Pride Month: Toward a Future Where Pride Is a Big Party

June is Pride Month, a time to celebrate the LGBTQ community. And while it has become a celebratory thing, it is important, especially in the current social and political climate, to remember that Pride Month did not start as a march. It did not start as a party. It did not start as a celebration. Pride Month commemorates the Stonewall Uprising.

In 1969, while it was illegal to be gay, there were gay clubs. One was the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, New York City. The police would raid it every so often. They would arrest the patrons. They would beat the patrons. And they would look the other way if the patrons were murdered.


We are still here. You will not silence us. You haven’t been able to yet, and you never will.


One day, a group of gay people, mostly trans women and street kids, mostly people of color, said “NO MORE!” and fought back. That started six days of riots, where LGBTQ people from all over the city converged in Greenwich Village and demanded their rights. To demand their lives!

We have gotten used to Pride Month being kicked off with a Presidential Proclamation. Every year for eight years, we had President Obama issue a proclamation. As far back as 1999, when President Clinton issued the first one, we have grown accustomed to a march forward in our rights, our visibility. But we have forgotten about our origins, the roots of Pride Month, which are steeped in the struggle against homophobic, anti-LGBTQ violence. Continue reading

Abstinence Education Harms LGTBQ+ Youth

Did you know that lesbian, bisexual, and gay teens are just as (if not more) likely to have or father a teen pregnancy than their heterosexual peers? Furthermore, as most major data sources fail to gather data on gender identity, the trans teen pregnancy rate is largely unknown.

Last month was Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month. This month, June, is LGBT Pride Month. That makes now the perfect time to discuss queer teen pregnancy and what we can do about it.


We can create a world where every young person feels empowered to make choices for themselves, and where every pregnancy is planned and wanted.


To combat queer teen pregnancy, reduce homophobia, and save taxpayer money, the federal government should redirect the $90 million budget for abstinence education toward LGBTQ+ inclusive comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) programs. All too often, sexual health education focuses on heterosexual and cisgender youth. LGBTQ+ people are often only discussed in tandem with HIV/AIDS. As a result, queer youth report that sex ed feels irrelevant to their needs and further stigmatizes them. Worse yet, the federal government spends $90 million annually on sexual health education programs that teach sexual abstinence instead of equipping young people with the tools and resources they need.

This may soon change — but not for the better: President Trump’s proposed budget would eliminate the evidence-based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, while maintaining $85 million dollars for abstinence education programs. Continue reading

We Are Planned Parenthood. And We’re Here to Recruit You!

The following guest post comes to us via Kelley Dupps, public policy manager for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona.

“My name is Harvey Milk, and I’m here to recruit you!” This was an opening line the gay-rights pioneer Harvey Milk often used to grab people’s attention. See, in the 1970s when Harvey was organizing for gay rights, the common misconception peddled by the media, religious organizations, and homophobes — and consumed by the general public — was that homosexuals wanted to recruit you and/or your children to join the ranks of the queers. The logic was that there was a small number of LGBTQ people, so in order to “survive” they needed to recruit — rather than, you know, being born that way. Many politicians, preachers, and pretty faces peddled the nonsense that LGBTQ folks — particularly gay teachers — were out to recruit children. While this was not the case, there were no organizations or prominent LGBTQ people to publicly fight back.


Oppressive powers thrive on fatigue and apathy. We need you to be active!


But Harvey was there to recruit you for the fight! Before he was a politician, he was a small business owner and community organizer. He knew what it was like to live in San Francisco’s Castro District, and he knew how his neighborhood and community had been ignored by those in power. By recruiting folks who wanted to see change at City Hall, who understood the gay community’s intersection of identities, and who would show up to rallies and meetings, Harvey was creating change that would ripple through communities for decades.

Forty years ago, in 1977, Harvey Milk became one of the first openly gay candidates voted into elected office when his constituents selected him to fill a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Harvey felt the impact of his candidacy — and win — far and wide, and advocated, not as a politician, but as a marginalized person, for other LGBTQ people to come out. Come out to your friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, and lawmakers.

Sharing one’s authentic self with other folks can be a terrifying journey, not to be taken lightly. Continue reading

Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

  • The wingnuts over at the Center for Arizona Policy are almost always behind every single awful anti-choice bill in on our state. This time’s no different. Senate Bill 1367, if passed, would require doctors to take measures to maintain the life of a fetus born “alive” during an abortion procedure. Arizona Republic writer E.J. Montini expounds upon why this legislation is harmful. (AZ Central)
  • The most important opinions on this subject, however? Those of the mothers whose last precious moments with their newborns would have been stolen due to this cruel, useless law. (AZ Central)
  • A bit of good news though — it’s highly unlikely we’d ever see a “bathroom bill” or other extreme/homophobic/transphobic anti-LGBTQ legislation hit Arizona. Let’s focus on the small victories, people. (AZ Central)
  • Speaking of homophobia, South Dakota has passed a bill allowing state adoption agencies to refuse to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. Now, seeing as many who are anti-LGBTQ cling fervently to the “pro-life” title, it’s interesting that they’d rather let orphan children suffer without families than allow them into loving homes, isn’t it? (Slate)
  • In case you missed it — an enormous, smelly wheelbarrow filled with excrement known as the American Health Care Act (aka Trumpcare) was rolled out last week and is a total sh*tshow that will really only benefit the rich and healthy. Everyone else will basically die. (NY Mag)
  • Pregnant women will definitely be among the hordes of “losers” under Trumpcare. Ironic considering the GOP does literally everything possible to force women to remain pregnant, whether they wish to be or not, and then they create atrocious legislation to make it financially impossible to be able to afford to have a child. (Salon)
  • Aside from pregnant women, other parents as well as millions of children would lose their vital health coverage. (Romper)
  • And I’m far from done, ’cause this plan is the gift that keeps on giving. Other losers under Trumpcare? Pumpkin-colored Pinocchio’s very supportive voter base. This is his thanks to you all, thanks for playing and helping “Make America Great Again,” folks! Better luck voting for a president and Legislature who give a damn about you next time! (WaPo)
  • Trumpcare’s provision to defund Planned Parenthood puts our patients in the loser category as well. (Planned Parenthood Action)
  • And defunding us means the number of births in the Medicaid program would increase, as well as direct spending for Medicaid — which would increase by $21 million in 2017 alone. (NPR)
  • Appallingly, some supporters of Trumpcare think the thousands of unintended pregnancies that will result from this asinine bill are a good thing. Forced birthers are elated at the possibility that more babies will be born under potentially horrendous conditions. They will ignore the fact that these babies weren’t wanted and their parents are economically disadvantaged in a country led by a party that has proven itself to be unsympathetic to the plight of the poor. More babies under those circumstances is not a win. It’s a tragedy with the potential to have long-term emotional, mental, and financial consequences for real people — especially children! (WaPo)
  • Illinois Republican John Shimkus idiotically complained about men having to pay for maternity care via their health insurance and it got a lot of women thinking. What if women didn’t have to pay for men’s health care? (Elle)
  • Florida bill HB19 would allow women to sue abortion doctors for “emotional distress” after undergoing the procedure, which is, by the way — elective and voluntary. Here’s why that’s a slippery slope — it is well known that MANY anti-choice activists have “secret” abortions (check out the riveting book, “This Common Secret: My Life As An Abortion Doctor” by Susan Wicklund, for stories about this). How horrendous would it be for them to have the power to ruin doctors’ lives under such a law? They benefit doubly — they terminated an unwanted pregnancy and then get to benefit financially. What.A.Sham. And what other elective, LEGAL medical procedures allow for lawsuits from patients over regrets or emotional distress? ZERO. (Orlando Sentinel)
  • For the billionth time, “community health centers” cannot “fill the gap” in care if Planned Parenthood is defunded. Don’t believe me? Look at Wisconsin and Texas. (Guardian)

No Sporting Chance: LGBTQ Inequality Under Gov. Ducey

For many Arizonans, Gov. Doug Ducey’s State of the State address on January 11 suggested that with the new year, we would be seeing a new, more compassionate course of action from the state’s executive branch. His address before a joint legislative session had the boilerplate promises of a conservative stump speech, including deregulation and lower taxes, but he also promised funding for a backlog of untested rape kits and improved access to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. It was hardly a 180-degree turn, but it was a gesture of even-handedness.


If Arizona’s governor won’t fight for LGBTQ rights, it’s time for citizens to put pressure on their legislators.


Hopes, though, were quickly dashed. Two weeks later, Gov. Ducey gave dismissive responses to the media about Arizona’s legal protections for members of the LGBTQ community. Questions were prompted by Ducey’s comments at a kickoff event for college basketball’s NCAA Men’s Final Four tournament, which Glendale will host in April. Last year, the NCAA withdrew events from North Carolina in response the state’s notorious “bathroom bill,” which required transgender people at government facilities to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex ascribed at birth, not the sex with which they identify. The law, House Bill 2, also blocked cities and other jurisdictions from passing anti-discrimination laws that exceed the protections offered by the state.

While Arizona has never passed a law modeled quite like North Carolina’s House Bill 2, the state has had its own controversial bills that were hostile to LGBTQ rights. In 2013, the Arizona Legislature considered a bathroom bill of its own — one that ultimately didn’t pass — which would have granted businesses the power to deny bathroom access to people based on their gender identity or expression. In 2014, Gov. Jan Brewer responded to pressure and vetoed a bill that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ customers, as long as they claimed their actions were motivated by religious beliefs. The Human Rights Campaign gives Arizona a mixed review on its scorecard, noting support for same-sex marriage licenses and gender changes on government-issued identification, but not for transgender health care and other important policy matters. In fact, a bill currently under consideration, House Bill 2294, would remove coverage for gender-affirming medical procedures from AHCCCS, Arizona’s Medicaid program. Continue reading

Women’s Marches: Signs of the Times

Two marches took place in January 2017, one seeking to give and protect lots of individual rights, the other hellbent to take one of them away.

Guess which one I marched in.

I made my waterproof signs, fretted that rain and wind might dampen participation, and trekked downtown to join the first of these on January 21, the Women’s March on Washington, Tucson version. I was amazed and delighted that 14,999 of my closest friends had turned out as well, a friendly bunch of folks dedicated to a huge assortment of issues besides support for Planned Parenthood (LGBTQ, health care/ACA, environment, immigration, abortion, contraception, women …). When I got home, I looked online and turned on the TV to find the astonishing crowd scenes worldwide and our new president pouting like a 5-year-old about crowd size relative to his own inaugural event the previous day. (Have we entered The Twilight Zone yet?)

Anne Hopkins. Photo: Bill Yohey, Tucson marcher

Crowds at the Women’s March on Washington held in cities around the world were friendly and diverse, but fired-up, angry, ribald, bare-breasted, fist-in-the-air, we’ll-show-you sorts of gatherings. (The clever signs alone are reasons to attend these things!)

The following weekend, I surveyed the media reports on the March for Life, the 44th annual event for opponents of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision hoping to get that decision reversed by the Supreme Court. I was struck by the contrast between the two marches. Continue reading

Meet Our Candidates: Ian Danley for Phoenix Union High School District Governing Board

The Arizona general election will be held on November 8, 2016. Reproductive health care access has been under attack, both nationally and statewide, but Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona has endorsed candidates who have shown strong commitment to reproductive justice. To acquaint you with our endorsed candidates, we are running a series called “Meet Our Candidates.” In order to vote in the election, you must have been registered to vote by October 10. Make your voice heard in 2016!

ian-danleyPhoenix Union High School District is one of the most recent districts in Arizona to implement a comprehensive sex education policy, one that includes medically accurate, age-appropriate information on anatomy, reproduction, and biology; teaches students how to reduce risk of unintended pregnancy and STDs; and “empower[s] students to make informed decisions and create healthy relationships.” While these topics should form the basis of any sex education program, they are sadly lacking in most of Arizona’s classrooms, despite the demand for them.


“Helping our students learn and understand how to protect themselves, their relationships, their health, and their bodies is something we want for ALL of our students.”


Electing school board members who understand how important sex education is to students’ well-being is a crucial task for the savvy voter, and the parents and students of Phoenix Union are lucky that their district has forward-thinking folks at the helm — folks like Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona’s endorsed candidates Ian Danley and Lela Alston. Unfortunately, school boards are constrained by state laws, which in Arizona represent the weakest link in even the most progressive sex education policies.

The state of Arizona has forbidden schools from portraying same-sex sexual behavior in a positive light since 1991. In October 2015, the Phoenix Union High School District Governing Board issued a resolution expressing regret that their sex education policy, “while it is a significant step forward, is not truly inclusive.” And, despite their wish to be inclusive of all students, such as their LGBTQ kids, archaic state law has the district in a straitjacket. The school board has called this law “offensive” and “shaming,” and states that it “has no place in Arizona educational policy.”

Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers attempted to repeal this law at the state level, but they were blocked by the Republican majority. The tension between the wishes of a local school board and state-mandated homophobia illustrates perfectly why it’s so important to vote the entire length of the ballot. Your state government makes educational policies that impact each district and each student. And, in Arizona, school boards have their hands tied by state-level legislation that prohibits them from offering their students the best curricula. Continue reading