North Carolina Pride
■ June 3-5 -
25 Years
; Stonewall New York /
June 23-28 ^
June 1969-June 1994
Wild and woolly
weekend
...Pages 33-35
Tender living
care
...Page 16
The Carolmae’ Most Comprehensive Gay & Lesbian Newspaper Printed on Recycled Paper FREE
Over a dozen
out lesbians
attended the
first state-wide
conference on
breast cancer
determined to
make lesbian
issues a part of
the on-going
debate on
women’s health
care.
— ivKtdiip
Photo by Dierdre Shesgreen courtesy of The Independent
Lesbians advocate culturally competent
outreach at NC breast cancer summit
by David Jones
Q-Notes Staff
WINSTON-SALEM—van pulled into
the parking lot of the Hawthorne Conference
Center in Winston-Salem on April 29,1994
with a dozen “out” lesbians from the Triangle
area on a mission; to do something about
breast cancer. It was the first statewide con
ference on breast cancer, and these women,
along with about 20 other lesbians both in and
out of the closet, made their presence known
and added their issues to the discussion.
“It was a fabulous group of women,” says
Bernadette Carr, a lesbian activist and busi
ness owner and board member of the Durham-
based North Carolina Lesbian and Gay Health
Project (LGHP). “We were black, white and
Latino, poor and not, older and younger, you
name it. And they knew that we were there.
Six of the eight main speakers mentioned the
“L-word” and lesbians were on two of the
five panels.”
Lucy Harris of the LGHP staff partici
pated in a panel discussion of advocacy and
Liza Rankow, an LGHP member and Duke
Physician Associate, spoke on outreach.
LGHP prepared written material on lesbians
and breast cancer for the packets given to the
300 people who attended the conference.
The highly visible lesbian role did not
happen by accident. Rankow attended a na
tional roundtable discussion of lesbian health
issues in Washington, DC in February 1994
following a meeting of lesbian health activ
ists with the new Secretary of Health and
Human Services, Donna Shalala, in April of
1993. “The Clinton administration is opening
up to lesbian health issues and we are getting
more attention,” she reports, “particularly
through new offices of women’s health is
sues that have been created in several federal
health agencies.” The North Carolina Con
ference was co-sponsored by the National
Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of
Health. The relationship that Rankow and
others had established in Washington helped
to open the door when she, Harris and others
began working to get lesbian issues and speak
ers on the agenda of the North Carolina
conference.
In 1994,46,000 women will die of breast
cancer and 182,000 new cases will be diag
nosed. Some 385,000 people in the U.S. are
expected to have died of complications of
AIDS by 1995; over 400,000 U.S. women
have died of breast cancer in the past decade.
It strikes 1 in 8 women today, up from 1 in 14
in 1960.
A family history of breast cancer and age
(rates rise dramatically after age 50) are asso
ciated with a higher incidence. Some studies
on risk conflict with others. Breast cancer has
long been associated with high levels of fat in
the diet, but one study suggests that it is the
high consumption of soy-based foods that
lowers risk, not animal fat that increases it
(which could explain lower rates of breast
cancer among women in Japan). Studies have
associated breast cancer with exposure to
industrial chemicals and pesticides. Others
question those conclusions.
Lesbians have a special interest in breast
cancer. At least one report says that the inci
dence in lesbians may be as high as 1 in 3. If
so, the reasons are not well understood. Never
having children or delaying the first child
birth until after the age of 30, is associated
with an increased incidence of breast cancer.
Some data also suggest that lesbians con
sume more alcohol and cigarettes than aver
age, according to LGHP, which can increase
the risks of all cancers.
But LGHP and activists nationally are
quick to jxjint out that adequate research has
not been done to measure the incidence of
breast cancer in lesbians and the factors asso
ciated with it. Those studies that have been
done tend to focus on women who are younger,
white and who self-identify as lesbians and
Continued on page 17
Change in federal civil rights
strategy brings hopes, perils
by Bob Roehr
Special to Q-Notes
WASHINGTON, DC—The “glass” of
federal civil rights legislation for gays and
lesbians can be seen as either half full or half
empty.
Optimists point to the imminent appear
ance of a draft bill covering employment
protection as the first piece of such legislation
which has a legitimate chance of being en
acted into law.
Pessimists point to deficiencies and de
lays in drafting the bill, building coalitions,
and creating support mechanisms to achieve ’
passage.
Both are right.
After months of discussions among them
selves and with their allies, but with little
public debate within the community, national
gay and lesbian legal and political leaders
have made a strategic decision to push for
employment protection as the first piece of
federal gay and lesbian civil rights legisla
tion.
A broad, omnibus federal gay and lesbian
civil rights bill has continuously been intro
duced in Congress since 1974 but has gone
nowhere.
Eric Rosenthal is political director for the
Human Rights Campaign Fund (HRCF). He
said the decision not to push for an omnibus
bill but to divide coverage into a number of
bills and lead with employment was driven
by three factors.
One is a survey on personal employment
practices by members of Congress being con
ducted by HRCF. In February the group
announced that more than half the members
of the House of Representatives had signed
on, saying they do not discriminate on the
basis of sexual orientation in hiring for their
personal staffs. HRCF expects to make a
similar announcement concerning the Senate
within the next few weeks.
A second is polling and focus group data
that shows a strong majority of Americans
(about 3 out of 4 in most surveys) opposed the
anti-gay discrimination in employment. The
data is more ambivalent on discrimination in
other areas.
A third is the fact that “most of the compel
ling examples (of discrimination) that we
have been able to find are employment ex
amples,” Rosenthal said.
Tanya Domi, legislative director at the
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
(NGLTF) concurs with the strategic deci
sion. She personally reached that conclusion
last fall. She views the six month process of
reaching consensus among members of the
coalition as strengthening the effort.
“My preference is for separate bills with
regard to housing and public accommoda
tions,” said openly gay Rep. Barney Frank
(D-MA), “I don’t think you treat sexual ori
entation any differently than you treat race or
gender.”
Frank does see employment very differ
ently, particularly when it comes to affirma
tive action. “I think affirmative action is a
very relevant remedy for past discrimination
Continued on page 8
PAC candidates fare well
by Dan Van Mourik
Q-Notes Staff
RALEIGH—The NC Pride PAC for Les
bian and Gay Equality endorsed 38 candi
dates in the May 3 primary elections, a record
number for the three-year-old political action
committee. In addition to publicizing their
endorsements, the group distributed funds to
candidates and recruited volunteers to work
in the campaigns of those sensitive to gay and
lesbian issues. Thirty-seven of the endorse
ments went to persons across the state seek
ing election to the NC General Assembly.
The 38th went to Jim Fuller, a candidate for
the NC Supreme Court.
Of those endorsements, 23 were in con
tested races and 61 percent of those candi
dates were victorious. The race for House of
Representatives in District 40 has yet to be
decided as PAC-endorsed candidate Saul
Chase faces a run-off election.
Derek Charles Livingston, executive di
rector of the Pride PAC, stated this result was
“about what the rest of the PACs did.” He
was encouraged by the outcome and by the
fact that two candidates, Ruth Cook in Dis
trict 14 and Margaret Pollard in District 16,
included NC Pride PAC in their list of en
dorsements on campaign materials. This was
particularly encouraging since many politi
cians continue to distance themselves from
the gay and lesbian community.
Livingston said this was a very exciting
time for the PAC and finds it “very exciting
that the gay and lesbian community is taking
this kind of role in the electoral process.”
While the Pride PAC political committee
has not met since the primaries, it is possible
that the PAC will issue additional endorse
ments prior to the November 8 general elec
tion. In the meantime, they are continuing to
recruit volunteers through their Pride ACT
Network and directly through the PAC of
fice. If you would like to become more
politically active, contact the PAC office at
(919) 829-0343.