SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
domestic violence
US Judge Delivers Another Blow to 'Harmful' Trump Funding Freeze
"The Trump administration's OMB grant freeze memo plunged people and communities across the country into chaos and uncertainty," said one lawyer. "This order is a lifeline."
Feb 03, 2025
Organizations that challenged U.S. President Donald Trump's attempted federal funding freeze welcomed a Washington, D.C.-based judge's Monday order that further restricts its implementation, which followed a similar decision from another court on Friday.
District Judge Loren AliKhan issued a temporary restraining order following her administrative stay last week. While her initial block on the policy prompted the Trump administration to rescind the relevant memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), both AliKhan and District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island determined that further action was needed, citing White House messaging.
McConnell's Friday decison stemmed from a challenge filed by the attorneys general of 22 states plus D.C., and his decision only applied to them. AliKhan's case was filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of the American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance, the National Council of Nonprofits, and SAGE, which all celebrated the judge's 30-page order that bars the Trump administration from "implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives" in the OMB memo.
"A halt on federal agency grants would mean state, local, tribal, and territorial health departments don't get what they need to fund public health and prevention programs and research," said Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a Monday statement. "Today's ruling is a major victory towards continuing these vital programs. We will continue to work with partners to protect funds for public health, which were approved by Congress and are making the difference between life and death."
Diane Yentel, chief executive of the National Council of Nonprofits, noted such groups "have been left in limbo by the Trump administration's callous actions" and "now, they finally have some needed clarity and can continue to do their essential work."
"We are determined to continue to do all we can to prevent this administration's reckless attempt to halt funding that would put people's lives and safety at risk, from pausing research on cures for childhood cancer to halting food assistance, [limiting] safety from domestic violence, and closing suicide hotlines," Yentel added.
SAGE CEO Michael Adams, whose group supports older LGBTQ+ people and their caregivers, also highlighted the freeze's impact.
"Restricting federal grants and loans would severely impact the lives of older Americans, including LGBTQ+ elders, who are more vulnerable to health issues, disabilities, and social isolation, and often struggle to access the care and services they need," he said. "We are grateful for this ruling, which protects our older neighbors, friends, and loved ones from the harmful freeze on federal grants and loans."
Companies are similarly "counting on federal funding," said Main Street Alliance executive director Richard Trent, "for services like infrastructure development, workforce training, and childcare programs that allow small businesses to thrive."
"Main Streets in America can't afford for these services to crumble," he continued, "and this ruling is a welcome step in the fight to protect the funding small businesses count on."
Although the decision from AliKhan—an appointee of former Democratic President Joe Biden—is another step toward thwarting Trump's attack on federal funding, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, acknowledged that the fight is far from over.
"The Trump administration's OMB grant freeze memo plunged people and communities across the country into chaos and uncertainty as they waited to see if critical programs—from childcare, to eldercare, to food services, to health programs, to community initiatives—would continue," Perryman said.
"This order is a lifeline that provides the breathing room needed for our clients to continue to provide services people across this country rely on," she added. "We look forward to pursuing this case on its merits in court on the behalf of our clients and the American people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trapped by Coverage: How the US Healthcare System Ties Survivors to Abuse
Universal healthcare, or at least a robust public option, would give Americans the freedom to leave jobs or relationships without fear of losing coverage.
Feb 03, 2025
Many people are nervously awaiting the fate of the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, under the new administration. If the ACA is repealed or restricted, countless women in abusive relationships could be forced to risk losing their spouse's healthcare coverage should they decide to leave.
For millions of Americans, healthcare is tied to jobs or marriages, creating dangerous dependencies. In 2023, over 60% of Americans under age 65 relied on employer-sponsored health insurance. Of these, one-quarter of women under 65 received their health insurance through a spouse’s plan.
I witnessed the devastating consequences of this firsthand during my 10 years working with a governmental agency dedicated to supporting individuals in “high-risk” domestic violence situations—cases where abuse was severe, frequent, and life-threatening. In this role, I provided crisis intervention, safety planning, and emotional support to survivors navigating unimaginable challenges. One woman I worked with called me from the doctor’s office one afternoon in tears. She had just been treated for a fractured eye socket. Her partner had thrown her against a wall the night before. While she hadn’t disclosed the cause of her injury to the medical staff, she had shared the truth with me.
Today, healthcare access is largely determined by employment and marital status, reinforcing economic inequality, gender-based harm, and rigid social roles.
Her distress, however, wasn’t about the medical care she received. It was about the idea of losing access to that very care if she ever left her partner. Ironically, the same healthcare that tended to her physical and emotional wounds was tied to her abuser’s job. Without him, she and her children would lose their health insurance entirely.
This tragic irony is the daily reality for countless individuals across the United States. For people in abusive, coercive, or manipulative relationships, healthcare tied to marriage gives abusers significant leverage. Leaving an abusive partner is never a simple decision, but the threat of losing health insurance—often for their children as well as themselves—makes it even harder. Survivors are forced to weigh their personal safety against access to life-saving care.
Employer-sponsored health insurance wasn’t always the norm. Before World War II, Americans typically paid out of pocket for medical procedures. But in the 1940s, wage controls during wartime prevented employers from raising salaries, so they began offering health insurance as a perk to attract and retain workers. Over time, this temporary solution became a default system, expanding to include dependent and spousal coverage as societal norms emphasized “family-centric” policies.
What began as a short-term fix has since created a web of unintended consequences. Today, healthcare access is largely determined by employment and marital status, reinforcing economic inequality, gender-based harm, and rigid social roles.
For survivors of domestic violence, this system compounds an already harrowing situation. The research shows that approximately 99% of domestic violence survivors experience financial abuse. Healthcare is often one of the financial tools used to exert control. Survivors may be blocked from accessing care, forced to remain in harmful relationships, or deprived of medical resources if they attempt to leave.
But the problem doesn’t end with domestic violence. The employer- and spousal-based healthcare system pressures people to conform to outdated family roles, leaving out millions who live outside traditional employment or family structures. For example, why shouldn’t someone be able to add a sibling, an elderly parent, or a close friend to their health insurance plan? Our narrow definitions of “family” exclude many from the support they need during life’s most challenging moments.
The good news is that change is possible. While we may not yet be at a point where we can fully separate healthcare from jobs and marriages, we are at a critical juncture where we can challenge the status quo and push for meaningful reform.
The Affordable Care Act was a significant step forward, but public options remain prohibitively expensive for many Americans. On average, employer-sponsored plans cost workers around $6,200 annually for family coverage, while public plans, without subsidies, can be more expensive. Closing this gap through expanded subsidies or premium caps must be a priority.
Current laws offer some protections. For example, domestic violence survivors qualify for health insurance enrollment outside standard open enrollment periods under the ACA and many private plans. But these policies are undermined by prohibitive costs and complex administrative processes, creating unnecessary barriers for those already in crisis.
Administrative barriers like these need reform. The ACA’s rollout was marred by technical issues, and today, many Americans still face confusing, inefficient systems that discourage participation. Streamlining the enrollment process and raising public awareness of available options would go a long way toward ensuring equitable access.
Long-term, we must move toward a system where healthcare access is no longer tied to employment or romantic relationships. Universal healthcare, or at least a robust public option, would give Americans the freedom to leave jobs or relationships without fear of losing coverage. No one should have to choose between their health and their safety, or between financial security and their autonomy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Very Good Reason 145 Democrats Voted Against a GOP Domestic Violence Bill
"In a perverse move," explained Rep. Pramila Jayapal, "this bill would make it easier to label victims of domestic violence as perpetrators, to make them removable from the country and eliminate existing legal safeguards that protects survivors."
Jan 16, 2025
The eye-catching headlines cropped up across social media platforms and right-wing news outlets on Thursday:
"145 House Dems vote against bill to deport migrants who commit sexual assault," proclaimedFox News.
"145 Dems vote against deporting illegal immigrants convicted of sex crimes," reported the San Joaquin Valley Sun in Central California.
"The Left were defending rapists, murderers, and pedophiles this morning," said U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) in a post on X, adding that Democrats "have a lot of explaining to do" regarding their opposition to the so-called Preventing Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act (H.R. 30).
Progressive lawmakers were happy to explain why they objected to the legislation, which would mandate that undocumented immigrants, or those with contested legal status, be deported if they are convicted of or admit to committing sexual assault or abuse, domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, or violating a protection order.
Opponents of the bill noted that existing law already allows federal authorities to remove from the country any immigrant with uncertain status who is found guilty of "crimes involving moral turpitude," including rape, sexual assault, or domestic abuse.
But aside from being redundant, said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the bill, which was introduced by Mace, "weaponizes" the Violence Against Women Act "against—you've got it—domestic violence victims."
Although Mace and other supporters heralded the legislation as aiming to protect women and girls from "the lifelong scars, the irreversible scars, these heinous crimes leave behind," Jayapal noted that 200 local and national advocacy groups for domestic violence survivors urged lawmakers to oppose the bill.
"There is actually no gap in the law that needs to be fixed," Jayapal said. "Instead, in a perverse move, this bill would make it easier to label survivors of domestic violence as perpetrators, to make them removable from the country and eliminate existing legal safeguards that protect survivors.
The bill, she said, is meant to "widen the highway to [President-elect] Donald Trump's mass deportation plan."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) added that under Mace's proposal, "no exceptions would exist any longer for domestic violence victims who have committed minor crimes in the context of resisting their violent abuse."
"This bill will only make the immigration laws much harsher on the victims of domestic violence, sexual battery, and rape, which is the opposite of what we should be doing," he said.
The legislation, which passed 274-145 and garnered the support of 61 Democrats, was passed by the House days after Republicans pushed through the Laken Riley Act, using similar tactics to suggest opponents of that bill supported criminal activity by immigrants.
The Laken Riley Act would require the deportation of any undocumented immigrant accused of theft—a response to the killing last year of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley by an undocumented immigrant who had been cited for shoplifting prior to the murder.
Thirty-seven Democrats joined the House Republican Caucus in supporting the Laken Riley Act, and the Senate is set to vote on the bill in the coming days, likely sending it to Trump's desk to become law after he is sworn in next week.
"The Democratic support for this monstrous, inhuman rhetoric will play a big role in the advancement of authoritarian violence," Alec Karakatsanis, founder of the Civil Rights Corps, said of the legislation. "None of it was possible without propaganda pervading mainstream news about immigrants, shoplifting, bail, and the things that truly affect our safety."
Rep. Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.) called the bill passed on Thursday "harmful" and "counterproductive."
"We must prioritize protections," he said, "not fear."
The U.S. National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular