It¡Çs Eugene¡Çs time to join in on anti-discrimination laws

By Jessica Derleth

March 10, 2006

In the last couple of days, I have seen an alarming number of stories that quietly illustrate the discriminatory treatment that gay and transgender individuals face. These stories wouldn¡Çt necessarily be considered big news. The situations that they bring to light aren¡Çt new or shocking; but, the single issues that appear to be minor take on a different form when seen in light of other events. Recent combined reporting shows the difficulties that the gay and transgender community faces.

One recent controversy centers around the services of the Family Planning Expansion Project, started in 1999 through a federal grant to provide family planning services to low-income men and women. The program originally covered seven different types of visits related to overall reproductive health and included STI screening, pregnancy tests and Pap smears . When the program was renewed, the federal government changed the guidelines to specifically state that the main reason for a visit must be ¡Ècontraceptive management.¡É It is as if the language was purposely changed to exclude gay students; is there any other reason for the wording of the guidelines to change in such a manner?

I can see a private organization deciding to provide aid only to those who are attempting to avoid pregnancy. It is reasonable for an organization to focus its efforts on unwanted pregnancy rather than overall sexual health. But, first off, this is a government program. As a product of the government, this program should not be as limited as a private organization may choose to be. These types of government programs should strive to help students prevent unwanted pregnancies as well as the transmission of STIs.

The irony is that this program does provide STI screening. FPEP does not have the right to deny gay students services because its objective is to provide contraceptive management. The program obviously covers services, such as STI screening, that apply to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. It follows that it should not matter how a student defines his or her sexuality. Further, it should not be considered consequential if a student is interested in ¡Ècontraceptive management.¡É A student seeking the services of FPEP is clearly looking for help with his or her sexual wellness, and that should be enough. A student should not have to lie about his or her sexual orientation in order to receive low-cost STI screening. When a student is forced to lie in order to receive fair treatment, no one should consider it an act of ¡Ècivil disobedience¡É (¡ÈProgram biased against gays, group says,¡É ODE Mar. 9).

A recent article in the Eugene Register-Guard described how the Eugene Human Rights Commission decided against recommending changes to city law that would protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender identity. I was slightly surprised to learn that the commission was heeding the advice of the Lane Gender Task Force that is advocating for more community education before going forward with any legislation.

I understand that it is difficult to create anti-discrimination laws, guidelines and plans, something that can be seen in our own diversity plan, which has been in the works for quite some time. But sometimes things get to the point where action needs to be taken and steps need to be made. For years there has been an effort to expand the city¡Çs anti-discrimination law on behalf of transgendered people, and there is no time like the present to gain some real ground.

Many reasons were cited for delaying the creation of protection laws, everything from the belief that the community is not ready to the belief that transgendered people and their advocates are asking for ¡Èspecial rights.¡É This is a complicated issue that has many sides, but that does not mean action should be delayed. At least 80 cities, counties and states protect transgendered individuals from discrimination, and it is time that Eugene follows suit.

These issues may all be complicated, but the necessity to guarantee equality to all people is a basic task that needs to be undertaken.

jderleth@dailyemerald.com