black Lives Matter protests and other demonstrations.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Italy, Pakistan, and Serbia are also currently on the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist. Italy is classified as “narrowed” due to its proposed legislation to erode the civic space in Italy by increasing criminal offenses and penalties for protestors. In Serbia, attempts to suppress a mass protest movement against government corruption have landed the nation in the “obstructed” category. The DRC and Pakistan are both marked as “repressed.” The DRC is somewhat controlled by the armed group M23, which is targeting human rights defenders and killing humanitarian aid workers. Freedom of expression and access to information are restricted in DRC. Pakistan is experiencing similar issues with targeting human rights defenders, imprisoning journalists, and hindering public demonstrations.

The U.S. is the wealthiest nation in the world and has the greatest military capabilities. It boasts the biggest economy, the top global currency, and has the power to use the dollar as a foreign policy tool. The actions of U.S. leadership matter not only for those within its borders but also for global citizens. The American government should take this categorization as a sign to stop infringing upon its citizens’ rights and threatening to overturn the world’s oldest modern democracy as global attention continues to grow.

Fact vs. Fiction: Breaking Down the Truth About Trans Women in Sports

Posted on by Marisa Conners

In a March 6 episode of his podcast, “This Is Gavin Newsom,” California Governor Gavin Newsom commented that the participation of transgender women in women’s sports is “unfair.” Despite his history of allyship with the LGBTQ+ community, he appears to be aligning himself with more socially conservative Americans on this issue, potentially in the hopes of becoming more appealing to voters. In this article, we’re breaking down the widespread misconceptions about trans women in sports.

Myth 1: Trans women are men.

Gender is not immutable or predefined, and trans women are women. Even sex, which is typically assigned at birth based on external sex characteristics, is not binary due to human variation in hormones, internal organs, external organs, and more. Trans women’s identities are valid no matter how they choose to express them.

Myth 2: Trans women are dangerous to cis women.

Critics argue that the participation of trans women alongside cisgender women in sports presents a danger to cis women. Among these imagined dangers are bodily injury, sexual assault, and loss of opportunity. While it is true that there are bodily differences between cisgender men and women, including hormone levels, muscle mass, and more, these physical differences tend to be present between transgender women and cisgender men as well. 

There are also no known instances of sexual assault perpetrated by a trans woman against a cis woman in sports. Furthermore, sports are meant to be competitive. Those who advocate against trans women participating in women’s sports do not seem to have an issue with cis women losing out on scholarships or other opportunities to other cis women, and having tough competition can be a motivator for athletes to improve further.

Myth 3: Trans women always have a physical advantage over cis women.

Yes, it is possible for bodily differences to give trans women an advantage over cis women. It is also possible for the opposite to be true as trans women who choose to medically transition adjust to their changing bodies. Testosterone is a performance enhancing hormone, but once testosterone is lowered, the performance boost also disappears. Trans women take testosterone blockers to lower the level of the hormone in their bloodstream, with levels reaching below 3 nanograms per deciliter. Cisgender women’s levels of testosterone are normally between 9 and 55 nanograms per deciliter, often higher than the levels of trans women. 

Other advantages include body types that are suited to a particular sport, coming from a wealthier family, and having access to more training compared to other athletes. In fact, Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps possesses multiple genetic benefits that augment his swimming abilities. Sports have always rewarded those who have biological advantages — being taller, stronger, or faster than the average person. These advantages are not regulated because we understand that the eradication of all differences is impossible and dystopian, reminiscent of Kurt Vonnegut’s short story, Harrison Bergeron.

Trans women and girls face unique disadvantages in sports due to their gender identity. They are at a higher risk of violence and discrimination than cis women and girls, which contributes to poorer mental health. Additionally, trans women disproportionately skip school and feel disconnected from their school communities due to gender identity-based targeting. Participation in sports comes with various benefits that trans women would be excluded from if they are banned from women’s sports. 

Myth 4: Banning trans women from sports is simple.

Laws and regulations seeking to prohibit transgender people from participating on the sports team that aligns with their gender identity are grounded in flawed beliefs about gender. The Human Rights Campaign writes that these laws tend to impose requirements to confirm a participant’s gender, such as medical exams, DNA testing, or blood work. 

However, due to human variation, these tests may come up with an incorrect result even for cis women. One example is Caster Semenya, a cisgender Olympic runner who was ordered to take medication to lower her naturally high level of testosterone before returning to women’s competition. This is only one example of how regulating the ways it is appropriate to be a woman has and will affect cis women. Gender policing is unfair and invasive for all people.

Myth 5: If trans women are allowed to compete in women’s sports, men will pretend to be trans women to get ahead.

There is no evidence that a cis man has ever pretended to be a trans woman to gain a competitive edge. Even if this were the case, this would be an issue with cis mens’ choices, not with trans women’s existence.

The topic of trans people in sports has become unduly large compared to the population in question. Trans people currently make up 0.5% of the population, and experts estimate that there are less than 100 trans women competing in NCAA sports out of over 530,000 athletes.

Efforts to promote rights on the basis of sexual orientation without including gender identity, which Governor Newsom seems to support, are not new. In fact, trans exclusion within gay rights groups dates back at least as far as the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis, groups that sought to win inclusion for gay people through assimilationist tactics in the 1950s and 60s. Legitimizing discrimination against one marginalized population while advocating for others’ civil rights is absurd. There is no LGB without the T, despite what some groups claim, and solidarity is a much better avenue for success.

Regarding the participation of trans women in women’s sports, it seems more sensible for coaches and schools to take pride in their trans athletes. These athletes should be supported by their teammates and taught to improve like everyone else. Let them find joy in their gender identity, in participating in their favorite activity, and in the relationships they have with the people around them.

Arrest and Detention of Palestinian Activist Threatens American Democracy

Posted on by Marisa Conners

On March 8, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a Syrian-born immigrant of Palestinian descent, due to his organizing efforts at Columbia University against the war in Gaza. The Trump Administration equated his actions with support for Hamas, a Palestinian militant group, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization. He is currently being detained in a Louisiana immigration jail awaiting a March 12 hearing. Under a recent order from a federal judge, Khalil cannot be deported until the court finishes considering his lawyers’ challenge.

Khalil entered the United States in 2022 on a student visa to attend graduate school at Columbia University, and he attained lawful permanent residency in 2024. Also known as a green card, this status allows individuals to live and work permanently in the U.S. and affords them constitutional protections. The New York Times wrote that this includes free speech and due process rights. According to Khalil’s lawyer via NPR, the DHS officers told Khalil that his green card would be revoked, a process that is reserved for instances of crime or immigration fraud.

President Trump announced that additional arrests would follow as he pursues action against “terrorist sympathizers,” and anonymous individuals reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is utilizing the Immigration and Nationality Act to enact these deportations. A provision of this law authorizes the deportation of any immigrant who may cause adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, with the argument being that Khalil’s anti-Israel protests promoted antisemitism, which is contrary to U.S. foreign policy. The day before Khalil’s arrest, the Trump administration also announced that it was canceling millions of dollars worth of support for Columbia because the school allegedly permitted harassment of Jewish students.

U.S. foreign policy toward Israel took on an active role after World War II when it advocated for Holocaust survivors to relocate to Palestine in 1946 and became the first nation to recognize Israel’s nationhood in 1948. Since then, the U.S. has mediated ceasefire negotiations in the region, blocked the United Nations Security Council from censuring Israel, provided Israel with military assistance, and sent humanitarian aid to Palestinians. 

According to Democracy Fund, a nonprofit and bipartisan organization dedicated to upholding American democracy, the building blocks of a healthy democracy include equal civil rights, constitutional checks and balances, respect for the law, independent and free press, and the right to protest non-violently without fear of retaliation. The Trump Administration’s actions this year have flouted the checks and balances system, limited the press, and now, sought to punish a protester because it disagrees with his message. What is the U.S. without democracy?

NWLC Policy Briefing Outlines Budget Impact on Women and Families

Posted on by Marisa Conners

On March 4, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) hosted a webinar to discuss the potential harm for women and families of the House budget resolution that passed on Feb. 25. After opening remarks from NWLC President and CEO Fatima Goss Graves, the Income Security and Child Care team elaborated on the Center’s efforts to oppose harmful policy proposals and promote a care economy that supports the American people.

The representatives from the Income Security and Child Care team explained that the House budget resolution proposes funding cuts to offset policies like attacking immigrant families and creating tax cuts for the wealthiest people and corporations. Although House Republicans have promised not to touch social service programs like Medicaid, the resolution advances a budget that cuts trillions of dollars for the committees that administer these programs, which may leave these committees no choice but to reduce or eliminate their services.

As such, programs like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); Social Services Block Grant (SSBG); Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Medicaid; and the Child Tax Credit are at risk. Social services are crucial to millions of women and children across the U.S. because they provide food assistance, healthcare, and federal funding to states for additional services. These programs also make it easier for families to afford childcare, which has been “prohibitively expensive” for many Americans in recent years.

NWLC is working to push back on harmful tax proposals like this one and minimize the damage to women, families, and the economy by educating the public on what these programs and tax changes will mean for everyday people. Through their collaborations with state advocates and constituents, they are facilitating conversations with congressional delegations on why the federal budget is important to the American people and emphasizing the real-world impacts of the changing budget. The Center is also promoting policy solutions that will help women and families, such as accessible childcare, raising taxes on the wealthy, and expanding a child tax credit. Members of the Income Security and Child Care team emphasized that childcare helps child development, stimulates the economy, and helps parents go to work, so it is beneficial to all people.

Politico recently reported that the Senate is unlikely to take up negotiations over the House budget resolution before the end of March, which is necessary to reach a compromise with the House. It will focus on funding the government before the projected shutdown date of March 14. The Feminist Majority Foundation encourages concerned constituents to call their Congressional representatives about the importance of securing funding for women and families. As Fatima Goss Graves said during the briefing, “I believe firmly that the antidote to fear is joining together in community in solidarity…Courage inspires more courage, and we are beginning to see that more and more.”

Mexico’s Response to Mass Deportations: ‘Mexico Embraces You’

Posted on by Marisa Conners

As President Trump’s deportation plans for undocumented immigrants made headlines across the nation, a less publicized response is underway. Mexico’s plan for receiving repatriated citizens, called “Mexico Embraces You” or “Mexico te abraza,” was announced in late January. Government officials began developing the program after then-presidential nominee Trump’s Sep. 13 campaign promise to carry out mass deportations.

The goal of “Mexico Embraces You” is to provide a dignified transition for the migrants, along with reintegration opportunities. Mexican officials have launched an app to inform the nearest U.S.-based Mexican Consulate when migrants are deported, and they are being supported by UN agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Additionally, the Mexican government has constructed nine care centers across the six Mexican border states to assist with meeting migrants’ basic needs and reintegrating them into Mexican society through employment and welfare programs. 189 buses are available to transport migrants from various reception points to these care centers, and at least 125 public servants are employed at each care center. There are also 100 buses intended to transport deportees back to their home states.

Furthermore, each Mexican migrant is provided with a “Bienestar Paisano Card” designed to support their immediate expenses, which is worth 2,000 pesos (approximately 100 USD). They are able to enroll in various federal government programs and the Mexican Social Security Institute, which cover pensions for disabled people and the elderly, learning opportunities, housing support, medical care and childcare.

In the last month since U.S. deportations began, the care centers have received a total of 14,470 migrants. Of those deportees, 11,379 are Mexicans, while 3,091 are from another country. Mexican President Gloria Sheinbaum has said that her government would accept and voluntarily return non-Mexican deportees to their nations of origin, although the details on this proposal are still unclear.

Experts have raised concerns about the long-term viability of Mexico’s reintegration efforts for its own citizens. The New York Times reported that the care centers may be unprepared to support migrants dealing with traumatic effects of deportations and family separations, while an additional source concurred that some Mexican migrants left their home communities due to violence and a lack of opportunities, making them hesitant to return there. These sources indicated that the migrants who fit this description are more likely to settle in a large city such as the capital, Mexico City, rather than returning to their home state.

Rep. Pettersen Forced to Vote In Person Just Weeks After Giving Birth

Posted on by Marisa Conners

On Feb. 25, Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-C.O.) flew cross-country from Colorado to Washington, D.C., with her four-week-old infant, to vote against the House spending plan. At the beginning of her statement on the House floor, Rep. Pettersen said, “I wasn’t going to let [being denied the opportunity to vote virtually] stop me from being here to represent my constituents.” The budget, which has the potential to cut social services like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, passed by two votes.

Pregnancy-related travel restrictions prevented Rep. Pettersen from representing the seventh district of Colorado for a month and a half from Jan. 13 to Feb. 25. She was not medically permitted to fly as her due date approached because of the increased risk of blood clots and radiation exposure, and she could not travel for four weeks following the birth of her son. Furthermore, many providers advise against air travel until the infant is at least three months old to avoid slowing the parent’s recovery, exacerbating pain from childbirth and to reduce the risk of the newborn contracting an illness. Others suggest waiting at least six weeks to allow for recovery, yet Rep. Pettersen traveled as soon as possible to represent her district and vote on the House budget.

Some votes could be drastically changed by the presence or absence of a single member of Congress, which is why Rep. Pettersen and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-F.L.) proposed House Resolution 23 in January to allow new parents to vote by proxy for 12 weeks following the birth of their child. The bipartisan resolution, titled “Proxy Voting for New Parents Resolution,” would permit a member of the House who has given birth or a member of the House whose spouse has given birth to designate another member to cast their vote, as authorized via a signed form with specific components. There is precedent for proxy voting in Congress, as it was available during the pandemic. If passed, this resolution may pave the way for other proxy votes, covering instances such as a member’s illness, attending a funeral or caring for a sick family member.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-L.A.) opposes the resolution because he believes that proxy voting is unconstitutional, and will likely refuse to bring it up for a vote. Despite this opposition, Reps. Luna and Pettersen plan to file a discharge petition in mid-March to force House Resolution 23 to the floor, and they are working on winning additional Republican support to ensure that the discharge petition passes. Rep. Luna told CNN that this is a pro-family policy, which should have the support of the Republican Party because it often emphasizes its pro-family platform.

Support for all facets of reproductive health, including pregnancy, childbirth and childcare, is essential. Without it, people may hesitate to take positions that would interfere with their reproductive agency, particularly individuals who can become pregnant. Although women have served in Congress for over a century and currently make up about 29% of our legislative branch, Reps. Luna and Pettersen were only the twelfth and thirteenth women to give birth in Congress. The U.S. must affirm and protect the choice to become a parent, as well as the choice not to, and provide the necessary infrastructure so that each choice is feasible. This should not be a partisan issue.

This issue expands further than Congress, as the lack of paid leave laws across the nation restricts employment access, particularly for women. Although the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) guarantees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for workers regardless of gender, it does not support low-income and working-class women who would not be able to forgo their wages while on leave. FMLA also excludes part-time workers, small business employees and individuals who have been at their job for less than a year. Like Reps. Luna and Pettersen’s proposal to establish proxy voting for new parents, policies like paid leave, fair pay and improved childcare infrastructure have the potential to break down economic and political barriers for all people, regardless of political affiliation.

UPDATE: As of March 11, Rep. Luna gained enough support on her discharge petition to bypass Speaker Mike Johnson’s refusal to bring House Resolution 23 to the floor. 12 Republicans and 206 Democrats, signed the measure and brought it to the minimum of 218 signatures. Authors of the bill added a provision that prevents members voting by proxy from being counted in the quorum, one of Johnson’s critiques of the resolution, but he still claims it is unconstitutional and strongly opposes it.

Five Reasons for Hope: Activism and Resistance in 2025

Posted on by Marisa Conners

Since the presidential election on November 6, 2024, many have felt uncertainty and concern about the policy changes implemented by the new administration. Issues such as immigration, reproductive rights, and gender equality have faced new challenges, making it easy to feel overwhelmed. However, staying engaged and motivated is essential for advocating for a better future. On that note, here are five hopeful things that have happened over the past month!

1. The freeze on federal funding for DEI programs was blocked

As of Friday, Feb. 21, a federal judge blocked the enforcement of President Trump’s executive order that aimed to end federal funding for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the Inauguration Day executive order likely violates the Constitution, particularly regarding the First Amendment’s free speech rights. The temporary court order will remain in place until the case, brought by the city of Baltimore and various other groups, has concluded.

2. Proud Boys lose their trademark to the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church

On Feb. 3, 2025, a D.C. judge ruled to remove control of the far-right extremist group Proud Boys’ trademark and ban them from selling merchandise with its name or symbols. To profit from either of these trademarked items, the Proud Boys International LLC must receive permission from the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church. This ruling came after the Proud Boys failed to pay the $2.8 million owed to the Metropolitan AME Church in restitution for the physical damage caused by former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and others in late 2020. Now, the church is entitled to the profits of any Proud Boys merchandise.

3. People like you are raising their voices

Before the inauguration, thousands of people gathered in D.C. and across the country for the People’s March, a new version of the 2017 Women’s March aimed at bringing together advocates on a wider range of issues. Additionally, thanks to the 50501 Movement, people have come out to protest nationwide twice in February, with a third demonstration planned for March. The movement is dedicated to many causes, such as “immigrant rights, government accountability and opposition to Project 2025,” and it calls for 50 protests in 50 states on 1 day in partnership with the political action committee, Political Revolution. 

The movement supports upholding the Constitution, restoring DEI and protecting civil liberties. Thousands of people protested nationwide on Feb. 5 in the movement’s first demonstration and braved inclement weather on Feb. 17 for a twist on President’s Day dubbed “No Kings Day” and “Not My President’s Day.” The upcoming March 4 demonstrations offer in-person and virtual options across all 50 states and virtual protest calls for D.C.

4. Increasing pressure on elected officials

Americans nationwide are using the power of constituent phone calls and town halls to push their members of Congress to stand up to Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), block President Trump’s cabinet nominees and resume federal funding to key areas. 

As of Feb. 7, Congressional phone lines were experiencing a heavy call load of 1,600 calls per minute. This is 40 times higher than the usual volume! Additionally, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-V.T.) has begun a nationwide anti-oligarchy tour to speak with Republican-led swing districts and focus on issues that are important to working-class people. He aims to mobilize the American people against authoritarianism, kleptocracy and cuts to social services while encouraging Republican House members to oppose their party’s proposed tax cuts.

Similarly, the National Organization for Women (NOW)’s new campaign, Disrupt NOW, will host nonpartisan town halls across the nation to educate the public and hear about what issues matter most to people.

5. Registrations are beginning to roll in for NYFLC

Students are registering for the Feminist Majority Foundation’s annual National Young Feminist Leadership Conference! The conference brings together hundreds of student activists to build collective power, grow knowledge about critical domestic and global feminist issues, and learn hands-on grassroots organizing tactics. Every day, the threats to our basic human rights intensify. Now more than ever, it is important for us to connect and strategize with other feminist activists and strengthen our community. The event will last three days, from Saturday, March 29 to Monday, March 31. Join our mobilizing efforts here!

Trump Labels Discussions of Race, Gender and Sexuality in School as “Radical Indoctrination”

Posted on by Marisa Conners

On Jan. 29, President Trump signed an executive order entitled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” which restricts discussions on race, gender, and LGBTQ+ issues in public schools. Instead, schools are directed to focus on “patriotic education,” which should be grounded in “an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of America’s founding and foundational principles.” This order is inherently hypocritical, as an accurate and honest account of American history will not necessarily be ennobling. In short, learning about history does not, and should not, always make students feel good.

This order blames schools for indoctrinating children and preventing them from using critical thinking skills. It also bans the teaching of victim and oppressor identities based on skin color and other characteristics, specifying that schools may not teach students to feel responsible for actions committed in the past by members of their identity group.

Trump’s order goes on to name white privilege and unconscious bias as concepts that promote racial discrimination and violate anti-discrimination civil rights law. These concepts fall under the category of “discriminatory equity ideology,” a term used in this executive order to describe the practice of being aware of systems of oppression and the effects of privilege on oneself and others.

The Trump Administration is attempting to use laws meant to protect marginalized groups to legitimate their claims of “reverse racism,” or discrimination against white people. It is clear that they want to prevent and reduce prejudice against white people, which is not the same as racism, as racism involves the unequal distribution of power based on race. The same concept applies to oppression on the basis of gender, sexuality and more.

By issuing guidelines for conversations around discrimination, Trump is attempting to erase discussions of difference, privilege and power because it benefits the perpetuation of oppressive systems, while also appealing to his base. Certain language in this executive order is designed to cater to parental rights activists, a socially conservative movement aimed at giving parents more oversight in schools, particularly regarding reading material, transgender students and discussion of race, sexuality, and gender identity.

In terms of action items, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” directs various officials to provide an Ending Indoctrination Strategy to the president so he can terminate federal funding to schools that engage in “discriminatory treatment and indoctrination,” including “discriminatory equity ideology.” Typically, 13.7% of public school funding comes from the federal government.

Furthermore, the order instructs the attorney general to coordinate with state attorneys general and local district attorneys to file appropriate actions against teachers and school officials. Grounds for legal action include sexually exploiting minors, offering diagnoses or treatments without a license, and facilitating the social transition of a minor student. It is important to note that sexual harassment is already banned under Title IX, although the enforcement of this policy may be at risk if Trump dismantles the Department of Education. Below is a list of everyday actions that could put a teacher or administrator at risk:

  • Engaging in a counseling session with a student regarding social gender transition
  • Using a student’s chosen name or pronouns
  • Calling a child “nonbinary”
  • Allowing transgender students to use the facilities and play on the sports teams of their chosen gender

“Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” is a dangerously hypocritical executive order that pushes a false narrative about power and privilege. It seeks to intimidate school officials away from caring for the students at the highest risk of bullying and other forms of violence while preventing students from learning about why they have different experiences from their peers. However, state attorneys general are not yet obligated to enforce this order; multiple existing laws preclude the federal government from influencing state and local decisions about teaching and learning, and trans rights are civil rights, no matter what one executive order says. 

As the history of American education has shown, reform efforts such as “Ending Radical Indoctrination” are likely to be unsuccessful unless they align with the undercurrent of change, which is determined by the people.

The Institute for Women’s Policy Research Hosts Briefing to Outline Path towards Equality

Posted on by Marisa Conners

Panelists at the IWPR briefing (Marisa Conners)

On Wednesday, Feb. 5, The Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) hosted an event titled “2025 Federal Policy Solutions to Advance Gender Equity,” where policymakers, experts and advocates gathered to strategize on the urgent need to safeguard and expand women’s rights. The panelists included President of the National Partnership for Women and Families Jocelyn Frye, Co-President and CEO of Guttmacher Institute Destiny Lopez, and Pronita Gupta, a Senior Fellow at Workshop. President and CEO of IWPR Dr. Jamila K. Taylor served as the moderator. This event was held in partnership with Congresswoman Jan Schawkowsky (D-I.L.).

In the face of unprecedented attacks on women’s progress, the event highlighted how critical it is for those in positions of power to work towards structural change that not only defends existing rights, but also pushes forward into new realms of equality and justice.

The speakers expressed their concerns about the current administration’s actions, including attacks on research, the firing of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officials, pausing foreign aid, and threatening Medicare, Medicaid, and the availability of mifepristone. Lopez stated that over 130,000 women will be denied contraceptive care daily due to the withholding of foreign aid, which will lead to millions of unintended pregnancies and thousands of deaths worldwide.

A majority of the panel was dedicated to the intersection between economic justice and gender equity, with focuses on childcare, paid medical leave, health insurance, and women’s protections in the workplace. Frye aptly pointed out that opening jobs to women without providing them the infrastructure to take advantage of them is an “empty opportunity,” given that childcare responsibilities often fall to women.

Additionally, a 2022 estimate from the Boston Consulting Group found that paid and unpaid work in the care industry comprises $6 trillion, almost a quarter of the U.S. GDP. The care economy is backed by women of color workers, yet they are often underpaid. It is also important to recognize domestic labor as the unpaid side of care work, which is made invisible due to societal expectations that women and girls will perform it.

Economic policies that further women’s participation in the workforce are widely beneficial, as they will prevent families in states with unpaid leave from losing over $20 billion in wages each year. The national GDP could lose $290 billion in 2030 and beyond if the United States does not improve the care economy, which comprises services that support children, the elderly, the disabled, and more. Women’s economic participation has the potential to increase U.S. GDP growth by 4% over the next decade, but we need policies to facilitate it.

IWPR’s new federal policy agenda outlines four major policy areas for advancing gender equity, including caregiving and families, equitable work and wages, reproductive justice and health equity, and education and career advancement. It encompasses 14 targeted policy areas such as paid leave, reproductive healthcare across the lifespan, and college affordability. This federal policy agenda aligns with the idea that we must start crafting our vision for the future now: Frye referred to this as our “affirmative vision” for the future, and Lopez called these policies “generational work.” 

Representative Sarah McBride (D-D.E.) entered the discussion to present her goal of passing paid federal leave. This is a policy that touches “every single person, every single family across every background and political persuasion” as Rep. McBride stated. McBride’s message was aspirational for the future to build policies that protect the country and its workforce. 

On a similar note, the panelists closed out the briefing by sharing what brings them hope. Gupta spoke about the organizing she is seeing around the country to protect federal victories, Lopez highlighted the successes of the Latin American reproductive rights movement, La Marea Verde, and Frye shared that people do crazy things when they are desperate, assuring the audience that gender equity will win out eventually.

While the day’s discussion was largely driven by concerns over the erosion of women’s rights, it also served as a call to action for creating a future where gender equity is firmly rooted in policy. Frye reminded the audience that “women don’t live single-issue lives,” and as such, policies must address the full spectrum of challenges that women face.

Pennsylvania Court Case Could Reshape the State’s Medicaid Abortion Coverage

Posted on by Marisa Conners

On Wednesday, Feb. 5, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania re-heard a civil case against the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. The case, Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, represents a decades-long fight by reproductive health organizations to remove Medicaid restrictions on abortion funding.

Medicaid is a government-funded health insurance program that provides coverage for low income individuals and families who meet certain eligibility requirements. Medicaid helps ensure access to essential healthcare services for those who might not otherwise afford them — especially reproductive healthcare as low-income individuals experience unintended pregnancies and seek abortions at significantly higher rates than those with higher incomes. Additionally, research shows that those who are denied abortions are more likely to experience poverty than people who receive them, an effect that lasts up to 4 years after being denied an abortion. This ruling will affect low-income people who can become pregnant by determining whether Medicaid will provide funding for their abortions.

To understand the civil case, readers should understand the history of this issue. The Abortion Control Act was enacted in Pennsylvania in 1982, which banned Medicaid from covering abortion care except in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. That same year, appellants filed Fischer v. Department of Public Welfare, challenging the constitutionality of the Medicaid ban because it violated the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Medicaid Ban in 1985.

34 years later, Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services was filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Their arguments stated that there is precedent for allowing state Medicaid funds to cover abortion beyond the three exceptions, that there is no “parallel exclusion of coverage” for men” and that pregnancy and childbirth expenses are covered under this program even though they are more expensive than an abortion. 

Regardless, the court upheld the Medicaid ban, leading the various healthcare providers to file the case with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which overturned Fischer last January. The Supreme Court determined that providers had standing to pursue claims and that members of the legislature should not be permitted to intervene in the case.It also provided new standards for evaluating discrimination claims. Finally, it sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania so the appropriate standards could be applied. 

In its January 2024 verdict, the PA Supreme Court established that the ERA applies to abortion restrictions, a major win for the feminist movement! A particularly important line of the decision reads, “…the right to reproductive autonomy, like other privacy rights, is fundamental.”

The PA Supreme Court declared that the Medicaid coverage exclusion “treats the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy non-neutrally” because pregnant people seeking an abortion are not provided with funding, in contrast to pregnant people who are planning to carry their pregnancy to term. This implies that the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania will rule in favor of Allegheny Reproductive Health Center and the other providers. However, it could take between a few days to many months for the judges to publish a decision.

IVM: An Advancement for Reproductive Health

Posted on by Marisa Conners

Photo by Amr Taha™ on Unsplash

Amid nationwide attacks on reproductive health and justice, a new fertility treatment provides hope to those trying to conceive. It’s called in vitro maturation (IVM), and it mirrors most of the procedures of in vitro fertilization (IVF), with one key difference: doctors collect immature eggs instead of mature ones.

IVF provides a way for people struggling with infertility to have children, either personally or via surrogacy. However, as a recent article from The Atlantic mentions, it can be emotionally, financially, and physically draining, as it involves hormone shots, weeks of doctor’s appointments, and it may cost up to $20,000 per cycle. Before the process starts, IVF patients undergo multiple ultrasounds and blood tests. During IVF, the patient with ovaries receives hormonal injections that encourage egg maturation, then the eggs are retrieved. After that, the mature eggs are fertilized by sperm in a lab using a small needle, and the fertilized eggs (now called embryos) are placed in a uterus. If the embryo implants in the uterine wall, the individual is pregnant! A full cycle of IVF can take two or three weeks.

Another type of assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment is IVM, which follows most of the procedures of IVF. The key difference is that doctors collect immature eggs in the IVM process, which allows patients to skip most or all of the hormone shots that IVF uses to increase egg production and maturity. After the immature eggs are collected, they are placed in a cell culture for one to two days, then combined with a protein dimer called cumulin and c-AMP cell signaling molecules to make them mature. IVM procedures are the same as IVF after this step, starting with the fertilization of the mature eggs and the implantation of the embryos inside the uterus.

The American Pregnancy Association estimates that one IVM cycle costs from $5,000 to $7,000 in comparison with $15,000 to $20,000 per IVF cycle. However, because pregnancy rates are slightly lower with IVM, it is not necessarily more cost-effective than IVF, as patients may forgo the cost of IVF’s hormone shots but need to repeat the IVM process. Similarly, one cycle of IVM takes less time than a cycle of IVF, because it takes about a week to complete the required blood tests and transvaginal ultrasounds for IVM, compared to multiple weeks of IVF.

IVM is a better treatment option for patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), recovering from cancer, and those who have a limited number of remaining eggs. Additionally, it can be useful for IVF patients whose eggs are not mature enough when collected. Although patients with blocked, damaged, or removed fallopian tubes, ovulation disorders, premature ovarian failure, uterine fibroids, genetic disorders, and infertility are eligible for IVF, they could also benefit from IVM. On the other hand, patients with normal ovulation patterns experience more success with IVF, demonstrating the importance of choosing a procedure that is right for you.

A recent scientific article on IVM points out several policies that would support commercial and widespread development, including innovation from clinical teams, “a legislative landscape that enables embryos to be used for research,” and education and training centers to teach best practices for clinical IVM. These support systems are integral to upholding personal bodily autonomy and allowing individuals who want children to choose the best path for them. Even as the Trump administration attempts to roll back our rights, medical advancements such as IVM offer new ways to ensure individuals retain access to innovative reproductive options. 

The Continued Attack on Transgender Student Athletes

Posted on by Marisa Conners

Photo by Thiago Rocha on Unsplash

Along with over 400 other human rights organizations, the Feminist Majority Foundation has signed on to a letter written by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights to oppose H.R. 28, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. This House bill would alter Title IX to block transgender women and girls from participating in federally funded women’s sports programs. In the aftermath of the recent Tennessee v. Cardona case, where a federal district judge ruled that Title IX protections cannot be expanded to include gender identity, the letter from the Leadership Conference represents an important coalition of support for transgender students.

The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025 was introduced on January 3, 2025 by Rep. Gregory Steube (R-FL-17), and passed on January 14, 2025. The New York Times reports that it mirrors the 2023 bill by the same name, which passed the House but not the Senate, and was immediately condemned by the ACLU. The 2023 version would have resolved that federally funded education programs and activities cannot “operate, sponsor, or facilitate athletic programs” that allow individuals “of the male sex” to participate in programs for women or girls. In this bill, “sex” is based on “reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”

The coalition letter outlines multiple issues with H.B. 28, including its discriminatory impact on transgender youth, the lack of attention to athletics barriers that women and girls face, and the danger it poses to the civil rights of all students. This bill invalidates trans identities by referring to trans women and girls as “of the male sex.” Furthermore, it is exclusive, invasive, and single-sided. In a recent press release, President and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center Fatima Goss Graves stated that “it only makes it more likely that women and girls will be targeted and punished based on someone else’s idea of what a woman or girl should look or act like.”

The bill’s provisions focus on banning individuals “of the male sex” from participating in programs for women or girls, and states that it will determine sex based on “reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” However, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14) pointed out, there is no enforcement mechanism, meaning that it is unclear who will investigate athletes’ genetics and what measures they will use to do so. A notable gray area regards intersex people, who may have chromosomes that vary from the commonly regarded, stereotypical XX (female) and XY (male), while also possessing combinations of reproductive organs that differ from the stereotypical sets.

Given this consideration, H.B. 28 even has the potential to target cisgender women and girls, especially women and girls of color. Eurocentric ideals of womanhood have historically, and presently, been used to challenge the success of cisgender female athletes, with contemporary examples including Olympic athletes such as runner Caster Semenya, Algerian boxer Imane Khelif, and Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu-ting. Perceptions of womanhood that are based on “biology,” such as beliefs surrounding appropriate hormone levels, are also inherently based on whiteness.

Finally, H.B. 28 directs the Government Accountability Office to compile one-sided data on the harms that transgender women and girls’ participation in sports causes to their cisgender counterparts, including the benefits that they will lose and any psychological, developmental, participatory, and sociological negative impacts. This body of data intentionally omits and ignores the neutral or positive of trans participation in sports. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that an inclusive athletics policy in Connecticut did not detract from cisgender girls’ participation, while the Center for Disease Control’s program, “What Works in Schools,” implied that including transgender people in sports may be beneficial because it reduces experiences of violence, poor mental health, and suicidal thoughts among high school students regardless of sexual identity.

H.B. 28 will now move to the Senate.

>

Support eh ERA banner