Bills aimed at blocking equity and inclusion for LGBTQ people have been popping up around the nation — and in nearby South Dakota — and Minnesota will see its share when the Legislature convenes in March. Bills aimed at allowing discrimination against same-sex couples, barring transgender-inclusive schools, and sabotaging data collection on school climate for LGBTQ youth have been filed ahead of the session.

With the construction at the Capitol building, lawmaking will commence late this year: March 8. This year is the second year in the 2015-2016 biennium meaning that legislation offered in 2015 is still eligible for consideration in 2016.

A divided Legislature — Republicans control the House and DFLers the Senate — means there is little chance that anti-LGBTQ bills will make it to the governor who would likely issue a veto, but it also means that pro-LGBTQ initiatives aren’t likely to make it past the staunchly anti-LGBTQ Republican caucus in the House.

The Column sat down with OutFront Minnesota’s executive director Monica Meyer and legal director Phil Duran late last year to talk about what to expect at the legislature in 2016. We’ve also put together a list below that outlines the various bills up for consideration and what they mean for LGBTQ equity.

Some LGBTQ-supportive bills are up for consideration including a ban on conversion therapy, and a bill to improve health care access for transgender Minnesotans.

Ban on Conversion Therapy
Bills in the House and Senate would prohibit the use of “conversion therapy” on LGBTQ minors by revoking the licensure of professionals who practice it. The bill would also ban the use of public funds to conduct such therapy. The bill is backed by 28 DFLers in the House (HF1620) and 5 DFLers in the Senate (SF1213). It has no Republican sponsors.

Equitable Health Care
SF2141 would rectify some anti-transgender language put into state statute a decade ago.

Minnesota law specifically forbids the state’s Medicaid program from covering gender confirmation health care for transgender people. The state covered such procedures until 2005 when legislators passed, and Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed, a health and human services omnibus bill that blocked the coverage. Currently, Medical Assistance, General Assistance Medical Care, and MinnesotaCare do not provide equitable health care for transgender Minnesotans.

Under SF2141, the term “sex reassignment surgery” is deleted and replaced with “treatment of gender dysphoria.” The line: “Sex reassignment surgery is not covered” would be amended with “unless medically necessary.” In addition, the bill would make medications related to transitioning available under state-funded health insurance plans: “the commissioner may include within the drug formulary established under subdivision 13d, drugs for the treatment of gender dysphoria.”

The number of pro-LGBTQ bills is dwarfed by the amount of anti-LGBTQ legislation that attacks inclusion for transgender youth, would roll-back nondiscrimination laws, and hamper efforts to make schools inclusive for LGBTQ students.

Anti-transgender legislation
A slew of bills have been introduced to block efforts at transgender inclusion in public schools. These bill were offered by Republicans in reaction to a 2014 decision by the Minnesota State High School League to create an appeals process to allow transgender students to participate in athletics programs consistent with their gender. It’s also a reaction to the Minneapolis and St. Paul school districts’ efforts to create transgender-inclusive schools.

1546/SF1543 would repeal the Minnesota State High School Leagues transgender inclusion appeals process, and would bar transgender inclusion in public schools.

Another bill, 1547, would ban transgender inclusion in schools but doesn’t address the MSHSL appeals process.

One of the lead promoters of anti-transgender legislation is Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen, a Republican from Glencoe. He’s been bringing the issue up at meetings around the state including an event in October with Minnesota Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson.

In an email to constituents, Gruenhhagen threatened to file an expanded version that would also prohibit most entities — businesses, government, nonprofits — from enacting gender-inclusive policies. He even send an email last week trying to recruit fellow lawmakers.

Discrimination
Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature are hoping to pare back anti-discrimination laws in light of same-sex marriage becoming legal in the state in 2013. One such “freedom of conscience” bill was introduced last session. SF2158 would allow religious entities, small businesses, and certain government officials to refuse to serve same-sex couples if doing so would “violate a sincerely held religious belief that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman.” The bill is being carried and touted by Sen. Paul Gazelka. He introduced it in early 2015 in order to generate a conversation. That conversation hasn’t occurred with any gusto. Gazelka mentioned the bill a bit in June after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, and again in July at a forum.

In early October, Rep. Duane Quam announced that he was going to introduce his own version of a “religious freedom” bill aimed at allowing discrimination against same-sex couples:

“The principle should be government shouldn’t be making you do stuff you don’t want to do,” he said.
The legislation is broad, stating simply that “no person, organization or entity shall incur a civil or criminal penalty for refusing to provide a service, or refusing to allow the use of property or facilities for any activity that is prohibited by or is against the person’s, organization’s or entity’s sincerely held religious beliefs.” Quam said the legislation would protect people of all religious faiths from violating their beliefs. All too often, he said, individuals are seeking out religious individuals who own businesses and forcing them to go against their beliefs.
“Why should a person, a group choose to make someone do something they don’t want to do? You’ve got probably dozens of options but you don’t choose ones that the people don’t have a problem with it. Instead you choose to rub somebody’s face in something for a point,” Quam said.

Quam made good on his promise and the bill was pre-filed in late January.

Another bill would allow small businesses to discriminate against people based on “familial status.” HF1128 has two Republican sponsors but three DFLers dropped off the bill last year after the potential anti-LGBTQ ramifications of the bill became apparent.

Education
A pair of bills would undermine the state’s student survey processes, largely because anti-LGBTQ groups don’t like surveys that capture information about LGBTQ students.

Under HF1778 schools would not be able to administer surveys to students, including the Minnesota Student Survey, unless a parent consents in writing. It would also authorize the governor to set up an office to investigate violations and withhold state funds from school districts that administer a survey.

A nearly identical bill, HF0099, that doesn’t include an enforcement mechanism was also introduced.

The bills got a hearing last year in the Senate, and Barb Anderson, a longtime foe of LGBTQ rights, testified.

“After 24 years of researching sex education curriculum, sex education surveys, and questionnaires given to school age youth I have watched the progression of these surveys become more and more explicit in their sexual content and exposing children to aberrant sexual behaviors simply by the choices that they offer students in some of these survey questions,” Anderson told the committee. “The message students receive when it is delivered with the authority of the school district is clear: forget what your mother and father taught you about sexuality. Just do whatever feels good to you.”

The Minnesota Family Council, which also opposes LGBTQ equity, testified after Anderson. Policy director Autumn Leva told the committee that her organization “gets phone calls every single school year” from parents upset about the wording of a survey. She said parents should have “the opportunity to know in advance that these questions were going to be asked of their child.”

Another anti-LGBTQ activist, Viktoriya Tatur, told the committee that she supported the bill, in part, because “When 7th graders have to respond to a questionnaire about their sexual orientations without their parents knowing, that’s crossing the boundaries.”

The Minnesota Child Protection League, another anti-LGBTQ group, has been lobbying school boards to adopt a similar policy. Republican lawmakers closely connected to the Child Protection League — Reps. Peggy Scott, Abigail Whelan, and Eric Lucero — have asked constituents via email to opt out of the survey partly because the survey asks about LGBTQ identity (See below for full emails).

The Student Religious Liberties Act (HF0188, HF118) is a perennial bill offered by Republicans. George Kane of the Minnesota Atheists wrote about the bills’ practical implications in 2014:

Bills bearing the words “religious liberty” in their title are actually designed to create legal privileges for Christians and to permit them to discriminate on the basis of religion. This bill would prohibit schools from taking any action against a student expressing a religious viewpoint. If, for example, a student creates a hostile environment by preaching that gay students are condemned to hell, the schools could take no action to stop it. It would not allow the schools, in selecting student speakers at assemblies, to refuse to allow students to give speeches because of their intent to give religious testimony. The proposed law would guarantee students the liberty to create a religiously hostile school environment, and subject their fellow students to religious views to which their parents might not wish them exposed. It might even protect a student’s grade in biology class if that student denies the evolution of species.

Looking ahead
Success for any of these measures is unlikely. The Republican-controlled House is likely to block pro-LGBTQ efforts such as a ban on conversion therapy or health equity for transgender Minnesotans. On the flip side, anti-LGBTQ bills will have a tough time getting past a DFL-controlled Senate and Gov. Mark Dayton, who would likely veto any anti-LGBTQ legislation.

That means much of the work of advancing equity for LGBTQ Minnesota will happen at the local level and by educating Minnesotans on why equity for LGBTQ people is important. The Column also sat down with OutFront to talk about issues the organization is working on in 2016:

Here are legislator emails referenced above:
[dg ids=”22433,22434,22435,22436,21608″]