Politics
Transgender Missourians fear more gender care restrictions coming
[ad_1]
Missouri lawmakers recently joined a number of other GOP-dominated states in limiting gender-affirming care for transgender youth, and while some Republican legislators say they’re not interested in adult restrictions, trans community members remain on guard.When asked if adult restrictions are next up for the Missouri legislature, state Rep. Bill Hardwick, R-Pulaski County, said, “Part of freedom is you make decisions I don’t like.”Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden, R-Columbia, said he doesn’t think the legislature should do anything relative to trans adults in the 2024 session. And Sen. Nick Schroer, R-St. Charles County, said, “If you’re going to use your money and your body, even though I disagree with it, you still should have the right to do as you please.”But transgender Missourians like Ben Greene worry that other Republicans will move to restrict care for adults.“I think that their goal doesn’t even have to do with health care. I think that might be the next step,” said Greene, who gives public talks about transgender inclusivity. “I think their end goal, which they have openly stated, is the elimination of transgender people from Missouri and from public life.”Close observers of the policy push against transgender rights say that a mixture of complacency among the general public and demand from GOP voters will ultimately prompt Republicans legislators to move their focus from transgender children to transgender adults.They see Republicans escalating their policies — similarly to how they incrementally curtailed abortion rights in Missouri before instituting a ban.“It’s a scary time,” said Robin Boyd, who provides speech and communications services to transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals. “We’re kind of bracing for impact, but we’re also trying to … take action.”
Brian Munoz
/
St. Louis Public RadioMissouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey looks on as Gabriel Gore introduces himself after being named St. Louis circuit attorney on May 19 during a press conference at the Mel Carnahan Courthouse in downtown St. Louis. Bailey previously enacted emergency orders that put restrictions on transgender people receiving gender-affirming care.
Bailey’s rules alarm LGBTQ community Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s emergency rules provided the clearest evidence for transgender Missourians and their allies that some Republicans want to place restrictions on gender-affirming care for adults.Before he pulled the rules earlier this month, Bailey wanted transgender youth and adults to have, among other things, at least 15 hours of mental health therapy, a screening for autism and three years of documented gender dysphoria. The rules also required people to treat and resolve their mental health conditions.Bailey said the rules were a form of informed consent before hormone therapy or gender transition surgery. When Bailey pulled the rules on May 16, Greene said he felt immense relief.“I was pretty stressed and knew that it was going to hurt a lot of people,” Greene said. “And when I saw that he withdrew it that was like this huge exhale.”Bailey told the Washington Examiner last week that his office retains the “authority to promulgate additional rules as we deem necessary as emergency crisis situations develop as they relate to adults.”Although some prominent Republicans, such as Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft and Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe, said they don’t support restrictions on gender-affirming care for adults, others aren’t ready to shut the door on debating restrictions on adults in the future. That includes Sen. Bill Eigel, a St. Charles County Republican who is likely running against Ashcroft and Kehoe for governor.
Brian Munoz
/
St. Louis Public RadioSen. Bill Eigel, R-Weldon Spring, speaks about “political theater” on May 12 during the last day of the legislative session in Jefferson City.
“Personally my belief is that all these surgeries are harmful no matter who they are,” Eigel said. “And I think there’s going to be a time and place for discussion about whether or not we need to expand that beyond 18 years old.”Other Republican officials were hesitant to provide their opinion on whether policies similar to Bailey’s now-scuttled emergency rules should be enacted into law.During his end-of-session press conference, House Speaker Dean Plocher, R-Des Peres, was asked several times whether he would support restrictions on gender-affirming care for adults. He chose to only discuss the bills the legislature passed this year that largely centered around transgender minors.“I stand by the product that we produced, which is a good product for Missourians,” Plocher said. “It really protects our kids. What we’re here to do is protect vulnerable people.”While Senate Minority Leader John Rizzo, D-Independence, said Republicans thought the gender-affirming care ban for minors would be a politically helpful issue, he added that it also placed GOP leaders in a bind.“I did sit in meetings with them and tell them, ‘If you do this, the next obvious question is going to be why aren’t you doing it for adults?’” Rizzo said. “When you throw red meat to rabid people, they don’t stop being hungry. And that’s what they did. They threw kids on the chopping block with that bill. And the next logical step is for people to take that hate and move it to the next step, which is obviously adults.”
Brian Munoz
/
St. Louis Public RadioMissouri House Speaker Dean Plocher, R-Des Peres, walks into a press conference where Gabriel Gore was named the next St. Louis circuit attorney on Friday.
Bills already affect some adultsLegislation that bars transgender athletes from participating in sports that align with their gender identity also affects colleges and universities. And the gender-affirming care ban includes language barring the state from paying for hormone therapy or gender transition surgery for people in prison or on Medicaid.“It also takes away rights of adults who are 18 and older,” said Rep. Chris Sander of Lone Jack, one of two openly gay Republicans in the Missouri House.Some Republicans have said that the restrictions on taxpayer funding for gender-affirming care are defensible, since it aligns with their beliefs that adults can pursue hormone therapy or gender transition surgery if they use their own money.“It’s just a matter of the state deciding where it’s going to spend its money,” said Rowden. “We don’t think it’s in the best interest of the state and the taxpayer to spend money on those things.”
Brian Munoz
/
St. Louis Public RadioRobin Boyd, a speech and language pathologist who works with transgender people, explains how she analyzes the wavelengths and resonance of someone’s voice through her business Prismatic Speech Services on Monday at her home office in the Dogtown neighborhood.
But that may not be possible for people like Asher Hackworth, a Springfield resident and a Medicaid recipient.Hackworth said that with Medicaid, his prescription for testosterone was already costing about $75 a month. And that, he said, is a lot of money for people who only make around $500 monthly.Hackworth also said he worries about what will happen if people don’t have access to treatments that help them transition properly.“The proven treatment for gender dysphoria is to transition and to have your gender align with your experiences and your body,” Hackworth said. “Whatever as a trans person you feel dysphoric about, the goal is to make you feel euphoric. And not transitioning is literally the most dangerous thing for transgender people.”Others are worried that legislators will turn their attention to adults who support transgender Missourians.Robin Boyd, a speech and language pathologist, said that even though the legislation that just passed doesn’t specifically single out her type of gender-affirming care, there’s no guarantee that won’t happen in the future.“I’m also part of the community. I’m an intersex queer person,” Boyd said. “As these laws are looming, there are these heavy feelings and concerns regarding my own health care — but also my friends and my patients.” Daniel Bogard, the father of a transgender child who has sought to retain access to gender-affirming care for minors, said he worries that the next step could be to enact criminal penalties on parents.“They have to keep escalating in order to keep the fire burning,” Bogard said. “And as a parent of a trans kid, this is what terrifies me. Because we look at places like Florida and Texas, and we see the model for what is to come next in Missouri. Look, we are up at night, worried that our government is going to send [Department of Family Services] to take our kid away for following the best instructions and advice of his doctors and his therapists and our family and our faith.”
Brian Munoz
/
St. Louis Public RadioThe 9-year-old son of Rabbis Daniel and Karen Bogard, pictured at his St. Louis County home last March, is one of the transgender Missourians who could be affected by state legislation concerning trans policies.
Legal and political pressures could turn the tideLike other transgender Missourians, Hackworth doubts that Republicans will hold off on pushing for legislation that affects transgender adults. He notes that there’s been an uptick in disparaging rhetoric on social media against transgender people and that, along with negative coverage of gender-affirming care from conservative media outlets, is pressuring GOP politicians to act.“They’re calling us groomers, they are just talking about how it’s like a mental illness,” Hackworth said. “I’m a very active person on social media. And I see the things that these people are saying about us — they call us slurs regularly. And these are just everyday people within the community.”Not everyone believes that more restrictions against transgender adults are inevitable.Nora Huppert of Lambda Legal, a New York-based group that helped challenge Bailey’s emergency rules, said any effort to restrict gender-affirming care for adults will run into legal problems, adding that curbs for minors are already facing litigation in a number of states.“I think that any policy that goes after gender-affirming care for trans adults will clearly be an act of discrimination against transgender people. And when those policies are enacted by state officials, as it was [in Missouri] and not through the democratic process, they may also be vulnerable under state administrative law,” Huppert said. “They’re completely arbitrary. And they are very capricious, because they attempt to enact sweeping restrictions on personal and bodily autonomy without really any sound medical support.”
Brian Munoz
/
St. Louis Public RadioSigns brought in by supporters of queer and diverse teachers are propped up after being confiscated by school security last April before a school board meeting at North Kirkwood Middle School in Kirkwood.
Others are hoping that the public sours on the GOP push to restrict transgender rights. Greene said Bailey’s emergency rules “put a huge spotlight on this issue.”“A lot of people in Missouri, who have not previously been politically active, said: ‘Oh, wow we thought it was about protecting kids or about sports fairness” Greene said. “And there are so many people, more than I have ever seen, who are saying: ‘I’m ready to be an ally.’”Jamie Cayley, who is pursuing a master’s degree in social work at Washington University, said altering the tide could have less to do with political or legal action than with people becoming more knowledgeable and comfortable about those who are transgender.“Most people don’t know what a trans person looks like. They don’t know that they know trans people,” Cayley said. “A lot of it is, ‘Hey, this is us. This is what we look like. We’re not scary.’”
[ad_2]
Source link
Politics
Poll: Support for Missouri abortion rights amendment growing

[ad_1]
A proposed constitutional amendment legalizing abortion in Missouri received support from more than half of respondents in a new poll from St. Louis University and YouGov.That’s a boost from a poll earlier this year, which could mean what’s known as Amendment 3 is in a solid position to pass in November.SLU/YouGov’s poll of 900 likely Missouri voters from Aug. 8-16 found that 52% of respondents would vote for Amendment 3, which would place constitutional protections for abortion up to fetal viability. Thirty-four percent would vote against the measure, while 14% aren’t sure.By comparison, the SLU/YouGov poll from February found that 44% of voters would back the abortion legalization amendment.St. Louis University political science professor Steven Rogers said 32% of Republicans and 53% of independents would vote for the amendment. That’s in addition to nearly 80% of Democratic respondents who would approve the measure. In the previous poll, 24% of Republicans supported the amendment.Rogers noted that neither Amendment 3 nor a separate ballot item raising the state’s minimum wage is helping Democratic candidates. GOP contenders for U.S. Senate, governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer and secretary of state all hold comfortable leads.“We are seeing this kind of crossover voting, a little bit, where there are voters who are basically saying, ‘I am going to the polls and I’m going to support a Republican candidate, but I’m also going to go to the polls and then I’m also going to try to expand abortion access and then raise the minimum wage,’” Rogers said.Republican gubernatorial nominee Mike Kehoe has a 51%-41% lead over Democrat Crystal Quade. And U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley is leading Democrat Lucas Kunce by 53% to 42%. Some GOP candidates for attorney general, secretary of state and treasurer have even larger leads over their Democratic rivals.
Brian Munoz
/
St. Louis Public RadioHundreds of demonstrators pack into a parking lot at Planned Parenthood of St. Louis and Southwest Missouri on June 24, 2022, during a demonstration following the Supreme Court’s reversal of a case that guaranteed the constitutional right to an abortion.
One of the biggest challenges for foes of Amendment 3 could be financial.Typically, Missouri ballot initiatives with well-funded and well-organized campaigns have a better chance of passing — especially if the opposition is underfunded and disorganized. Since the end of July, the campaign committee formed to pass Amendment 3 received more than $3 million in donations of $5,000 or more.That money could be used for television advertisements to improve the proposal’s standing further, Rogers said, as well as point out that Missouri’s current abortion ban doesn’t allow the procedure in the case of rape or incest.“Meanwhile, the anti side won’t have those resources to kind of try to make that counter argument as strongly, and they don’t have public opinion as strongly on their side,” Rogers said.There is precedent of a well-funded initiative almost failing due to opposition from socially conservative voters.In 2006, a measure providing constitutional protections for embryonic stem cell research nearly failed — even though a campaign committee aimed at passing it had a commanding financial advantage.Former state Sen. Bob Onder was part of the opposition campaign to that measure. He said earlier this month it is possible to create a similar dynamic in 2024 against Amendment 3, if social conservatives who oppose abortion rights can band together.“This is not about reproductive rights or care for miscarriages or IVF or anything else,” said Onder, the GOP nominee for Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District seat. “Missourians will learn that out-of-state special interests and dark money from out of state is lying to them and they will reject this amendment.”Quade said earlier this month that Missourians of all political ideologies are ready to roll back the state’s abortion ban.“Regardless of political party, we hear from folks who are tired of politicians being in their doctor’s offices,” Quade said. “They want politicians to mind their own business. So this is going to excite folks all across the political spectrum.”
[ad_2]
Source link
Politics
Democrat Mark Osmack makes his case for Missouri treasurer

[ad_1]
Mark Osmack has been out of the electoral fray for awhile, but he never completely abandoned his passion for Missouri politics.Osmack, a Valley Park native and U.S. Army veteran, previously ran for Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District seat and for state Senate. Now he’s the Democratic nominee for state treasurer after receiving a phone call from Missouri Democratic Party Chairman Russ Carnahan asking him to run.“There’s a lot of decision making and processing and evaluation that goes into it, which is something I am very passionate and interested in,” Osmack said this week on an episode of Politically Speaking.Osmack is squaring off against state Treasurer Vivek Malek, who was able to easily win a crowded GOP primary against several veteran lawmakers including House Budget Chairman Cody Smith and state Sen. Andrew Koenig.While Malek was able to attract big donations to his political action committee and pour his own money into the campaign, Osmack isn’t worried that he won’t be able to compete in November. Since Malek was appointed to his post, Osmack contends he hasn’t proven that he’s a formidable opponent in a general election.“His actions and his decision making so far in his roughly two year tenure in that office have been questionable,” Osmack said.Among other things, Osmack was critical of Malek for placing unclaimed property notices on video gaming machines which are usually found in gas stations or convenience stores. The legality of the machines has been questioned for some time.As Malek explained on his own episode of Politically Speaking, he wanted to make sure the unclaimed property program was as widely advertised as possible. But he acknowledged it was a mistake to put the decals close to the machines and ultimately decided to remove them.Osmack said: “This doesn’t even pass the common sense sniff test of, ‘Hey, should I put state stickers claiming you might have a billion dollars on a gambling machine that is not registered with the state of Missouri?’ If we’re gonna give kudos for him acknowledging the wrong thing, it never should have been done in the first place.”Osmack’s platform includes supporting programs providing school meals using Missouri agriculture products and making child care more accessible for the working class.He said the fact that Missouri has such a large surplus shows that it’s possible to create programs to make child care within reach for parents.“It is quite audacious for [Republicans] to brag about $8 billion, with a B, dollars in state surplus, while we offer next to no social services to include pre-K, daycare, or child care,” Osmack said.Here’s are some other topics Osmack discussed on the show:How he would handle managing the state’s pension systems and approving low-income housing tax credits. The state treasurer’s office is on boards overseeing both of those programs.Malek’s decision to cut off investments from Chinese companies. Osmack said that Missouri needs to be cautious about abandoning China as a business partner, especially since they’re a major consumer of the state’s agriculture products. “There’s a way to make this work where we are not supporting communist nations to the detriment of the United States or our allies, while also maintaining strong economic ties that benefit Missouri farmers,” he said.What it was like to witness the skirmish at the Missouri State Fair between U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley and Democratic challenger Lucas Kunce.Whether Kunce can get the support of influential groups like the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which often channels money and staff to states with competitive Senate elections.
[ad_2]
Source link
Politics
As Illinois receives praise for its cannabis equity efforts, stakeholders work on system’s flaws

[ad_1]
Medical marijuana patients can now purchase cannabis grown by small businesses as part of their allotment, Illinois’ top cannabis regulator said, but smaller, newly licensed cannabis growers are still seeking greater access to the state’s medical marijuana customers.Illinois legalized medicinal marijuana beginning in 2014, then legalized it for recreational use in 2020. While the 2020 law legalized cannabis use for any adult age 21 or older, it did not expand licensing for medical dispensaries.Patients can purchase marijuana as part of the medical cannabis program at dual-purpose dispensaries, which are licensed to serve both medical and recreational customers. But dual-purpose dispensaries are greatly outnumbered by dispensaries only licensed to sell recreationally, and there are no medical-only dispensaries in the state.As another part of the adult-use legalization law, lawmakers created a “craft grow” license category that was designed to give more opportunities to Illinoisans hoping to legally grow and sell marijuana. The smaller-scale grow operations were part of the 2020 law’s efforts to diversify the cannabis industry in Illinois.Prior to that, all cultivation centers in Illinois were large-scale operations dominated by large multi-state operators. The existing cultivators, mostly in operation since 2014, were allowed to grow recreational cannabis beginning in 2019.Until recently, dual-purpose dispensaries have been unsure as to whether craft-grown products, made by social equity licensees — those who have lived in a disproportionately impacted area or have been historically impacted by the war on drugs — can be sold medicinally as part of a patient’s medical allotment.Erin Johnson, the state’s cannabis regulation oversight officer, told Capitol News Illinois last month that her office has “been telling dispensaries, as they have been asking us” they can now sell craft-grown products to medical patients.“There was just a track and trace issue on our end, but never anything statutorily,” she said.
Dilpreet Raju
/
Capitol News IllinoisThe graphic shows how cannabis grown in Illinois gets from cultivation centers to customers.
No notice has been posted, but Johnson’s verbal guidance comes almost two years after the first craft grow business went online in Illinois.It allows roughly 150,000 medical patients, who dispensary owners say are the most consistent purchasers of marijuana, to buy products made by social equity businesses without paying recreational taxes. However — even as more dispensaries open — the number available to medical patients has not increased since 2018, something the Cannabis Regulation Oversight Office “desperately” wants to see changed. Johnson said Illinois is a limited license state, meaning “there are caps on everything” to help control the relatively new market.Berwyn Thompkins, who operates two cannabis businesses, said the rules limited options for patients and small businesses.“It’s about access,” Thompkins said. “Why wouldn’t we want all the patients — which the (adult-use) program was initially built around — why wouldn’t we want them to have access? They should have access to any dispensary.”Customers with a medical marijuana card pay a 1% tax on all marijuana products, whereas recreational customers pay retail taxes between roughly 20 and 40% on a given cannabis product, when accounting for local taxes.While Illinois has received praise for its equity-focused cannabis law, including through an independent study that showed more people of color own cannabis licenses than in any other state, some industry operators say they’ve experienced many unnecessary hurdles getting their businesses up and running.The state, in fact, announced last month that it had opened its 100th social equity dispensary.But Steve Olson, purchasing manager at a pair of dispensaries (including one dual-purpose dispensary) near Rockford, said small specialty license holders have been left in the lurch since the first craft grower opened in October 2022.“You would think that this would be something they’re (the government) trying to help out these social equity companies with, but they’re putting handcuffs on them in so many different spots,” he said. “One of them being this medical thing.”Olson said he contacted state agencies, including the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, months ago about whether craft products can be sold to medical patients at their retail tax rate, but only heard one response: “They all say it was an oversight.”This potentially hurt social equity companies because they sell wholesale to dispensaries and may have been missing out on a consistent customer base through those medical dispensaries.Olson said the state’s attempts to provide licensees with a path to a successful business over the years, such as with corrective lotteries that granted more social equity licenses, have come up short.“It’s like they almost set up the social equity thing to fail so the big guys could come in and swoop up all these licenses,” Olson said. “I hate to feel like that but, if you look at it, it’s pretty black and white.”Olson said craft companies benefit from any type of retail sale.“If we sell it to medical patients or not, it’s a matter of, ‘Are we collecting the proper taxes?’ That’s all it is,” he said.State revenue from cannabis taxes, licensing costs and other fees goes into the Cannabis Regulation Fund, which is used to fund a host of programs, including cannabis offense expungement, the general revenue fund, and the R3 campaign aiming to uplift disinvested communities.For fiscal year 2024, nearly $256 million was paid out from Cannabis Regulation Fund for related initiatives, which includes almost $89 million transferred to the state’s general revenue fund and more than $20 million distributed to local governments, according to the Illinois Department of Revenue.Medical access still limitedThe state’s 55 medical dispensaries that predate the 2020 legalization law, mostly owned by publicly traded multistate operators that had been operating in Illinois since 2014 under the state’s medical marijuana program, were automatically granted a right to licenses to sell recreationally in January 2020. That gave them a dual-purpose license that no new entrants into the market can receive under current law.Since expanding their clientele in 2020, Illinois dispensaries have sold more than $6 billion worth of cannabis products through recreational transactions alone.Nearly two-thirds of dispensaries licensed to sell to medical patients are in the northeast counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake and Will. Dual-purpose dispensaries only represent about 20 percent of the state’s dispensaries.While the state began offering recreational dispensary licenses since the adult-use legalization law passed, it has not granted a new medical dispensary license since 2018. That has allowed the established players to continue to corner the market on the state’s nearly 150,000 medical marijuana patients.But social equity licensees and advocates say there are more ways to level the playing field, including expanding access to medical sales.Johnson, who became the state’s top cannabis regulator in late 2022, expressed hope for movement during the fall veto session on House Bill 2911, which would expand medical access to all Illinois dispensaries.“We would like every single dispensary in Illinois to be able to serve medical patients,” Johnson said. “It’s something that medical patients have been asking for, for years.”Johnson said the bill would benefit patients and small businesses.“It’s something we desperately want to happen as a state system, because we want to make sure that medical patients are able to easily access what they need,” she said. “We also think it’s good for our social equity dispensaries, as they’re opening, to be able to serve medical patients.”Rep. Bob Morgan, D-Deerfield, who was the first statewide project coordinator for Illinois’ medical cannabis program prior to joining the legislature, wrote in an email to Capitol News Illinois that the state needs to be doing more for its patients.“Illinois is failing the state’s 150,000 medical cannabis patients with debilitating conditions. Too many are still denied the patient protections they deserve, including access to their medicine,” Morgan wrote, adding he would continue to work with stakeholders on further legislation.Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government. It is distributed to hundreds of newspapers, radio and TV stations statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation, along with major contributions from the Illinois Broadcasters Foundation and Southern Illinois Editorial Association.
[ad_2]
Source link
-
Politics2 years ago
Prenzler ‘reconsidered’ campaign donors, accepts vendor funds
-
Board Bills1 year ago
2024-2025 Board Bill 80 — Prohibiting Street Takeovers
-
Business3 years ago
Fields Foods to open new grocery in Pagedale in March
-
Board Bills3 years ago
2022-2023 Board Bill 168 — City’s Capital Fund
-
Business3 years ago
We Live Here Auténtico! | The Hispanic Chamber | Community and Connection Central
-
Entertainment1 year ago
OK, That New Cardinals/Nelly City Connect Collab Is Kind of Great
-
Entertainment3 years ago
St.Louis Man Sounds Just Like Whitley Hewsten, Plans on Performing At The Shayfitz Arena.
-
Politics1 year ago
Illinois residents can submit designs for the state’s new flag