Oak Park officials mull adding protections for gender affirming care
The proposal comes in the wake of a Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that outlaws gender affirming care for minors in that state.
After reviewing a draft ordinance during its first reading at the July 1 Oak Park Village Board meeting and hearing public comment from three Oak Park residents, the board will likely vote Aug. 5 on adding protections for gender affirming care, which is care that supports gender transitions or sex changes, to the village's Human Rights Ordinance, though officials said they are gathering further input.
Language in the draft ordinance indicates more than 20 states, but not Illinois, have 'banned or severely limited health care to align a young person's body with their gender identity.'
No board members expressed any opposition to the draft ordinance at the July meeting.
'I think it's a good ordinance and I support it,' said board member Jim Taglia.
Resident Aaron McManus, said that the ordinance was good but wanted it to go further. He asked the board for further protections, including making Oak Park a sanctuary city for trans people and adding privacy protections.
'So great start — thanks again — but you've still got some work to do,' McManus said. 'And again I'd like to advocate for a public declaration of the sanctuary status.'
Board members were open to adding sanctuary status in the future.
'This is a great first step,' said board member Brian Straw. 'I do want to see us go further on the path to being a sanctuary village for trans and queer individuals.'
Village Board member Cory Wesley wanted to know if there are any communities in the United States that have declared themselves to be trans sanctuaries.
Village President Vicki Scaman said that she wanted to reach out to groups such as Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, or PFLAG, for input and also reach out other units of local government such as Oak Park Township and area school districts before voting on the ordinance.
Village manager Kevin Jackson said he would also solicit views from the village's Community Relations Commission before bringing back the proposed ordinance for a vote.
One person who made a public comment, who asked Pioneer Press not to name her because of safety concerns, said she supported the ordinance but worried that the ordinance could increase the visibility of the issue and thus put trans individuals at risk.
'I worry that we are inviting unwanted attention,' she said during her public comment.
That was a concern that board members took seriously.
'The last thing we want to do in crafting protections is to put people at risk,' Wesley said.
Assistant village manager Kira Tchang said the push for the ordinance came about because the LGBTQ community is under attack.
The draft ordinance would prohibit any village agent or agency from providing information about or investigating or aiding in any investigation of a person or entity providing or receiving gender affirming care obtained in conformance with the laws of the state of Illinois.
The immediate impact of the ordinance would be mostly symbolic because Illinois already has a law, passed in 2023, that protects medical providers who perform gender affirming care and protects access to gender affirming care.
The draft ordinance also requires the village of Oak Park to object to any subpoena or request for records for information from any out of state person or entity for the purposes of investigating a law criminalizing gender affirming care or creating civil liability for gender affirming care. This also largely mirrors existing state law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
US supreme court clears way for deportations of eight men to South Sudan
The supreme court has allowed the Trump administration to deport the eight men who have been held for weeks at an American military base in Djibouti to war-torn South Sudan, a country where almost none of them have ties. Most of the men are from countries including Vietnam, South Korea, Mexico, Laos, Cuba and Myanmar. Just one is from South Sudan. The supreme court's order on Thursday came after the court's conservative majority last month decided that immigration officials can quickly deport people to countries to which they have no connection. That order paused a district judge's earlier ruling that immigrants being sent to third countries must first be given an opportunity to prove they would face torture, persecution or death if they were sent there. Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the eight men and executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the eight men could 'face perilous conditions, and potentially immediate detention, upon arrival'. Two liberal justices dissented – Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – by saying the ruling gives the government special treatment. 'What the government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,' she added. The Trump administration has been seeking deals with various countries to accept deportees that the US government cannot quickly send back to their homelands. The eight men awaiting deportation to South Sudan have all been convicted of serious crimes, which the Trump administration has emphasized in justifying their banishment. Many had either finished or were close to finishing serving sentences, and had 'orders of removal' directing them to leave the US. Some, like Tuan Thanh Phan – who came to the United States from Vietnam as a child and was convicted of killing someone in a gang altercation when he was 18 – had already planned to return to his home country after serving his sentence. Instead, the US government first told these men that they would be deported to South Africa, and they were asked to sign documents acknowledging their deportation. They refused, and their case came before judge Brian E Murphy of the district of Massachusetts, who ruled that the government must provide 'written notice' to any immigrant facing deportation to a third country, and give them an opportunity to voice a 'reasonable fear' of torture. The men were told instead that they were being deported to South Sudan. The government did not provide Murphy with immediate information about where the men were, and where they were being sent. Eventually, their flight landed in Camp Lemonnier, an American military base in Djibouti. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents worked 12-hour shifts guarding the men. In a sworn court declaration, an official described illness among the detainees and government agents, inadequate medical care, risks of malaria and worry about attacks from militants in Yemen. In May, the Trump administration asked the supreme court to intervene and allow the government to deport the men to South Sudan. They sought agreements with several countries to house immigrants if authorities could not quickly send them back to their homelands. The White House and Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The Associated Press contributed reporting Solve the daily Crossword
Bloomberg
6 hours ago
- Bloomberg
What Happens If Trump Fires Fed Chair Jerome Powell?
Donald Trump's relentless pressure on Jerome Powell is once again roiling markets and raising questions about what would happen next if the president fired the embattled Federal Reserve chair. Such a move would be a first in US history and would almost certainly trigger a landmark lawsuit that would grip both Washington and Wall Street and ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court.
Axios
7 hours ago
- Axios
Here are the 3rd-countries where the Trump admin is deporting migrants
Expelling migrants to third-countries that are not their place of origin is becoming a cornerstone of President Trump's deportation strategy. The big picture: The administration's increasing number of third-country deportation agreements showcases a dogged desire to pursue every possible avenue to fulfill Trump's promise to deport record numbers of noncitizens. Catch up quick: The Trump administration restarted deportation flights after the Supreme Court ruled last month that the Department of Homeland Security could resume sending migrants to countries that were not their place of origin. The decision put a lower court order that required the government to give immigrants adequate time to challenge their deportations on hold. State of play: Border czar Tom Homan said the U.S. aims to sign third-country deportation agreements with "many countries" to support the administration's deportation plans. The administration has either approached or plans to approach roughly 51 countries to accept non-citizen deportations from the U.S., per a June report New York Times report. At least two of those countries, Eswatini and South Sudan in Africa, have accepted flights from the U.S. since the report came out. The DHS did not immediately respond to Axios' Wednesday evening request for comment on how many of the countries have been approached. Thought bubble via Axios' Dave Lawler: The administration has reportedly discussed safe third-country agreements with many countries for which the "safe" description is very much in question. Take Libya or South Sudan, both of which have been wracked by instability and violence for years. Several other countries involved in these deals are among the poorest in the world. The prospect of deporting migrants thousands of miles away to unfamiliar and often unstable countries has raised alarm among human rights groups, but the idea has strong support within the administration. Here are the countries that have already accepted deportees who are not their citizens: Eswatini Five migrants from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen were deported to the tiny African nation of Eswatini on Tuesday, the DHS announced. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on X that the flight was carrying individuals who had been convicted of a range of crimes that included murder, homicide, and child rape. El Salvador The Trump administration sent at least 238 Venezuelan migrants to a notorious El Salvadorian maximum security prison under the Alien Enemies Act in March, claiming that they were terrorists and members of a violent gang. By the numbers: An April CBS News report found 75% of the migrants sent to the prison had no criminal record. Mexico Mexico has received roughly 6,000 non-Mexicans from the U.S. as of late April, per Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. Sheinbaum said the non-Mexicans her country was accepting for "humanitarian reasons" comprise a small number of the nearly 39,000 migrants the U.S. has deported to Mexico since Jan. 20. Guatemala Guatemalan President Bernardo Arevalo announced in February that his country had agreed to accept third-country nationals from the United States and would be ramping up deportation flights from the U.S. by 40%. Arevalo told NBC News that the agreement was not supposed to provide a pathway for people to seek asylum in Guatemala. Rather, the country would serve as a pit stop in the process of sending people back to their home countries. Costa Rica Costa Rica accepted roughly 200 third-country nationals from two different U.S. flights through the end of February, per a May Human Rights Watch report. On the planes were at least 81 children and two pregnant women. What they're saying: After announcing the expulsion agreement, Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves said his country was helping its "economically powerful brother to the north." Costa Rican officials have said the U.S. will cover the costs of the deported people's stay in the country, and that the arrangement was expected to be a temporary stop in the repatriation process. Panama The U.S. has deported hundreds of people to Panama since February as part of a deal for the country serve as a "bridge" while the U.S. bears the financial costs, per AP. The migrants are from countries including Iran, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Rwanda The U.S. paid the Rwandan government $100,000 to accept an Iraqi citizen in April and agreed to take 10 more deportees, the New York Times reported. Negotiations reached over the Iraqi citizen "proved the concept for a new removal program, according to the report. South Sudan The U.S. deported eight men to South Sudan in July, after a legal battle diverted their deportation flight to Djibouti for several weeks. Some of the men deported were from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam. Kosovo This landlocked Balkan nation in Europe agreed to host 50 noncitizen deportees from the U.S. in June. The deal would allow noncitizens to be "temporarily relocated" before being sent back to their home country. The intrigue: Kosovo reportedly agreed to accept the noncitizens from the U.S. in the hope that the administration will continue to lobby other nations to recognize the small country's independence.
