Last week, the Connecticut House Judiciary Committee considered HB 6599, a bill to add “gender identity or expression” to the state’s anti-discrimination statute. Testifying against the bill, Peter Wolfgang — President of the Family Institute of Connecticut Action — warned that the bill would “expose” children “to teachers in their schools who one day will be a man and the next day could decide to be a woman” and “alternative lifestyles.” Women and children “would be put at risk,” Wolfgang continued. “Nothing would prevent a male sexual predator from pretending that he is confused about his sex to gain access to a woman’s bathroom.”

During the hearing, Committee Chairman Rep. Holder-Winfield (D) challenged Wolfgang on his fearmongering, “pointing out that laws prohibiting that kind of assault already exist” and would remain in place if the nondiscrimination measure is adopted:

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: You said if this bill passes, nothing would prevent the sexual predators from taking the actions that you suggest might happen. What prevents them from doing that now?

WOLFGANG: Well they’d certainly have more of a reason to do it. And men in general should not be allowed into women’s bathrooms. At issue is the fact that you have an exception for sex but not for gender identity and expression if this bill passes and men can enter women’s bathrooms.

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: But my question to you is, what prevents them from doing it now? Your answer, while a response, doesn’t actually indicate what does that.

WOLFGANG: Well, I mean, you know, there are laws that prevent crimes, obviously, from taking place in bathrooms in general. But, I mean, why give sexual predators a pretext? Why give them an excuse to say, “Look, I’m transgendered and that’s why I went into the women’s bathroom.” Obviously it’s – you know, there are laws for registered sex offenders.

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: And so those laws would actually exist if the crime was committed after entering the bathroom, even if this law passed – if this bill passed, is that not correct?

Watch it:

As HRC’s Meghan Stabler writes, while momentum for the bill is building, “[s]imilar bills in the past had passed both the Judiciary Committee and the Senate yet died in the state House of Representatives.” A similar bill in Maryland “dropped its public accommodations language in an effort to boost support.”

In 2004, the Connecticut passed a transgender-inclusive hate crime law and in 2000, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) issued a declaratory ruling “indicating that transgender people are protected under existing Connecticut sex discrimination laws.” Still, there currently exists no explicit law “protecting transgender people from discrimination in employment, education, housing, and public accommodations.” (H/T: Equality Matters)

In commemoration of LGBT Health Awareness Week, the Center for American Progress and the National Coalition for LGBT Health have released a new report examining how the Affordable Care Act affects the LGBT community and how they and their allies can “continue to advocate for broad inclusion as the law is fully implemented between now and 2014.” Authors Kellan Baker and Jeff Krehely offer four specific recommendations for how the federal government and the states can ensure that the law is implemented with the community in mind:

- Achieving comprehensive nondiscrimination protections in health insurance exchanges: HHS should issue “explicit antidiscrimination protections regarding gender identity and sexual orientation in all aspects of insurance.”

- Establishing LGBT-inclusive data collection policies: Section 4302 also allows the secretary of HHS to designate additional groups that experience health disparities and would benefit from improved data collection. The Secretary should include sexual orientation and gender identity.

- Recognizing and including LGBT families in all health reform activities: HHS should issue rules ensuring that, to the extent permitted by law, the full diversity of families in the United States, including LGBT-headed families, are eligible for new benefits and programs.

- Supporting community-based health interventions that are LGBT-inclusive: the definition of “community” must be expanded beyond physical boundaries toward an understanding of communities shaped by shared identities and common health disparities.

The report notes that America’s health care crisis is only magnified in the LGBT community, which suffers from discriminatory laws that limit access to dependent health care coverage and — given burden of minority stress — “also faces elevated risk for substance use and mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and suicidal ideation.” For instance, “gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults are roughly twice as likely as the general population to be without health insurance coverage, and rates of uninsurance are even higher for transgender individuals.”

A recent study published in Health Affairs found that the federal income tax burden on dependent employer-sponsored coverage for same-sex couples (as well as other factors) directly result in lower levels of insurance for partnered gays and lesbians as compared to their heterosexual counterparts. “Partnered gay men are less than half as likely (42 percent) as married heterosexual men to get employer-sponsored dependent coverage, and partnered lesbians have an even slimmer chance (28 percent) of getting dependent coverage compared to married heterosexual women,” the study found.

These disparities will likely decrease as the government implements the new health law, but as Baker and Krehely argue, policy makers should consider taking additional steps to ensure that all of the community’s health care needs are properly met.

In response to a proposed regulation from the Department of Housing and Urban Development prohibiting discrimination in its programs based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has cried out that the regulation will interfere with their religious beliefs and threatened to end their support and sponsorship of tenants for HUD programs (PDF):

Specifically, the regulations may force faith-based and other organizations, as a condition of participating in HUD programs and in contravention of their religious beliefs, to facilitate shared housing arrangements between persons who are not joined in the legal union of one man and one woman. By this, we do not mean that any person should be denied housing. Making decisions about shared housing, however, is another matter. Particularly here, faith-based and other organizations should retain the freedom they have always had to make housing placements in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs, including when it concerns a cohabiting couple, be it an unmarried heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. Given the very large role that faith-based organizations play in HUD programs, the regulation, by infringing upon that freedom, may have the ultimate effect of driving away organizations with a long and successful track record in meeting housing needs, leaving beneficiaries without the housing that they sought or that the government intended them to receive.

HUD’s decision reflects a growing awareness of the discrimination actually faced by people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender. A recent study revealed that one in five transgender individuals has experienced homelessness. An estimated 40% of homeless youth are LGBT, and LGBT elders are at higher risk for homelessness due to the compounding financial inequities they experience over their lifetimes.

This is only the latest of several threats from the Catholic Church to suspend charity support in the face of LGBT progress. In 2009, when the District of Columbia was preparing to pass marriage equality, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington threatened to discontinue all social services for the city if the same-sex marriage law was passed. After the law passed, DC Catholic Charities dropped all spousal benefits for newlyweds and new hires. In Maine, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland pulled its funding of a homeless shelter because of its support of same-sex marriage.

But, while the Bishops feel that it is more important to discriminate against LGBT people than to actually provide them housing, a recent study revealed that 74% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage or civil unions. In conjunction with its new proposed policy (PDF), HUD is also conducting its own study of housing discrimination against LGBT people.