Decent News Friday

I wish I could still say it’s amazing that these bills even come up, while now instead, it’s amazing that they’re not brought into law. But here we are. Decent news from Montana!

Powerful Speeches From Trans Dems Flip 29 Republicans, Anti-Trans Bills Die In Montana by Erin Reed

Transgender Reps Zooey Zephyr and SJ Howell delivered powerful speeches on the Montana House floor on Thursday. Republicans defected en masse to join them in voting against anti-trans bills. Read on Substack

Something remarkable happened in Montana today. As has become routine, anti-trans bills were up for debate—the state has spent more than half of its legislative days this session pushing such bills through committees and the House floor, with Republicans largely voting in lockstep. But something changed.

A week ago, transgender Representative Zooey Zephyr delivered a powerful speech against a bill that would create a separate indecent exposure law for transgender people. Since then, momentum on the House floor slowed. Today, two of the most extreme bills targeting the transgender community came up for a vote. Transgender Representatives Zooey Zephyr and SJ Howell gave impassioned speeches—this time, they broke through. In a stunning turn, 29 Republicans defected, killing both bills. One Republican even took the floor to deliver a scathing rebuke of the bill’s sponsor.

The first bill to reach the House floor was HB 675, a measure that would ban drag performances and Pride parades in Montana. A previous drag ban had already been struck down by the courts after it was enforced against a transgender woman—who was not a drag artist—to prevent her from speaking about public history at a library. In response, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Caleb Hinkle, introduced HB 675 to circumvent that ruling.

Rather than relying on state enforcement, this bill would grant individuals the private right to sue if a public drag performance took place, making it more difficult to challenge in court. During committee hearings, Hinkle went even further, calling being transgender “a fetish” and arguing that the law was necessary to prevent trans people from dancing in public.

And that’s when transgender Representative Zooey Zephyr took to the floor.

“Here I am again to rise on another bill targeting the LGBTQ+ community,” she said, exasperated. “At its very core, drag is art. It is very beautiful art. It has a deep history in this country, and it is important to my community. You know, if you are a woman in this body wearing a suit today, you are in some way challenging gender norms that existed long ago… There were three-article-of-clothing laws 50 years ago that said if you wore three articles of clothing that were indicative of the opposite gender, they could stop you, arrest you… it was those laws that led to the police raiding an LGBTQ+ bar that led to the Stonewall riots, one of the most important civil rights moments in my community’s history,” she began.

“When the sponsor closed on this bill, he said, this bill is needed… and I quote his words… ‘because transgenderism is a fetish based on crossdressing.’ And I am here to stand before the body and say that my life is not a fetish. My existence is not a fetish. I was proud within a month ago to have my son up in the gallery here. Many of you on the other side met him. When I go to walk him to school, that’s not a lascivious display. That is not a fetish. That is my family. This is what these bills are trying to come after… not obscene shows in front of children, we have the Miller test for that, we have laws for that. This is a way to target the trans community, and that is in my opinion, and in the speaker’s own words.”

Then something even more remarkable happened: A Republican, Representative Sherry Essman, rose to defend Rep. Zephyr and chastised the bill’s sponsor. “I’m speaking as a parent and a grandmother. And I’m very emotional because I know the representative in seat 20 is also a parent. No matter what you think of that, she is doing her best to raise a child. I did my best to raise my children as I saw fit, and I’m taking it for granted that my children are going to raise my grandchildren as they see fit,” she began.

“Everybody in here talks about how important parental rights are. I want to tell you, in addition to parental rights, parental responsibility is also important. And if you can’t trust a decent parent to decide where and when their kids should see what, then we have a bigger problem,” she turned to parental rights and spoke about how people who claim those rights should vote against the bill.

And then, she closed by chastising the bill’s sponsor for bringing the bill, “Trust the parents to do what’s right, and stop these crazy bills that are a waste of time. They’re a waste of energy. We should be working on property tax relief and not doing this sort of business on the floor of this house and having to even talk about this.”

Following the speeches, 13 Republicans, the most of any anti-trans bill this cycle, flipped and voted against the bill. See it as it happened here:

Were this all that happened, it would have been remarkable enough—such aisle-crossing has become rare in modern politics, and on transgender issues, it is almost unheard of. But Representative Zephyr is not the only transgender lawmaker in Montana. Representative SJ Howell, a powerhouse in their own right, took the floor when an even more extreme bill followed immediately afterwards—HB754, a measure that would remove transgender children from their parents. They had a powerful speech to deliver as well.

Representative Howell opened, “I stand to oppose this bill… When a state intervenes to remove a child from their family, that is one of the most serious and weighty responsibilities that the state has. That is not something to be taken lightly. Every time a child is removed from their family, it’s a tragedy. Sometimes a necessary tragedy, but a tragedy nonetheless. This bill does not come close to the seriousness with which those decisions should be contemplated.”

They pointed directly to the bill’s language: “On page 1, line 19, any child protective service specialist, peace officer, or county attorney who has reason to believe any child is in immediate danger or harm may immediately remove the child. What we are adding… a child transitioning gender with the support of a parent or guardian is considered in immediate or apparent danger or harm.”

Howell then turned to the bill’s vagueness and the dangers it posed to transgender children as well as any child who defies gender norms. “Transitioning gender is not defined in this bill… so what does that mean? Maybe it means, as the sponsor said, surgery or medical treatment. Maybe it means therapy, mental healthcare. Maybe it means a kid who gets a haircut and a new set of clothes. Maybe a name change… a legal name change, or someone who wants to try out a different name… a strict reading of this bill could include all of that.”

They urged lawmakers to consider the real consequences. “Put yourself in the shoes of a CPS worker who is confronted with a young person, 15 years old maybe, who is happy… healthy… living in a stable home with loving parents, who is supported and has their needs met? And they are supposed to remove that child from their home and put them in the care of the state? We should absolutely not be doing that.”

Then, the bill went to a vote. This time, the Montana Republican Party fully fractured—29 Republicans crossed the aisle to defeat it.

Watch it as it happened here:

Following the vote, Representative Zephyr took to social media to discuss the implications. “These kind of votes are born out of transgender representation in government,” she posted on her bluesky account. “Howell & I have built solid relationships with Republicans and those relationships change hearts, minds, and (eventually) votes. It is painful, grueling work. But it makes a difference.”

At a time when anti-trans bills are sailing through red-state legislatures, many are left wondering how they can be stopped. Some Democrats, like Gavin Newsom, have chosen appeasement—standing alongside anti-trans hate leaders like Charlie Kirk instead of standing up for transgender people. But Representatives Zooey Zephyr and SJ Howell offer a different path. As transgender lawmakers in a Republican-dominated government, they have shown that representation, relationships, and the power of speaking truth in hostile spaces can move hearts and minds. Their success is a reminder that even in the most challenging environments, refusing to back down can make a difference.

Editor’s Note: The writer of this article is happily married to Representative Zooey Zephyr. While I am mindful of disclosing personal relationships in my reporting as a transgender journalist, I also recognize the importance of covering major moments like today’s events in Montana, and so I chose to report on this story with this disclosure. My goal remains delivering critical LGBTQ+ news to my readers with the integrity and urgency it deserves.

Peace & Justice History for 3/7

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistorymarch.htm#march7

Peace & Justice History for 3/6

More repetition. sigh

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistorymarch.htm#march6

Never Thought I’d Post (or see!) Resistance To Republicans By Libertarians! Thanks To Tengrain At Mock Paper Scissors:

When You’ve Lost The Koch Brothers’ CATO Institute…

First

First They Came For… by Public Servant

Updating German pastor Martin Niemöller’s 1946 poem for 2025 Read on Substack

My Fellow Democracy Defenders,

Martin Niemöller was a prominent Lutheran pastor in Germany. After Hitler seized power in 1933, the pastor became an outspoken critic. For defying a dictator, he spent the last eight years of Nazi rule (1937 to 1945) in prisons and concentration camps. Pastor Niemöller is best remembered for his 1946 poem, which I have updated for our current situation below.

hitler: German who refused to give Hitler the Nazi salute

First they came for the refugees, and I did not speak out—because I was not a refugee.

Then they came for the trans children, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trans child.

Then they came for the people of color, and I did not speak out—because I was not a person of color.

Then they came for the abortionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not an abortionist.

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the journalists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a journalist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the civil servants, and I am speaking out—my partner has lost her job, and I am fighting for mine.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Will you speak up for all those who are oppressed by fascists? (snip)

Let’s See How This Goes-

Growers Who Rely on Climate Data Sue USDA for Cutting Off Access

MacKenzie Scott, Philanthropist

And no, she didn’t “earn her money in the divorce”; she built Amazon into what it is/was. She earned her money by working. It’s important to note because of opposition comments about her.

MacKenzie Scott Nice Time Update! by Rebecca Schoenkopf

Turns out that the way she gives money is a really good way. Read on Substack

Marcie Jones Mar 04, 2025

green plant in clear glass vase — There’s like no photos of MacKenzie Scott. Photo by micheile henderson on Unsplash

And now let us check in with breath-of-fresh-air MacKenzie Scott, the heart-of-gold billionaire who spun her share of her divorce from Jeff Bezos after he cheated on her into philanthropy and Yield Giving, a foundation that has so far given out almost $20 billion in unrestricted gifts for social justice, human services (like abortions and health care), education, LGBTQ+ services, playgrounds, historically Black colleges and universities, a total of 2,450 excellent causes that happen to be the ones that piss off Elon Musk and other right-wing chuds the very most!

Turns out, according to a three-year-analysis by the Center for Effective Philanthropy of 800 of the donations her foundation has made, the no-strings-attached way she gives out money is quite effective!

When Scott started handing out unrestricted gifts in 2019, the world of philanthropy got shook. The usual way to go about doling out large sums of cash with a foundation is to give restricted gifts, like for eradicating the rockin’ pneumonia, but not the boogie-woogie flu, or a scholarship fund for sensitive boys with at least a 3.0 who play the flute, or constructing the Phineas Q. Oilman Center for Fracking Studies.

Donors like to direct exactly where their money goes. And they like to have their names on stuff, like etched on a plaque, or a “thank you” in the opera program. Also naming rights are a way to encourage ongoing involvement. Don’t you think dear departed Grandpa Oilman would have wanted his heirs to make sure that his building has plenty of money in trust to keep the center’s roof repaired?

And foundations usually give out grants in response to proposals. This usually starts with announcing the grant: The Betsy VonThundersnatch Foundation For The Arts intends to award $5 million to bring drag brunches to underserved populations. Then nonprofits that work in that area respond with a proposal that assesses the need, lays out project with objectives, includes a step-by-step timetable, detailed budget estimate for renting a van, buying wigs and champagne etc., a pitch of why their organization is the most capable one to meet the need, what the benchmarks for measuring success will be, and so on.

Then after a grantee gets the money, they’re usually required to regularly report back the details of their benchmark-hitting to a board. What some might call micromanaging and others might call responsible stewardship helps foundations and charities solicit gifts, because donors want to know exactly where their money is going and be reassured that it’s not going to get blown fast. Which makes sense! But all of that takes time, and wig money. It can be many months and sometimes even years between when a grant is announced and an awardee can cash a check, and charities have to pay overhead for people to look for grants to apply to, and write the proposals.

But MacKenzie Scott’s Yield Foundation does the opposite of this! They skip the solicitation-and-proposal part entirely, quietly and secretly researching organizations’ track records. And then the foundation cuts a surprise check, with no spending-timetable or strings attached, and lets the nonprofit roll with it. It is bold! It is brave! It is trusting!

And here’s the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s report on how it’s going: The grantees are actually not blowing all of the money. Most are using it to shore up longer-term stability and plan to spend it within two to five years. Some have been able to pay debt, and have reserves and health insurance for their employees for the first time, and they are able to provide more services and expand their missions.

Like the South Texas Food Bank. They were able to give their employees free health care, and also nearly doubled the amount of food they distributed to eight counties and one tribal nation in south Texas with the $9 million Scott’s foundation gave them. Also Kaboom! They build playgrounds, and with Scott’s $14 million they have quadrupled the size of their playgrounds, and have gotten into advocacy too, pushing for elimination of the use of toxic chemicals on playground surfaces.

Eighty-five percent of nonprofit recipients said that Scott’s gifts have helped them improve or expand their programming, and 52 percent reported a greater capacity to respond to the needs of the communities they serve. The organizations that received awards from Scott had double the amount of cash reserves as comparable nonprofits, which is vital for the long-term stability of any organization that depends on the kindness of strangers in a volatile economy.

Ninety-three percent reported that Scott’s grant moderately or significantly strengthened their ability to carry out their mission, and 90 percent said the gift bolstered their financial positions. More than 60 percent said they used the grant to establish credibility with other funders, though 53 percent were concerned that other funders might withdraw their support, believing that recipients didn’t need additional funding. But the other side to that is Scott’s foundation has already done the research, so her endorsement could also encourage more donations. How that will pan out in the end for charities remains to be seen.

And, though the grants don’t require them to, 70 percent of the recipients are tracking the impact of the money, some say even better than they actually were before, because now they have better capacity to do that. Said one, “This grant has allowed us to focus more deliberatively on our metrics and impact to better equip us to answer this question/tell our story/show our impact.”

And what an impact! Samples from the survey: 33,521 loans for a total of $1.26 billion to low-income households to buy homes, start or capitalize businesses, and address their financial needs. Health care for 100,000 new patients. Legal orientation for more than 12,000 refugees, and 200 unaccompanied immigrant minors re-unified with their families, and millions of meals served in the US and other countries.

And her freewheeling gifts are having an impact on other foundations also. More than half of foundation leaders surveyed said that they now thought that their foundations should consider giving out large, multiyear, unrestricted support, too. Which is not simple, because foundations are staffed, structured and budgeted to do things the way they’ve always done them, and it’s hard to get boards to agree on lunch, much less to a complete overhaul on how they do everything, and possibly to re-write of all of their bylaws. But now they have a fine example to follow, and success to point to.

That MacKenzie! She is so humble, it is hard to find pictures of her anywhere, unless they’re from her as Bezos’ plus-one in the old days. And while her ex is out here kissing Trump’s behind, whoring out the newspaper he bought and swanning around Aspen with his affair partner, she is making a difference in a good way. And still the 5th-richest woman in the world.

It’s all lovelier than a drag brunch in June.

OPEN THREAD. (We’ll have something up later too, you know what time.)

(snip)

Peace & Justice History for 3/5

I wonder how Ukraine feels about today’s anniversary. sigh

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistorymarch.htm#march5

Elected Dems Did This

This writer, Crip Dyke, feels about Dems the way many here do; that they’re worthless doing anything except being polite. But when Dems do what they should, this writer publishes it so that people know. It’s what we should all do until someone with money forms a new party if that’s what people really want. (To me, it’d be easier to jump in and participate in the Dem party, and fix it from within. With numbers, it’d be easy and relatively quick to make the desired improvements. Anyway, here is good news about an issue on which we’ve all been writing and calling.)

Democrats Strike At Heart Of GOP Darkness, Kill Anti-Trans Sports Bill by Rebecca Schoenkopf

In the moment Death stepped on the Senate floor to claim S9, Tuberville reportedly whispered, ‘The horror. The horror.’ Read on Substack

A long line of high school students, double and sometimes triple file, march past a squat, neo-classical government building on their way to the Des Moines, Iowa governor's mansion on Terrance Hill to protest attacks on trans students wishing to play sports. — Let trans kids play. Image by Phil Roeder. Used under CCA 2.0.

In the 19 long, bitter decades since Trump issued Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out Of Women’s Sports,” generations have been born, come of age, and died buried away from the sun, divided by uncrossable rivers. Few could conceive of the darkness of the soul in those times who have not lived them.

And so our forgotten years of hope reflecting off the waters of that most colonial of rivers, the Potomac, produced the most unexpected flicker yesterday: a filibuster victory in the Senate, blocking the codification of 14201 into law and ban trans participation in girls’ and women’s school sports. To quote Erin Reed:

Republicans called it the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.” Democrats dubbed it “The GOP Child Predator Empowerment Act”. The Senate clerk said it didn’t have the votes.

To misquote Joseph Conrad, the Democratic Party is a droll thing, a mysterious arrangement of spineless yes-men for a futile purpose. The most you can hope from it is some acknowledgement of yourself that comes too late, leaving a crop of inextinguishable regrets. But not March 3, 2025!

And not today, Satan!

The vote was not quite so positive as The Hill would have you believe: They reported that “all Democrats voted against” the bill, recorded as S. 9. While zero Democrats voted for it, two Dems known to waffle in the face of anti-trans attacks did abstain. The Senate’s two independents (both of whom caucus with Democrats), Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, both voted against. The final margin of 51-45 included two abstentions from Republicans as well, Shelley Capito (R-WV) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). Though Trump hasn’t ruled on the prior state of these Senators as blastocysts, both do appear to be women, curiously enough.

The defeat of S9 marks a rare moment in the 119th Congress in which Democrats hung together. On other votes including prominent Senate confirmations and measures in both the Senate and the House, there have been significant defections. HR 28, the House version of this bill, snagged two Democratic votes (both Texas centrists and both men). In a time when Democratic voters and other lefties have been crying out for principled obstructionism to be waged against Trump and the MAGA agenda, blocking S9 was a largely unexpected win. Calling out trans participation in girls’ and women’s sports has been a particularly effective form of attack by the GOP, even when lying their asses off, as Tommy Tuberville did on FOX:

“We’re getting to a point now where women and girls’ sports and getting ready to be extinct. Because already in states across this country, we have high school teams that are made up of totally boys participating against girls. […And wank, wank, wank.]”

Of course no one other than GOP primary voters have taken Tuberville seriously since his Auburn Tigers lost to 14 transsexual squirrels in Commodore drag. But if you need to hear it from someone who knows better than yr Wonkette, Kate Starbird, former NCAA basketball standout, former professional baller in the ABL and WNBA, and current University of Washington professor, had this to say about Tuberville’s demented lie:

“As a former athlete & current researcher of online rumors & disinfo, today’s atrocious example of the ‘right wing bullshit machine’ in action — anchored on a truly idiotic claim from a football coach turned GOP senator about trans girls making girls sports ‘extinct’ — enrages along both dimensions.”

(Wonkette was so impressed with this quote we are currently reviewing her inventory of dick jokes in preparation for the possible extension of an offer of employment.)

To be clear, under the filibuster rules, which could change if the GOP thinks abandoning this Senate tradition is important enough, the bill needed 60 votes to clear a procedural step — cloture — that would then allow an up-or-down vote on enactment. That final vote would have needed only the barest majority, and a tie can be split by the Vice President. But Republicans are not currently talking about eliminating cloture votes, and as long as the filibuster survives, the Protection of Women & Girls in Sports Act is dead.

Despite this victory depending on the GOP maintaining the filibuster and the fact that Republicans are constantly launching other attacks on immigrants, people of color, teachers, and many others, there’s good reason to celebrate the Dems acting like they know how to win. And many people are celebrating, including another former professional athlete and generally decent person, Chris Kluwe:

“I support and am happy the party came together to stop this.”

Of course the party pooper had to add:

“However, this is what they should be doing on EVERYTHING. I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it – we are in an existential crisis as a country. We’re either going to emerge as Americans, or as something else.”

And that is, indeed, where we are. Like a flash of lightning in the clouds, we are glimpsing an ephemeral brightening of hope. We live in the flicker, may it last as long as the old earth keeps rolling! But darkness was here yesterday. The GOP has lost only the first of the ebb.