Transgender anti-discrimination bill becomes tough sell for centrist Dems

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership are
pushing legislation, written by Rep. Barney Frank, that would made it illegal
for employers to discriminate against transgendered people.

The bill scares centrist Democrats, who don’t want to be
forced to vote on a hot-button issue popular on the left as they approach
November congressional elections in which heavy Democratic losses are expected.

{mosads}Gay rights groups are pushing for a House vote this month,
and the legislation from Frank, who is gay and hired the first openly
transgendered aide on Capitol Hill, would broaden the reach of the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act.

The 2007 version, which won support from some centrists,
prohibited hiring on the grounds of sexual orientation but not gender identity;
it passed the House easily, 235-184, with 35 Republican votes.

Backers of the transgender provision are hoping that larger
Democratic majorities in Congress and the public support from the Obama
administration will lead to passage of the bill, but the sensitivity of the
issue threatens to exacerbate an already challenging election year environment
for Democrats. Bringing it to the floor in the next several weeks could also
buck Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) pledge to save vulnerable members from tough votes
following the bruising healthcare debate.

The issue is a high priority among gay people, who
criticize the Obama administration for not implementing key tenets of the gay
rights agenda quickly enough. Advocates have been particularly irked by delays
in repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy”; military veterans
supporting repeal are planning a rally on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

The Democratic whip’s office has circulated an e-mail asking
members if they’d support a version of the non-discrimination act that includes
the transgender protection and if they’d oppose an anticipated motion to
recommit that would water down or strike that provision.

Already, some Republican members who voted for the 2007
measure are saying they would not support the broader bill this year.

“It’s going to make it a lot more difficult for me to
support it,” Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.) told The Hill. “It’s a very touchy issue
to most Americans.”

In an effort to build momentum for the current legislation,
202 lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors to the version that includes
transgender protection. But that list does not include dozens of members who
supported the 2007 bill, many of them Democrats facing uphill re-election
battles.

Those Democrats were loath to discuss the transgender issue
this week. Several did not respond to queries about their position, while
others said they were undecided.

“I don’t have anything to say on that,” replied Rep. Jason
Altmire (D-Pa.), who voted for the 2007 version but has not signed on to the
current bill.

“I’m still considering all of that,” said Rep. Rick Boucher
(D-Va.), another supporter of the legislation in 2007.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) said she was also
undecided on the bill.

All three of the lawmakers face challenging re-election
prospects this fall.

Frank (D-Mass.) said Democratic leaders were still working
on getting the votes for the bill and that he was “optimistic” that it would
pass.

Despite the uncertainty among centrist Democrats, gay rights
groups voiced confidence that the measure would gain the required support by
the time it reached the House floor.

“We think we’re closing the gap, and members are starting to
understand the importance” of the transgender language, said Allison Herwitt,
legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign. She said the potential loss
of votes over the transgender issue from Republicans and Democrats who supported
the 2007 bill could be offset by lawmakers who entered the House since that
vote was taken. “It kind of cancels each other out,” Herwitt said.

The executive director of the National Center for
Transgender Equality, Mara Keisling, scoffed at the suggestion that gender
identity was too controversial an issue for lawmakers to support during an
election year. “There’s always members of Congress who are going to want to
avoid the slightest bit of controversy,” she said. “This is not healthcare
reform. This is not medical marijuana.”

“Nobody is going to lose [their seat] because of this vote,”
Keisling said. When Pelosi promised not to subject her members to difficult
votes after healthcare, Keisling said, “she was not meaning ENDA.”

Even if the legislation passes the House, it faces an
uncertain future in the Senate.

A companion bill was introduced in August 2009 by Sens. Jeff
Merkley (D-Ore.), Olympia Snowe (R-Me.), Susan Collins (R-Me.) and Edward
Kennedy (D-Mass.). It was one of the last pieces of legislation to carry the
name of the late Massachusetts senator, who died a few weeks later. While Sen.
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the HELP committee, has said he would try to
move the bill this year if approved by the House, advocates say they have yet
to receive a firm commitment from the leadership.

The Senate never acted on the non-discrimination act that
passed the House in 2007. It would have faced an almost certain veto by
President George W. Bush.