Mizzou YDSA and the whole Missouri queer community finally found themselves at the end of another terrifying legislative session. A few highlights, if you can call them that:
- After cross-chamber posturing, cowardly restrictions on time to testify in hearings, and a noble effort by Senate Democrats to filibuster, Senate Bills 39 and 49 were signed into law.
- SB 39 banned trans athletes from participating in school sports, including private schools and even college athletes. The governor even threatened a special session if this was not passed.
- SB 49 banned gender-affirming medical interventions including hormone therapy, hormone blockers, and surgeries (a rare occurrence) for individuals under 18. While the bill contained a grandfather clause and it’s non-surgery clauses would expire after 4 years (concessions won through a Democratic filibuster), it also massively expanded the liability for those administering care, allowing patients up to 15 years after receiving care to sue, with the possibility to receive at least $500,000 dollars if damages if they win. The regret rate for gender-affirming care is near zero, but some institutions would go on to cite this liability to stop administering care for minors altogether.
- Crucially, SB 49 also banned gender-affirming care for the incarcerated and recipients of Medicaid and MO Healthnet, a state-sponsored insurance program. Frankly, these are the easiest targets to restrict care for. The young, the poor, and the imprisoned already have few who are truly willing to advocate for them in Missouri’s Capitol, moreso when they transgender or nonbinary. This aspect of the bill saw little notice compared to the provisions affecting minors by proponents, transgender advocates, and media outlets. To me, it emphasized the slippery slope of restrictions and bans for some can lead to restrictions and bans for all.
- Speaking of that slippery slope, an unparalleled emergency rule proposed by Attorney General Andrew Bailey: severely restricted access to gender-affirming care for minors; was expanded to include adults; blocked from coming into effect by the ACLU; and was ultimately withdrawn after the Missouri Legislature passed SB 49.
It was a continuous onslaught of bad news for trans and nonbinary Missourians and their families, whose life could be completely altered by the whims of their government officials. However, there were bright spots. Genuine, positive movement despite… everything. Kansas City had passed a resolution declaring itself “Safe Haven for Gender-Affirming Healthcare.” This would have little immediate effect, as Kansas City does not have direct authority over its police department.
Myself and other organizers were inspired. After feeling furious and disempowered outside of a handful of protests and hearings, doing something similar in our city, maybe even going further, seemed like a path forward. A way to fight back. A way to do something substantial even while conservative supermajorities in Jefferson City threatened our existence.
So now I’ll dig into how we actually god it done! It was above all a coalition effort. Outside of our YDSA chapter at Mizzou, our biggest partner was The Center Project (TCP), Mid-Missouri’s LGBTQ Resource Center. If any organization could claim to be the voice of the City’s queer community, it was them.
A (Very Abridged) Chronology
March for Trans Youth
Before Mizzou YDSA could even put its committee together to pass something through the city, there was more bad news. MU Healthcare, the university hospital, would go beyond SB 49 and stop administering gender-affirming care for trans youth altogether. This included even those who had already begun this care and were explicitly allowed to continue it under SB 49.
As the student organization who already had their sights on changing city policy related to trans healthcare, we knew we had to act. While this decision by MU Healthcare would not directly affect the Mizzou student body, it showed that our University was complicit in Missouri’s attacks on the trans population.
The protest was a huge show of support for trans youth in Mid-Missouri. While the University did not budge, it was powerful to see the community come together. We were also able to build connections and make attendees aware of our plan for a city ordinance.
Articles:
- After MU Health Care Decision, hundreds rally in support of transgender minors. – KBIA
- Mel Tully, the chair of Mizzou’s Young Democratic Socialists of America chapter, speaks at a “Keep Hate Out of Healthcare” protest for transgender youth on Friday, Sept. 15, 2023, at Jesse Hall in Columbia. “[Lawmakers are] chipping away at our rights,” Tully said to the crowd. “They’re just attacking the voices that can’t speak for themselves first. This care is essential. This care is lifesaving. It certainly was for me. Every day that a trans or nonbinary Missourian goes a day without this care is a travesty.”
- Protesters march at Jesse Hall after MU Health Care stops gender-affirming care for minors. – KOMU
- VIDEO: Protesters march at Jesse Hall after MU Health Care stops gender-affirming care for minors. – KOMU
Partnering with The Center Project and Building Support
With the march behind us, we further envisioned what our campaign would look like. I was elected one of Mizzou YDSA’s two campaign co-chairs. After only a couple meetings, we had determined that a partnership with TCP would be very advantageous. Near simultaneously, we discovered that they were also in early talks to see what organizing to make Columbia an LGBTQ+ Sanctuary City might look like.
A member of Mid-Missouri DSA (our parent organization) had combined language from the resolution passed in Kansas City, the ordinance passed in Lawrence, Kansas, and several other LGBTQ+ sanctuary laws from across the country and put together a first draft of that an ordinance might look like. If passed, it would be a powerful shield against SB49 and many future restrictions that could come out of the Missouri Legislature in the future.
YDSA met with TCP to discuss the language and get on the same page with strategies and timelines. As written, the ordinance would mean that current or future federal or state laws restricting access to gender affirming care, banning drag shows, imposing “bathroom bans,” and the sharing of citizens’ biological sex for investigatory purposes would be treated as lowest priority of enforcement by city officials, staff, and law enforcement. This was exactly what YDSA wanted, if not even more than we had initially planned to ask for from the city.
It was determined that our best way forward would be through the City’s Human Rights Commission, a citizen-run board that functioned similar to a committee and could recommend our ordinance to the city council for a vote. This has worked for TCP before when they led the effort to ban conversion therapy in Columbia. Being able to work with folks who had gotten something through City Council previously was a huge boon. While we knew that there were individual council members willing to introduce it themselves, a recommendation for passage from the commission would help build the consensus needed for our ordinance to pass.
In addition, we decided that someone should introduce the ordinance at a city council meeting to set things into motion at City Hall. I volunteered.
Presenting our ordinance to City Council
Our coalition did everything we could to raise notoriety and build support for the ordinance. We did a media blitz and met with the Mayor and every city council member. By our estimation, we’d be able to get four or five of the six council members as well as the mayor (who also votes on city decisions) to vote in favor. There were a number of council members who were concerned about the fight the passage of this ordinance might set up with the state, and wondered if it was necessary to pass an ordinance rather than a resolution. Our coalition believed that this ordinance would stand under legal scrutiny, and that the stakes for the city’s LGBTQ community were too high to not take substantive action – urgently.
My speech to the city council was both an exciting moment and an effective way to get the ball rolling on moving the ordinance through the process within city government. At the end of the meeting where it was introduced, the council sent our ordinance to the Human Rights Commission and the City’s legal department, as we requested.
You can view my full speech at the November 6th Columbia City Council Meeting here.
Articles:
- Columbia may soon be a safe haven city for LGBTQ+ community – Columbia Missourian
- This article was also a wider profile on our organization. It’s a great read 😉
- MU organization aims to make Columbia an LGBTQ+ sanctuary city – KOMU
The ordinance was endorsed by the Human Rights Commission with minimal edits and sent to Legal in December. It was our hope that we would be able to pass the ordinance was quickly as possible after the holidays and once Mizzou was back in session, eyeing the meeting for the final vote being on February 19th.
It was only 2 weeks after the commission endorsed the ordinance that I graduated. It was bittersweet to leave at a time when things looked so optimistic for us, but I had no doubt the campaign was still in good hands.
The Final Vote
After getting through the city legal department, the prospects for the ordinance still looked good. Support from the council was still strong. And while the City’s legal department had cut the sections protecting drag performances and access to bathrooms for technical reasons, we were able to have revised versions placed on the meeting agenda as amendments. There was a possibility that the amendments would not pass, but we hoped that further contact with council members and the public comment during the meeting would encourage the city to pass the strongest version of the ordinance possible.
The February 19th meeting was inspiring. Attendance was high – the council chambers and overflow room were both nearly full. Easily over 100 people came out to support the ordinance. Organized opposition was tiny, and mostly concentrated in one church congregation. The public comment period lasted for three hours. In all, 46 individuals and 13 organizations spoke in favor, and only 13 individuals and a handful of religious organizations were opposed. The crowd’s message was clear: Columbia’s LGBTQ community is under threat, and this ordinance is necessary to protect it.
It came time to vote. All we could do was hope that all of our tireless work would pay off. The addition of the amendments and full ordinance were both passed 6-1. Even the lone no vote by Ward 5’s Don Waterman was couched in empty sympathies.
Articles:
- Columbia City Council passes LGBTQ+ Safe Haven Ordinance at Monday’s meeting – ABC 17
- ‘Everyone wants to feel safe’: City Council approves safe haven for LGBTQ+ residents – Columbia Missourian
- Columbia may soon be a safe haven city for LGBTQ+ community – Columbia Missourian
Conclusion
It was an incredible victory. I burst into tears. Countless hugs and congratulations were shared. We held a small celebration at Arch and Column Pub, Columbia’s best known gay bar. On a lot of occasions, I’d probably cringe at the singing of We are the Champions at karaoke. Not this time.
The passage of the Safe Haven ordinance is a prime example that better communities and a better world are possible. That people can fight for their rights and win even in dire circumstances, such as the one queer Americans find themselves in right now.
In all honesty, while our planned timeline was close to the one we got, it is crazy that we went from idea to city policy in a mere 6 months. So, so many people were involved in making this happen. Weeks later, I’m still processing that we got this far.
I hope that people take this as an example of something they can do in their communities. It is not easy, but it is endlessly gratifying to make your community better in concrete ways like these.
I encourage you to follow the work of Mizzou YDSA and Mid-Missouri DSA, and to support The Center Project.
Our Liberation Blog 
Leave a comment