Author: Giovanna DeStefanis

FDA Removes Black Box Warning from Menopause Hormone Therapies

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has removed its boxed warning from more than twenty hormone-based therapies used to treat menopause symptoms, marking a major change in how the agency regulates these medications. The FDA’s update applies to products that deliver estrogen or estrogen-progestin combinations through pills, patches, gels, or sprays. The boxed warning, also known as a “black box” warning, is the FDA’s most serious caution, and has appeared on estrogen and combination hormone therapies since 2002. 

In the 1990s, more than 1 in 4 women took estrogen either alone or in combination with progestin. The assumption was that it would reduce rates of heart disease and dementia in addition to treating menopause. The warning was added after the Women’s Health Initiative study linked hormone therapy to increased risks of heart attack, stroke, blood clots, and dementia. The average age of women in the study was 63, which is over a decade past the average age of a woman experiencing menopause at 52. 

Dr. Steven Fleischman, President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, noted that the warnings made patients hesitate to take the medication even when their condition was severe. This fear of potential risks to the fetus led to pregnant women to refuse necessary medical treatment, resulting in serious harm.

Agency officials said the change reflects new research showing that the risks seen in older women in the 2002 study do not apply equally to younger women, especially those under 60 or within 10 years of menopause. For those patients, the FDA said, hormone therapy remains an effective and generally safe option for easing hot flashes, night sweats, and other symptoms.

The boxed warning will be replaced with language advising patients and doctors to consider age, medical history, and timing when deciding on treatment. Other cautions will remain in place, including guidance that women with a uterus should use combined estrogen and progestin therapy to reduce the risk of uterine cancer. 

This move reflects updated evidence and a more individualized approach to menopause care. FDA officials including Secretary Kennedy stated that “We are returning to evidence-based medicine and giving women control over their health again.” 

The update comes amid growing attention to the lack of research and resources devoted to women’s care in the United States. Funding for women’s health research has lagged severely, with less than 9% of NIH grant spending between 2013 and 2023 focused exclusively on women’s health. More recently, the Trump administration has cut funding for research centering on women. 

The FDA’s decision marks an important shift toward restoring trust in women’s medicine. By removing the blanket boxed warning, the agency acknowledges that menopause care requires individualized treatment rather than one-size-fits-all caution. This change could encourage more open conversations between patients and doctors, improve access to safe and effective therapies, and highlight the ongoing need for greater research and resources dedicated to women’s health.

Hegseth’s “Warrior Culture” Risks Excluding Women from Military Service

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

At a recent gathering of top military brass in Quantico, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called for the armed forces to abandon what he called “woke culture” and return to a rigid “warrior” ethos. He pledged sweeping changes to fitness, grooming, and disciplinary standards, changes that critics warn could push women out of roles they have fought for decades to earn.

Hegseth announced that all combat positions will be judged by the “highest male standard” for physical fitness, a shift that would erase gender-neutralized benchmarks designed to reflect the actual requirements of military jobs. In practice, this could exclude many women from combat specialties, regardless of their proven service and performance. 

Women make up 17.3% of the total active-duty force, and more than 21% of the Guard and Reserves. They are represented in every branch:

  • Air Force: ~21% women
  • Navy: ~20% women
  • Army: ~15–16% women
  • Marine Corps: ~9–10% women
  • Space Force: ~19–20% women
  • Coast Guard: ~15–16% women

Far from being peripheral, women are central to military readiness. Women now serve in every combat role once barred to them. They also stay in service longer: in 2023, 33% of enlisted women in the Marine Corps reenlisted, compared to just 28% of men, while nearly 90% of female officers continued their service, surpassing men.

This presence is particularly striking given women’s long exclusion from the armed forces. Until 1948, women could not serve as permanent, regular members of the military. They were admitted only in segregated, auxiliary units such as the Women’s Army Corps or as nurses. 

Even after integration with The 1948 Women’s Armed Services Integration Act, combat positions remained closed for decades: women were barred from flying combat aircraft until 1993, from serving on submarines until 2010, and from ground combat jobs until the ban was lifted in 2013.

Today, women are not just meeting the standards set before them, they are exceeding them and redefining what military excellence looks like. The future of warfare is less about brute strength and more about technology, intelligence, and strategy. Today’s armed forces rely on advanced systems, cyber defense, drones, artificial intelligence, and space operations, that require highly educated recruits. 

Across the country, women are already outperforming men in educational attainment: they graduate from high school and college at higher rates and earn more advanced degrees. That means women are not just filling roles in the military, they are equipping the force with the intellectual and technical skills it needs to remain globally dominant.

“Successful militaries don’t use hand-to-hand combat anymore,” notes longtime feminist leader Ellie Smeal, pointing to the technological realities of modern warfare. “What the military really needs is intelligence and skill, and women are essential for a modern military.” says Smeal. 

Hegseth’s framing of “woke versus warrior” is not a neutral cultural shift, it’s a rejection of the very programs that made women’s full participation in the military possible. Efforts toward equity and accountability have built a stronger, more capable force. Casting them aside not only threatens women’s gains but leaves unaddressed the systemic issues, like harassment and abuse, that undermine readiness.

One of the most pressing concerns is sexual assault and harassment, which remains disproportionately high for women in uniform. In 2023, nearly 7% of active-duty women and 1.3% of men reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact. Surveys show that more than half of female service members report persistent or serious harassment, and fewer than 40% trust the military to protect their privacy if they report an incident. Cutting or sidelining diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, which Hegseth has called “social justice distractions”, could weaken the military’s ability to prevent and respond to these abuses.

It’s no surprise, then, that Hegseth’s address has sparked widespread criticism. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned against Hegseth’s approach to politicize the military saying [the military] “should be entirely focused on protecting the country.” Senator Tammy Duckworth, a combat veteran, condemned Hegseth’s leadership, labeling him unqualified, unethical, and unfit to be Secretary of Defense. 

If the U.S. military is to remain the “strongest in the world,” it cannot afford to roll back inclusion or sideline half the population. Women are not a “woke distraction,” they are essential to the future of military leadership, innovation, and readiness. Hegseth’s vision of a warrior culture belongs to the past, not the battlefield of tomorrow.

The Rise of the MAHA Movement and Implications for Women

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

The “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement has exploded in recent years, blending wellness culture, political populism, and deep distrust of mainstream medicine. Under current federal leadership, MAHA is reshaping health policy. But behind its promises of empowerment and clean living lies a troubling pattern: shifting responsibility onto women, amplifying shaky science, and ignoring systemic drivers of poor health.

MAHA began as a health crusade led by RFK Jr., long known for his anti-vaccine activism and “natural health” rhetoric. Now, with RFK Jr. in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), MAHA has moved from the fringes into the center of federal health policy. The HHS website prominently declares “Our priority: Make America Healthy Again,” highlighting how the movement has become a driving force in Washington, shaping debates on everything from drug labeling to school lunch programs. At its core, the movement claims that chronic disease, developmental disorders, and rising health costs are linked to “toxins” in food, medicine, and the environment. 

The MAHA movement highlights America’s health crisis, citing that 6 in 10 Americans have at least one chronic disease, 1 in 4 American children suffer from allergies, and 40% of Americans are diabetic or prediabetic. These statistics are not invented, they reflect real and pressing health concerns. Chronic disease and diabetes are among the leading drivers of medical costs and poor health outcomes in the United States, and the prevalence of allergies among children has indeed climbed in recent decades. The problem is not whether these issues are real, but how the MAHA movement chooses to frame and address those issues.

Most recently, MAHA’s influence became clear when the FDA announced plans to add warning labels to acetaminophen (Tylenol) claiming its use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism in children. Yet science does not support such certainty. While some studies suggest correlations between autism and Tylenol, they remain inconclusive, and no causal link has been proven. There is expert consensus that untreated medical conditions, such as fever, can endanger maternal and child health, and that Tylenol is a safe option to treat pain and fever during pregnancy. In fact, experts, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), warn in a statement that untreated pain and fever in pregnancy can carry serious risks of their own. Steven J. Fleischman, President of ACOG said that suggesting Tylenol during pregnancy causes autism is “not only highly concerning to clinicians but also irresponsible when considering the harmful and confusing message they send to pregnant patients….” 

Still, the announcement was treated by MAHA as a victory after years of pressuring regulators. The consequences, however, fall disproportionately on women. Pregnant people may now feel guilty for taking needed medication or face stigma for using Tylenol at all. Once again, maternal choices are placed under a microscope, while systemic drivers of health outcomes, like poverty, pollution, and inequities in care, are sidelined.

The Tylenol statement is only one piece of a broader agenda. MAHA’s policy proposals have included investigations into vaccines and overhauls of the nation’s childhood immunization schedule, stricter limits on school lunches, campaigns against “ultra-processed” foods, warnings about the newborn hepatitis B vaccine, and heightened warnings about everyday household chemicals. While framed as empowering families in the MAHA Report, these measures often translate into heavier burdens on women: more time spent cooking from scratch, researching ingredients, and monitoring children’s environments. In fact, women spend 2.4 times as much time with children as fathers do. The movement’s strategy emphasizes “educating parents” rather than advancing robust public health interventions. In environmental health, for example, solutions focus on individual behavior, “research your own food,” “know your farmer,” while largely rejecting stronger regulatory oversight.

Even more troubling are the moral undertones. The MAHA agenda has drawn on rhetoric that stigmatizes contraceptive use, suggests that birth control causes infertility, and links vaccines like hepatitis B to “immoral” sexual behavior. These arguments reinforce a framework of purity and blame: that women’s bodies must remain “natural” and “untainted,” and that illness or infertility are moral failings. This framing is not only inaccurate, it shifts responsibility onto individual women while letting systemic inequities persist.

The result is a policy agenda that polices women’s choices instead of addressing systemic causes of poor health. And those systemic causes are impossible to ignore. Communities of color and low-income families face higher rates of chronic disease, not because mothers aren’t making the “right” choices, but because of structural inequities: food deserts, environmental toxins concentrated in poor neighborhoods, lack of affordable healthcare, and the stress of economic insecurity. By focusing on maternal behavior rather than these broader determinants, MAHA not only overlooks the root causes of illness but also reinforces inequities, placing the heaviest burdens on women who already have the least support.

The real path to a healthier America doesn’t lie in blaming mothers. It lies in building equitable healthcare systems, holding corporations accountable, and trusting women to make informed choices about their own bodies.

Mississippi Declares Public Health Emergency as Infant Mortality Soars

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

Mississippi has declared a public health emergency in response to an alarming surge in infant mortality, a crisis that now claims nearly 10 infants per 1,000 live births in the state, almost double the national average. The declaration marks the first time the state has used its emergency powers to address maternal and infant health, underscoring the scale and urgency of the crisis. 

In 2022, infant mortality at the national level rose 3% from the previous year, reaching 5.6 infant deaths per 1,000 births. While that increase was troubling it pales in comparison to Mississippi’s far more severe and disproportionate crisis.

State Health Officer Dr. Dan Edney said the announcement was necessary because “every single infant loss represents a family devastated, a community impacted, and a future cut short.” Since 2014, more than 3,500 Mississippi babies have died before their first birthday, with 2024 alone marking the highest mortality rate in over a decade.

Behind these statistics are stark racial disparities and systemic inequities. Black infants in Mississippi die at rates more than twice that of white infants: 15.2 per 1,000 live births in 2024, a 24% increase in just one year, even as the rate for white infants declined. 

Nearly half of the state’s counties are classified as “OB deserts” or “maternity care deserts,” with no local obstetric care available, forcing many families to travel hours for prenatal visits or delivery. For those living in rural areas or with limited income, such barriers make timely care nearly impossible.

According to a 2024 report from March of Dime, an infant and maternal health nonprofit, about a third of US counties do not have a single obstetric clinician. The President and CEO of March of Dime, Cindy Rahman, said in a statement. “Although Mississippi accounts for less than 1% of US births, the state accounts for more than 1.6% of all infant deaths.”​​ 

In Texas, a report by JAMA Pediatric found a link between rising infant mortality in Texas and the state’s abortion restrictions, which were one of the strictest in the nation. The researchers pointed to increased rates of preterm births and high-risk pregnancies carried to term as potential drivers of the uptick. Mississippi, which led the case that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and now enforces a near-total abortion ban, faces similar dynamics: fewer options for maternal care, greater pressure on already limited health systems, and higher risks for both mothers and infants.

Access to healthcare is further complicated by Mississippi’s limited Medicaid coverage. While nearly 60% of births in the state are financed through Medicaid, eligibility remains narrow, and thousands of low-income women fall into a “coverage gap” that leaves them without affordable insurance before, during, and after pregnancy. 

The state has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, a decision that public health experts say directly contributes to poor maternal and infant outcomes. Mississippi recently extended postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months, but this step, while important, does not replace the need for broader expansion that would ensure continuous care for women of childbearing age.

Mississippi’s emergency is a stark reminder that reproductive justice is not just about the right to choose, but also the right to safe pregnancy, healthy childbirth, and the ability to raise children with dignity and security. Declaring a public health emergency is an important step, but lasting change will require bold investments in healthcare access, racial equity, and maternal support systems.

Every Eight Minutes: The Crisis of Sexual Assault in Uber Rides

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

Between 2017 and 2022, Uber received a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct in the United States almost every eight minutes. That adds up to 400,181 reports in just five years, far higher than the 12,522 “serious” incidents Uber had publicly disclosed.

These findings, revealed by Emily Steel in a New York Times investigation and discussed in The Daily podcast episode “Every Eight Minutes,” point to a persistent, systemic crisis in ride-sharing safety, one that affects passengers and drivers alike. Women are the majority of victims. The vast majority of alleged perpetrators are men, whether they are behind the wheel or in the back seat. The blurred power dynamics of ride-sharing apps, where strangers are matched by algorithms and rides take place in isolated, private vehicles create a uniquely vulnerable environment. Many incidents follow a pattern: late-night rides, pickups from bars, intoxicated passengers, and offenders with prior misconduct complaints.

Uber’s own data scientists and safety experts developed tools that could reduce assaults, such as matching women passengers with women drivers, mandatory in-car cameras, and an algorithm that identified high-risk matches between riders and drivers. But many of these measures were delayed, limited, or abandoned. 

Internal records show that business priorities took precedence over rolling out safety programs. Requiring cameras or extensive training, for example, risked reclassifying drivers as employees, which would be far more expensive for the company. Drivers being classified as “employees” would require Uber to pay benefits, follow minimum wage requirements, and be held accountable in lawsuits against Uber’s drivers. 

Uber has been known to use mandatory arbitration agreements, instead of traditional lawsuits as a loophole. In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld arbitration agreements which require parties to resolve the issues through “arbitration” or mediation. In action, this means that when a survivor of sexual assault in an Uber vehicle sues Uber for this violation happening in one of their cars, Uber can dodge the lawsuit. 

Uber also highlights the classification of drivers as independent contractors to avoid accountability. With this legal argument, Uber itself cannot be held accountable for what happens in their vehicles since Uber is just the connection. This leaves survivors alone while Uber continues to allow hundreds of thousands of people to be sexually assaulted using their platform. 

In response to ongoing safety concerns, Uber recently announced it would launch a pilot program in select U.S. cities offering a “Women+ Connect” ride option. This feature allows women and nonbinary drivers and riders to opt into same-gender matches. While the feature was originally supposed to roll out in November 2024, days after Trump was elected president, executives decided to hold off the decision. 

Moreover, Uber’s pilot launch coincides with growing concern over the TEA app that recently suffered a data breach exposing sensitive user information. The TEA App is a dating safety app that allows women to “safest place to spill the tea” about men on dating apps. 

The TEA app leak is a stark reminder of how safety for women is often framed as something they must build and maintain for themselves, rather than a responsibility shouldered by the platforms that profit from risky environments. Yet the breach not only exposed deeply personal and potentially dangerous information, it also flipped the narrative: instead of addressing the harm caused by abusers, the fallout once again puts women at risk and blames them for speaking out. This mirrors the ride-sharing crisis, where survivors are left to navigate personal safety in systems that consistently prioritize corporate liability over meaningful protection.

Hannah Nilles, Uber’s head of safety for the Americas, has stated that around 3/4 of the 400,181 reports were “less serious,” such as making comments about someone’s appearance, flirting, or using explicit language. That still leaves over 100,000 “serious” reports. In a response to the investigation, Nilles made a statement saying, “More than half of women in the US have experienced sexual violence in their lifetimes. Uber is not immune to this.”

But whether it’s a “less serious” comment or a violent assault, survivors should never be put in these situations in the first place. 

The normalization of harassment, written off as inevitable background noise in public spaces, dating apps, and ride-sharing platforms, only serves to protect abusers and insulate companies from change. Corporations like Uber, have the resources to design systems that prevent harm, remove abusive users, and support survivors without re-traumatizing them. That means proactive background checks, transparent reporting processes, zero tolerance for retaliation, and public accountability for how cases are handled. 

Until safety is treated as a non-negotiable part of doing business, women, nonbinary people, and other marginalized riders and drivers will continue to shoulder the cost of corporate negligence. Ending this cycle requires shifting the burden off survivors and putting it where it belongs.

$9.7 Million in Contraceptives Set for Destruction as Aid Freeze Continues

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

The U.S. government is preparing to destroy a $9.7 million stockpile of USAID-purchased contraceptives originally intended for global aid. The contraceptives in the stockpile could provide at least one year of coverage to over 650,000 women and longer-term protection for even more. 

The State Department has confirmed these plans, which would cost $167,000 of taxpayer dollars. The current administration’s freeze on USAID aid has prevented the release of these contraceptives and left them at risk of destruction instead of distribution. 

The unused supply, currently sitting in warehouses in Belgium, includes injectable contraceptives, IUDs, implants, and oral contraceptives. Most of these products are well within their shelf life and could serve hundreds of thousands of people in countries facing severe shortages in reproductive healthcare.

A representative from the State Department has said that “Only a limited number of commodities have been approved for disposal. No HIV medications or condoms are being destroyed,” but the decision to destroy any viable contraceptives raises serious questions about the U.S. government’s commitment to global public health.

International humanitarian groups like MSI Reproductive Choices and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) offered to purchase, repackage or distribute the products at no cost to the U.S. government. However, those efforts were rejected. 

The decision has drawn widespread condemnation from global health advocates and international partners. French and Belgian officials have expressed concern asking for the European Commission to intervene about the destruction taking place on European soil. 

The decision to proceed with destruction on top of other recent restrictions to foreign aid has prompted new legislation. The Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act, introduced by Sen. Shaheen (D-NH), would mandate that federal agencies prioritize the donation or redistribution of medical supplies, preventing the destruction of usable resources. The bill asserts that destroying foreign assistance commodities that could aid those in need is unethical and against U.S. interests as global health can benefit the U.S. economy. 

The current administration’s decision to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to destroy perfectly usable contraceptives, rather than allow them to be distributed, reveals a deep hypocrisy. Officials claim to support fiscal responsibility and global aid, yet their actions do the opposite. 

This contradiction is even more striking when considering that these contraceptives were already funded, manufactured, and shipped under existing USAID contracts. They are not surplus or expired. They are usable, life-saving supplies now being discarded because of a political agenda that prioritizes anti-abortion ideology over public health. Destroying them is not just a waste of public money, it undermines decades of bipartisan investment in global reproductive care.

At a time when access to contraception remains a critical unmet need for millions around the world, the planned incineration of usable contraceptives is a moral failure. The Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act offers a path forward. But it will require sustained public pressure to ensure that reproductive healthcare is treated not as a political weapon, but as the essential, life-affirming right that it is.

Funding Delay Disrupts Head Start Access for Low-Income Families

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

On July 23, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that the current administration violated federal law earlier this year by delaying and withholding nearly $825 million in Head Start funding. This jeopardized access to early childhood education and care for hundreds of thousands of low-income families across the United States.

The GAO found that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) failed to comply with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires the executive branch to carry out spending as directed by Congress. This marks the third such violation of the law by the administration in 2025 alone. 

Between January 20 and April 15,  2025, HHS disbursed roughly 65% of the Head Start funding issued during the same period in FY 2024. This is approximately a 34–35% decline, totaling around $825 million less aid than the year before.

The delay was reportedly due to internal reviews initiated by the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), part of the administration’s broader effort to reexamine and restructure federal spending.

Head Start, a $12 billion federal child care program established in 1965, provides early education, nutrition, health screening, and parental support for low income families. In 2022, they supported over 800,000 children, most of them from families living below the federal poverty line. 

While funding resumed by June, the consequences of the three-month delay were immediate and far-reaching. Local Head Start providers reported widespread interruptions, including delayed enrollments, shortened program hours, and temporary closures of early childhood education centers. Some community-based programs, already operating on thin margins, struggled to retain staff or provide basic services.

For many working families, especially single mothers, the impact was destabilizing. Head Start is not only an educational lifeline for children but also a critical support for caregivers who rely on the program to pursue employment or education. Interruptions in care can force parents to leave jobs, miss work, or take on additional caregiving responsibilities without support.

Early childhood advocates emphasize that consistent access to Head Start is essential for cognitive, emotional, and social development. Delays in funding, even if temporary, can have long-term effects on the most vulnerable children, including those experiencing homelessness, disability, or food insecurity. 

As legal experts and lawmakers assess potential next steps, advocates continue to call for increased protections for programs that serve low-income families. For them, the Head Start delay was not just a technical violation of law, but a stark reminder of how political decisions can quickly jeopardize the safety net for children in poverty.

Senate Approves Trump Administration’s $9 Billion in Cuts to Foreign Aid and Public Broadcasting

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

In a move that has sparked sharp criticism from public interest advocates, the U.S. Senate this week approved a White House request to cancel approximately $8 billion in foreign aid and $1 billion in funding for public broadcasting, including public media staples like PBS and NPR. 

The vote of 216-to-213 included all but two Republicans in favor of the cuts. The bill goes next to President Trump for his signature.

The foreign aid cuts affect a wide range of programs, including funding for global health initiatives, humanitarian disaster response, gender equity programs, and U.S.-led development efforts in vulnerable regions. Critics say the move signals a retreat from America’s global commitments—especially to women and girls abroad, who often benefit most from U.S.-supported maternal health care, access to education, and anti-violence programming.

Equally concerning to many observers is the $1 billion reduction in public broadcasting funding. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports local public radio and television stations, is a frequent target during budget season, but rarely on this scale. The cuts could significantly reduce the reach and capacity of public broadcasters like NPR and PBS, especially in rural communities where commercial media has all but disappeared.

The $1 billion cut to public broadcasting may sound like a bureaucratic trim, but the real-world consequences will hit hard, especially for women and families. For single mothers, public television is more than entertainment. It’s an educational lifeline. PBS KIDS, known for shows like Sesame Street and Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, delivers free, accessible, curriculum-aligned programming to millions of homes without requiring cable, streaming subscriptions, or expensive technology. 

PBS Kids is on every day 24/7, meaning there’s never a moment when it’s not available. In fact, PBS stations are #1 reaching children ages 2-8 in low income homes, moms of young children, moms of young children in low income homes, and hispanic moms of young children. There is research that children who accessed PBS Kids scored 46% higher standardized test scores, showed improvement in math skills, and demonstrated greater empathy and more confidence in social interactions. 

During Covid, almost 30% of students didn’t have internet access, however PBS Kids was available to over 95% of U.S. TV households. Cuts to PBS jeopardize this vital service, stripping educational content from children in households already marginalized by economic inequality.

The decision is also the latest example in a broader pattern of the federal government turning away from media that challenges the political status quo. While some of the cuts are being framed as routine fiscal discipline, they follow a trend of targeting platforms that do not align ideologically with the administration or are perceived as critical of the White House.

The financial squeeze on public media comes amid a wave of high-profile media cuts across the industry. CBS announced that it will be canceling The Late Show with Stephen Colbert next may. After nearly a decade on air, part of CBS’s larger restructuring of its late-night lineup. Though Colbert’s show had consistently topped ratings, the network cited cost-cutting and “shifting viewer habits” as justification for ending production.

For nearly a decade, The Late Show served as one of the few mainstream platforms where sharp, consistent criticism of both Republican and Democratic administrations reached a national audience. Colbert was known for calling out hypocrisy, corporate influence, and political cowardice, including segments that directly challenged CBS leadership when the network wavered in the face of political pressure. As Trump’s influence over the GOP reasserts itself, CBS’s decision to cancel The Late Show is raising some critics’ eyebrows. 

Taken together, these developments paint a troubling picture: public and independent media, especially content that informs or challenges audiences, is being systematically defunded or de-prioritized. The same week that Colbert’s show was canceled, PBS quietly announced potential layoffs across several local stations, citing uncertainty in federal appropriations.

For millions of Americans, these aren’t abstract budget lines. Public broadcasting remains a trusted source for local news, educational programming, and cultural coverage, especially for communities underserved by corporate media. The defunding of PBS means fewer free children’s programs, fewer in-depth documentaries, and fewer local reporting resources in places that have already lost newspapers and TV bureaus.

The Senate’s approval of these cuts may mark a turning point. As fiscal politics increasingly intersect with culture wars, publicly funded media is emerging as a primary target. Whether through legislation, budget rescissions, or quiet programming cancellations, the result is the same: fewer independent voices, less access to trustworthy information, and a shrinking public square.

Melissa Hortman: Honoring the Life and Legacy of a Fearless Minnesota Leader

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

On June 14, 2025, Minnesota lost one of its most dedicated public servants. Melissa Hortman, Speaker Emerita of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated alongside her husband, Mark, in their Brooklyn Park home. 

The shooting, described by authorities as a “politically motivated act of domestic terrorism,” shocked the state and the nation. The attacker, identified as Vance Luther Boelter, was posing as law enforcement, and also targeted State Senator John Hoffman and his wife in a separate attack, leaving them injured, but alive. He was eventually captured and now faces multiple charges, including first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The murders of Melissa and Mark Hortman have sent ripples of grief through Minnesota’s political community and beyond. Vigils have been held across the state, the Capitol steps crowded with flowers, handwritten tributes, and tearful citizens who saw in Hortman a leader who never stopped fighting for them. Flags across the country fly at half-staff in her honor.

But Melissa Hortman’s story is not defined by the violence that ended her life, it’s defined by the decades of courageous leadership, hard-won legislative victories, and fierce advocacy that shaped Minnesota into a more just, inclusive, and hopeful place.

Melissa Hortman’s career was distinguished by tireless work on behalf of working families, environmental sustainability, gender equity, and democracy itself. First elected to the Minnesota House in 2004, she rose through the ranks to become Speaker of the House in 2019, guiding the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) caucus through some of the most consequential legislative sessions in recent memory.

Under her leadership, Minnesota expanded abortion protections, enshrined rights for LGBTQ+ communities, and passed landmark climate legislation that set ambitious clean energy goals for the state. She was a fierce advocate for gun safety, championing reforms in partnership with national organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety. Following the murder of George Floyd, she helped pass significant police accountability reforms, making Minnesota a national leader on public safety and racial justice.

Melissa also understood the quieter but equally critical needs of Minnesotans: affordable childcare, rural healthcare access, paid family leave, and economic opportunity for both urban and rural communities. Her advocacy earned her respect across ideological divides, though she never backed down from a fight when Minnesotans’ rights were at stake.

Beyond the Capitol, Hortman was deeply involved in her community. She taught Sunday school, volunteered for local human rights organizations, and even fostered service dogs. Her warmth, wit, and intellect left a lasting impression on everyone who knew her, whether across the negotiating table or at a neighborhood barbecue.

Melissa Hortman should be remembered not for the violence that ended her life, but for the courage, vision, and compassion that defined it.

Protests Sweep Los Angeles in Wake of ICE Raids

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

On Friday, June 6, 2025, protests against immigration raids started in Los Angeles, California after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) entered several city locations to arrest and detain undocumented immigrants. 

Over the course of several days, ICE agents conducted raids at multiple worksites, including clothing warehouses and public areas throughout Southern California, resulting in the detention of over 100 individuals. As agents moved in, crowds of people showed up, blocked ICE vehicles, and called for the release of those who had been detained.

Clashes between protesters and ICE agents in riot gear occurred near the Westlake Home Depot. Tensions escalated after some protesters reportedly threw pieces of broken concrete at law enforcement, prompting the Los Angeles Police Department to respond with tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bang devices in efforts to break up the crowd.

By around 7 p.m. local time, roughly 200 demonstrators were still gathered at the site when LAPD issued an official order to disperse. About an hour later, officers were given approval to deploy less-lethal crowd control weapons. Shortly after, at 8:24 p.m., a citywide tactical alert was declared.

Witnesses reported that ICE agents arrived in tactical gear, used tear gas and flash-bang devices, and detained workers without providing clear explanations or warrants in some cases. In a statement on June 7, ICE claims it will “continue to enforce our nation’s immigration laws and arrest criminal illegal aliens.” ICE claims that all actions taken were lawful and that the use of force was necessary due to escalating protests and public obstruction. 

Among those arrested was David Huerta, president of SEIU California, a union that has long advocated for immigrant workers’ rights. Huerta was tackled and injured by officers while participating in a peaceful demonstration. His arrest sent shockwaves through California’s labor movement, with union leaders calling it a direct attack on organized labor and immigrant solidarity.

In response to the raids, Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the actions as “reckless and cruel,” while Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the raids “terrorizing” and pledged legal challenges against the federal government, saying, “We will not stand for this.” 

Meanwhile, the current administration’s decision to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to the city has only fueled tensions, with critics raising serious constitutional questions about federal overreach into state authority. 

Democrats across the country have sharply pushed back against the administration’s move to federalize the National Guard. In fact, all 23 Democratic governors released a statement condemning the move to federalize California’s National Guard under a rarely used law, calling the decision both unnecessary and an escalation.

The true cost of these raids is being felt most acutely by immigrant women, children, and families, many of whom are now without primary breadwinners or caregivers. Advocates warn that the trauma inflicted on these families will have long-term consequences, especially for undocumented women already facing workplace exploitation, gender-based violence, and systemic barriers to accessing healthcare, housing, and education.

For many Californians, these raids are not just about immigration, they’re about dignity, family, and the right to live free from fear.

The Take It Down Act Becomes Law: A First Step Against Digital Exploitation

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

On May 19, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan “Take It Down Act” into law, establishing a federal framework to combat the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated deepfakes. This legislation criminalizes the act of knowingly publishing or threatening to publish explicit images without the subject’s consent, marking a significant step in addressing digital exploitation. 

Introduced by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and co-sponsored by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), the bill garnered overwhelming bipartisan support, passing the House with a 409–2 vote and unanimously in the Senate. 

Even First Lady Melania Trump played a role in the signing of the Take It Down Act, aligning it with her long-standing “Be Best” initiative focused on children’s well-being and online safety. At the bill’s signing ceremony, she delivered remarks condemning the non-consensual sharing of intimate images as “malicious” and added her signature alongside the President’s. 

Key provisions of the bill: 

  • The law makes it a federal offense to “knowingly” share or threaten to share intimate images without consent, encompassing both real and AI-generated content.
  • Online platforms are mandated to remove reported non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours of a victim’s request and take steps to eliminate duplicates.
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is empowered to enforce compliance, with violators facing fines up to $50,000 per incident and potential imprisonment of up to three years.

The legislation responds to growing concerns over the misuse of AI technologies to create realistic, non-consensual explicit content. Last year, at Westfield High School, in New Jersey, more than two dozen students were horrified to learn AI-generated pornographic images of them were circulating online. Alarm grew in January when violent and explicit images of superstar Taylor Swift spread rapidly on social media. 

The criminal provisions of the Take It Down Act took immediate effect upon signing. Online platforms are granted a one-year period, until May 19, 2026, to establish compliant reporting and removal procedures, ensuring victims have accessible means to request the takedown of non-consensual content. 

The act promises victims a streamlined process to reclaim their agency. But it also places the burden of action on the very people already traumatized by abuse. Victims must identify the content, submit personal information, and prove lack of consent, often while navigating psychological trauma or threats from perpetrators.

On top of that, the bill only applies to public-facing platforms, leaving out private, encrypted, and decentralized networks where abuse often begins and flourishes. For survivors, this means the worst material may remain beyond reach.

The Take it Down Act is a great first step. 

But while it establishes a long-overdue framework, it remains a reactive solution to a rapidly evolving crisis. True protection will require a shift in how our laws, platforms, and institutions prioritize the dignity, safety, and autonomy of those most at risk. Until then, survivors will continue to shoulder the burden of seeking justice in a system still catching up.

What’s at Stake: The Supreme Court’s Upcoming Pivotal Cases

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

The U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating several significant cases that could reshape aspects of American law and society. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on two cases including FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC  regulating flavored vapes, and TikTok Inc. v. Garland on banning TikTok for national security. As the Court session continues, the justices will review a series of cases including Trump’s birthright citizenship order and public education cases that test the boundaries of religious liberty, parental rights, and federal authority. 

Just earlier this week on May 15, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Barnes v. Felix on police use of excessive force ruling that in cases relating to police shootings, judges must consider all the relevant circumstances in their scrutiny of challenges, not just “the moment of threat.” The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that all aspects leading up to an instance of police force should be considered as context. 

In the weeks to come, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on various other issues. The Supreme Court has been reviewing the legality of an executive order issued by President Trump in January 2025, which aims to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents. As of May 15, the Supreme Court was hearing arguments from stakeholders including New Jersey solicitor general, Jeremy Feigenbaum for Trump v. CASA, Inc. 

Lower federal courts have blocked the order, citing potential violations of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born in the U.S. The administration is challenging the scope of these nationwide injunctions rather than the constitutional merits of the order itself. A ruling in favor of the executive order could redefine birthright citizenship and limit the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, potentially affecting over 150,000 births annually.

There are also two pivotal education cases poised to redefine the boundaries between public education and religious freedom including Mahmoud v. Taylor and Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. These decisions could significantly influence how schools nationwide handle curriculum content, charter school funding, and diversity initiatives.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, a group of parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, claim that the local public school district infringed upon their First Amendment rights by mandating their children’s “exposure” to LGBTQ+-themed books without offering opt-out provisions. Initially, Montgomery County Public Schools allowed parents to exempt their children from these readings. However, in March 2023, the district revoked this policy, citing administrative challenges and concerns about stigmatizing LGBTQ+ students. 

During oral arguments in April 2025, the Supreme Court appeared divided. The conservative leaning justices expressed concern over potential religious discrimination and that the school district must do more to “protect parents”, while the more liberal leaning justices worried that granting opt-outs could lead to widespread curriculum challenges. 

At its core, Mahmoud v. Taylor addresses a growing national tension between inclusive public education and parental religious rights. A ruling in favor of the parents could significantly reshape how public schools operate, potentially forcing districts to offer opt-out provisions for any curriculum materials that families claim conflict with their religious beliefs.

The other case relating to education, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, focuses on public funding for religious charter schools. This case examines whether a state can fund a religious charter school. In 2023, Oklahoma approved the establishment of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, marking the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court later ruled this approval unconstitutional, asserting that charter schools are public entities and must remain secular. 

Proponents argue that excluding religious institutions from public programs constitutes discrimination, while opponents contend that public funding of religious schools violates the Establishment Clause. This clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has previously supported religious entities’ participation in public programs, suggesting a potential leaning in favor of the charter school. 

A decision permitting public funding for religious charter schools could blur the lines between church and state, prompting other states to consider similar initiatives and reshaping the charter school landscape.

As the Supreme Court moves toward issuing decisions in these consequential cases, the nation stands at a legal and cultural crossroads. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court decides to uphold long-standing interpretations of constitutional rights or chart new directions, its rulings on birthright citizenship, religious expression in public education, and federal authority will have sweeping implications.

United Kingdom Ruling Highlights Global Rollback of Trans Rights

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

The highest court of the United Kingdom ruled that the legal definition of “woman” in the country’s equality laws refers only to biological sex, not gender identity, excluding trans women. The verdict has sparked intense debate across the UK and beyond, with gender-critical campaigners celebrating the decision while LGBTQ+ rights groups express deep concern.

At the heart of the case was a legal challenge brought by the “advocacy group” For Women Scotland, contesting a Scottish government initiative aimed at increasing female representation on public boards. The Scottish government had interpreted the term “woman” to include trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), which grants legal recognition of gender identity. The court disagreed.

Writing for the court, Deputy President Lord Patrick Hodge stated that “the provisions relating to sex discrimination can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex,” adding that interpreting “sex” as legal gender would render the definitions of “man” and “woman” under the Equality Act 2010 “incoherent.”

The decision clarifies that protections and entitlements based on sex, such as access to single-sex spaces like changing rooms or shelters, apply exclusively to those assigned female at birth. Popular author, JK Rowling called the campaigners “‘extraordinary” for achieving this decision. However, the justices emphasized that trans people remain protected under the Equality Act’s provisions on gender reassignment and discrimination based on perceived gender.

Still, the ruling is being seen as a significant moment in the UK’s ongoing debate over sex and gender, one that comes amid a rising tide of transphobic violence and hate crimes. Government data shows hate crimes related to sexual identity more than doubled in 2023. The tragic murder of 16-year-old trans girl Brianna Ghey last year remains a painful symbol of the dangers faced by transgender individuals in the UK.

Trans rights groups and LGBTQ+ advocates warned that the ruling could further marginalize a community already facing heightened scrutiny and hostility. Amnesty International expressed concern about “potentially concerning consequences,” though it acknowledged the court’s insistence that trans individuals retain protections under other aspects of equality law.

Stonewall, the UK’s largest LGBTQ+ rights organization, described the ruling as “incredibly worrying,” cautioning that it could undermine the rights of trans women in everyday life, including in access to healthcare, employment, and public services.

The ruling reflects a growing trend across the world where gender identity rights are being rolled back or redefined in favor of biological or “sex-based” legal frameworks. Last year, the United Nations released a report that “One in four countries report backlash against women’s rights in 2024.” The UK joins a rising number of democracies where the legal recognition of trans identities is increasingly contested in courtrooms, parliaments, and public discourse.

In the United States, former President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order banning transgender girls and women from competing in female sports, prompting legal challenges and widespread condemnation from civil rights groups.

Meanwhile, in parts of Europe, such as Hungary and Poland, governments have moved to restrict gender recognition altogether. In 2020, Hungary banned legal gender changes on official documents. Poland has proposed education reforms aimed at limiting discussion of gender identity in schools. 

Even in progressive nations like Sweden and Finland, debates have intensified over access to gender-affirming care for minors, leading to policy shifts and, in some cases, tighter regulations. 

As debates over gender identity, biological sex, and legal protections continue to dominate headlines, one thing is clear: the fight for trans rights, and the broader cultural questions it raises, is far from over.

Liberation Day for Whom? How Trump’s Tariffs Hit Women Hardest

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

As the Trump administration pushes forward with a sweeping new round of tariffs, economists are warning that the real cost may be felt disproportionately by one group: American women.

Dubbed the “Liberation Day” tariffs by the President, the policy includes a universal 10 % tax on the majority of imported goods and then further tariffs. This aggressive move would raise the effective U.S. tariff rate to levels not seen since the 19th century. 

The Yale Budget Lab estimates that this could lead to a 2% spike in inflation and cost American households between $3,400 and $4,200 per year while other economists estimate nearly $4,000 to almost $8,000 per household. But for many women, especially those in low-income brackets or heading single-parent households, the price could be far steeper.

In an interview with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent by Tucker Carlson, Bessent claims that “the ultimate goal of the tariffs, and the President says it all the time: bring your factory here.” Further, the White House released a fact sheet on April 2 tariffs as a goal to protect sovereignty and strengthen national security, stating that foreign countries manufacturing U.S. products is a danger. 

Bringing back American jobs might seem good in theory, but as Matthew Yglesias points out, the jobs Trump intends to create are for labor-intensive economic opportunity for “blue collar men.” The intent of the tariffs, which are not looking to be successful, is not to uplift all Americans, but only certain men. 

Tariffs are often described as regressive taxes meaning flat fees that eat up a larger share of income for poorer households. Since women are 35% more likely to live in poverty and represent two out of three of workers earning at or below minimum wage, any across-the-board price increases hit them harder. Women also make up 80% of all consumer purchases making the rising cost of goods hit women even harder. 

Single-parent households, 81% of which are headed by women, spend roughly 40% of their income on goods, compared to just 20% for top-earning households. That means any tariff hike will consume a far larger chunk of a single mom’s paycheck than it will for a wealthier, dual-income family.

Layer that on top of the existing “pink tax,” the higher retail prices often charged for women’s versions of products like razors, shampoos, and even toys, and the cumulative effect becomes a serious financial strain.

In response, Democratic Representatives Lizzie Fletcher (TX) and Brittany Pettersen (CO) are reintroducing legislation as H.R.2047 that would require the Treasury Department to study and publicly report on the impact of gender-based tariff disparities.

Whether the bill gains traction in a divided Congress remains to be seen. So far, H.R.2047 has 9 co-sponsors and has been introduced to the House Committee on Ways and Means. But as President Trump continues to double down on his trade strategies, the cost could be felt most in women’s wallets.

Texas Midwife’s Arrest Marks a Chilling Escalation in the War on Abortion Rights

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

In a move that underscores the alarming consequences of Texas’ near-total abortion ban, state Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced the arrest of Maria Margarita Rojas, a midwife accused of providing illegal abortion services. The charges of illegal performance of an abortion and practicing medicine without a license could lead to decades behind bars for Rojas, making her one of the first individuals criminally prosecuted under the state’s draconian anti-abortion laws.

Dr. Maria, and Jose Ley, her employee, allegedly operated at least three clinics in the Houston area where authorities claim abortion procedures were performed. The clinics, which publicly advertised services such as ultrasounds and vaccines, are now the focus of Paxton’s latest anti-abortion crackdown, with his office filing a temporary restraining order to shut them down.

According to court records, Rojas was initially taken into custody in Waller County on March 6 for allegedly practicing medicine without a license and was later released on a $10,000 bond. However, on Monday, March 17, she was arrested again along with Ley and now faces felony charges. Their combined bond has been set at $2.1 million. Additionally, Paxton announced that he has filed a temporary restraining order to close Rojas’s clinics.

“In Texas, life is sacred,” Paxton declared in his statement, doubling down on his commitment to enforcing some of the harshest abortion restrictions in the country. But while Texas officials frame this prosecution as a victory for their so-called ‘pro-life’ agenda, reproductive rights advocates see it for what it truly is: a ruthless attack on bodily autonomy and a harrowing warning for those who dare to assist people seeking abortion care.

In Texas, the charge of practicing medicine without a license carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, while the performance of an abortion is up to 20 years. 

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Texas has led the charge in criminalizing abortion providers and restricting reproductive healthcare. The state’s law bans abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with only narrow exceptions for life-threatening conditions, exceptions that have been widely criticized as vague and insufficient.

Texas, which already has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country, stands to see even worse outcomes as abortion bans push reproductive healthcare providers out of practice. When healthcare professionals are forced to weigh the risk of imprisonment against their duty to care for their patients, pregnant people lose access to essential, sometimes life-saving, medical support. 

The aggressive prosecution of Rojas highlights a critical and dangerous reality of the chilling effect these laws have on maternal healthcare providers. Midwives, doulas, and other healthcare professionals who serve pregnant people, especially in marginalized communities, now face the terrifying risk of criminal prosecution simply for providing compassionate care.

Teachers Union Sues Trump Administration Over DEI crackdown

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

In a significant legal challenge, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the American Sociological Association have filed a federal lawsuit in Maryland against the Trump administration’s recent directive mandating the elimination of “race-based” practices in educational institutions. The directive, issued by the Department of Education on February 14, 2025, threatens to withhold federal funding from schools and universities that fail to comply within a two-week timeframe, extending President Trump’s executive order banning diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs as part of his fight against “racial indoctrination.”

The lawsuit claims that the directive from the Department of Education violates the First and Fifth Amendments, arguing that it imposes unconstitutional restrictions on free speech and is excessively vague, leaving educational institutions uncertain about which practices might be prohibited. The teachers union asserts that the directive’s broad scope could impede the teaching of essential historical topics related to race and undermine DEI programs. They further argue that the Department of Education is overextending the application of a Supreme Court decision that banned the use of race in college admissions, misinterpreting it to apply to all aspects of student life.

The Trump administration’s attack on DEI initiatives disproportionately harms women of color, who face systemic barriers in education and employment. By seeking to erase race-conscious policies, this directive also undermines the mechanisms that have historically supported marginalized communities in accessing educational opportunities.

This is particularly dangerous for feminist educators who rely on critical pedagogy to help students understand the social structures that shape their lives. Teaching about gender wage gaps, reproductive justice, and the historical disenfranchisement of women of color requires engaging with discussions about systemic oppression, exactly the kind of discourse that this directive seeks to suppress.

The directive has prompted swift reactions from educational institutions nationwide. For instance, universities in Colorado are evaluating the potential impact on their DEI programs, with some institutions considering significant adjustments to comply with the new policy. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the enforcement of the directive, emphasizing the potential harm to students and educators if DEI initiatives are dismantled.

This legal action is part of a broader resistance against recent executive orders aimed at dismantling DEI programs in both federal and educational sectors. By attempting to strip federal funding from institutions that acknowledge race and systemic oppression, the administration is not only misinterpreting civil rights law but also endangering the future of inclusive education. Opponents argue that such policies are essential for addressing historical inequities and supporting marginalized communities, while supporters claim they may lead to reverse discrimination. The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for the future of DEI initiatives in educational institutions across the country.

The Institute for Women’s Policy Research Hosts Briefing to Outline Path towards Equality

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

Panelists at the IWPR briefing (Marisa Conners)

On Wednesday, Feb. 5, The Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) hosted an event titled “2025 Federal Policy Solutions to Advance Gender Equity,” where policymakers, experts and advocates gathered to strategize on the urgent need to safeguard and expand women’s rights. The panelists included President of the National Partnership for Women and Families Jocelyn Frye, Co-President and CEO of Guttmacher Institute Destiny Lopez, and Pronita Gupta, a Senior Fellow at Workshop. President and CEO of IWPR Dr. Jamila K. Taylor served as the moderator. This event was held in partnership with Congresswoman Jan Schawkowsky (D-I.L.).

In the face of unprecedented attacks on women’s progress, the event highlighted how critical it is for those in positions of power to work towards structural change that not only defends existing rights, but also pushes forward into new realms of equality and justice.

The speakers expressed their concerns about the current administration’s actions, including attacks on research, the firing of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officials, pausing foreign aid, and threatening Medicare, Medicaid, and the availability of mifepristone. Lopez stated that over 130,000 women will be denied contraceptive care daily due to the withholding of foreign aid, which will lead to millions of unintended pregnancies and thousands of deaths worldwide.

A majority of the panel was dedicated to the intersection between economic justice and gender equity, with focuses on childcare, paid medical leave, health insurance, and women’s protections in the workplace. Frye aptly pointed out that opening jobs to women without providing them the infrastructure to take advantage of them is an “empty opportunity,” given that childcare responsibilities often fall to women.

Additionally, a 2022 estimate from the Boston Consulting Group found that paid and unpaid work in the care industry comprises $6 trillion, almost a quarter of the U.S. GDP. The care economy is backed by women of color workers, yet they are often underpaid. It is also important to recognize domestic labor as the unpaid side of care work, which is made invisible due to societal expectations that women and girls will perform it.

Economic policies that further women’s participation in the workforce are widely beneficial, as they will prevent families in states with unpaid leave from losing over $20 billion in wages each year. The national GDP could lose $290 billion in 2030 and beyond if the United States does not improve the care economy, which comprises services that support children, the elderly, the disabled, and more. Women’s economic participation has the potential to increase U.S. GDP growth by 4% over the next decade, but we need policies to facilitate it.

IWPR’s new federal policy agenda outlines four major policy areas for advancing gender equity, including caregiving and families, equitable work and wages, reproductive justice and health equity, and education and career advancement. It encompasses 14 targeted policy areas such as paid leave, reproductive healthcare across the lifespan, and college affordability. This federal policy agenda aligns with the idea that we must start crafting our vision for the future now: Frye referred to this as our “affirmative vision” for the future, and Lopez called these policies “generational work.” 

Representative Sarah McBride (D-D.E.) entered the discussion to present her goal of passing paid federal leave. This is a policy that touches “every single person, every single family across every background and political persuasion” as Rep. McBride stated. McBride’s message was aspirational for the future to build policies that protect the country and its workforce. 

On a similar note, the panelists closed out the briefing by sharing what brings them hope. Gupta spoke about the organizing she is seeing around the country to protect federal victories, Lopez highlighted the successes of the Latin American reproductive rights movement, La Marea Verde, and Frye shared that people do crazy things when they are desperate, assuring the audience that gender equity will win out eventually.

While the day’s discussion was largely driven by concerns over the erosion of women’s rights, it also served as a call to action for creating a future where gender equity is firmly rooted in policy. Frye reminded the audience that “women don’t live single-issue lives,” and as such, policies must address the full spectrum of challenges that women face.

Picture Books Pulled from Shelves as Book Bans Rise

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

In a new report, PEN America has revealed the top banned picture books during the 2023-2024 school year. Among these 23 titles, many center on LGBTQ+ themes, U.S. history, and diversity. 

PEN America defines a school book ban as “any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a previously accessible book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished, either temporarily or permanently.” Book bans override a school’s curriculum or library offerings on the basis of the book’s contents. 

According to the report, these books are part of a wider trend of increasing book bans, which PEN America has been tracking since 2021. Last year, 10,046 book bans were recorded including 4,231 titles, with 45% of these bans coming from Florida and 36% from Iowa. While young adult and adult books were the primary targets of censorship, approximately 2% of the bans focused on picture books aimed at the youngest readers—books often filled with joy, whimsy, and lessons of empathy.

This increase in book bans is part of a wider trend that has escalated since 2021. Over the past few years, more than 16,000 book bans have been documented in U.S. public schools—a surge not seen since the Red Scare of the 1950s. The majority of these bans come from conservative groups pushing to restrict books on race, racism, LGBTQ+ issues, and sexual violence. 

These censorship efforts disproportionately affect marginalized communities and underrepresented narratives. The banned books overwhelmingly included stories with people and characters of color (44%) and books with LGBTQ+ people and characters (39%). 

Meehan, the Program Director at PEN says,“The increase in book bans is a serious threat to intellectual freedom and free expression. Books are meant to challenge, educate, and expand the worldview of young readers, and banning them only narrows their understanding of the world around them.”

As the battle over what children are allowed to read rages on, the importance of defending these books remains clear. They are more than just stories; they are tools for empathy, understanding, and growth. By pushing back against the forces of censorship, advocates for free expression hope to preserve a future where children can learn about love, history, and even goblins—without fear of being silenced.

Here’s a few of the most banned picture books from 2023-2024

  • “And Tango Makes Three,” by Peter Parnell, Justin Richardson, and Henry Cole
  • “The Family Book,” by Todd Parr
  • “Julián Is a Mermaid,” by Jessica Love 
  • “When Aidan Became a Brother,” by Kyle Lukoff and Kaylani Juanita
  • “Draw Me a Star,” by Eric Carle
  • “This Day in June,” by Gayle E. Pitman and Kristyna Litten
  • “Prince and Knight,” by Daniel Haack and Stevie Lewis
  • “Morris Micklewhite and the Tangerine Dress,” by Christine Baldacchino and Isabelle Malenfant
  • “Milo Imagines the World,” by Matt de la Peña and Christian Robinson
  • “In the Night Kitchen,” by Maurice Sendak
  • “Baseball Saved Us,” by Ken Mochizuku and Dom Lee
  • “A Is for Activist,” by Innosanto Nagara

The Laken Riley Act Signals a New Era of Immigration Policy

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

Photo by Louis Velazquez on Unsplash

Republicans in Congress are moving toward reshaping U.S. immigration policy with a strict immigration detention law, The Laken Riley Act. This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain non-citizens who have been arrested for nonviolent crimes including burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting of $100 or more. It also empowers states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement. As it moves through the legislative process, this act is poised to bring tougher immigration enforcement, expand state powers, and provoke debates about the balance of power between state and federal governments.

Named after Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student tragically murdered in Athens, Georgia, by Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan immigrant, the bill has sparked both strong support and deep controversy. Ibarra had been apprehended by Border Patrol but released before the incident. Ibarra had a history of being in the U.S. unlawfully, and his release ignited a fierce public outcry. Riley’s family, along with supporters of tougher immigration enforcement, championed the cause for more stringent measures to prevent similar incidents.

In the 119th Congress, which just began on January 3, 2025, the House has swiftly passed the Laken Riley Act. The bill was passed on January 7th with 264 Yeas from 216 Republicans and 48 Democrats after being introduced by Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA-10). The bill was sent to the Senate the next day drawing an unusual amount of support from Democratic Senators. John Fetterman (D-PA) and Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) have both co-sponsored the bill. 

Looking deeper into the Laken Riley Act, the bill mandates that anyone in the country unlawfully who is accused of stealing items worth $100 or more be taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), regardless of whether they have a violent criminal record. Currently, immigration officials exercise discretion when deciding whom to detain, focusing primarily on those with violent criminal backgrounds. However, this bill would limit that discretion, potentially increasing the number of people detained for non-violent offenses. This could overwhelm detention facilities already struggling with capacity.

This shift from federal control to state oversight is a pivotal moment in immigration law, as it allows state officials to directly influence federal immigration policy, granting states the power to challenge U.S. foreign policy, specifically when it comes to deportation. 

The bill will next be debated in the Senate, where Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) will decide which amendments to consider. With the Senate facing a 60-vote threshold to advance the bill, its future remains uncertain, especially considering the divide among Senate Democrats. However, with the backing of several prominent Democratic Senators, there is a strong possibility that the bill could pass the Senate and signed into law by the next administration.

What Just Happened? Insights from the Post-Election 2024 Panel Discussion

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

On November 12th, an all-woman panel convened at American University to unpack the results of the 2024 elections at the event titled “What Just Happened?: Voting is over — What Did We Learn from Election 2024?” Moderated by Betsy Fischer Martin, Executive Director of the AU School of Public Affairs Women & Politics Institute, the discussion brought together prominent voices in politics and polling: Molly O’Rourke, Kristen Soltis Anderson, Cheyanne M. Daniels, and Amanda Hunter. Their analysis revealed key trends and takeaways from a uniquely static and revealing election cycle.

One of the most striking revelations came from O’Rourke, who noted the surprising growth of Trump’s coalition, particularly among diverse communities, including Hispanic voters and urban populations. This shift challenges the long-held narrative that Trump’s base is solely composed of white, non-college-educated voters. Daniels echoed this sentiment, sharing her observations that while Trump’s victory was not unexpected, the demographic shifts were indeed surprising. Notably, the turnout of Black men, who supported Harris, reflected a more nuanced electorate than many anticipated.

A key theme discussed by Hunter was the gender dynamics at play during the election. She highlighted that while many women expressed disapproval of Trump’s personality, it did not deter them from voting for him. This dichotomy reveals a complex relationship between candidate authenticity and personal appeal. Trump’s ability to project authenticity resonated with voters, even if they didn’t personally like him.

The conversation also addressed the impact of gender on Harris’s campaign. While Harris faced scrutiny over her dual identity as a woman and a politician, her campaign did not fall into the typical traps of ambition backlash that other female candidates have experienced. This allowed her to focus on policy without detracting from her identity.

Abortion emerged as a pivotal issue during the election, with 60% of voters supporting legal abortion, but 30% still voting for Trump. O’Rourke pointed out that while Trump’s messaging on abortion was often misleading, he skillfully navigated the topic to his advantage. Kristen Soltis Anderson remarked on the intertwining narratives of abortion and economic dissatisfaction, suggesting that voters hold Democrats accountable for a broader sense of dysfunction in government.

Hunter highlighted notable achievements for women in politics, citing that three state legislatures are now more evenly split between men and women, alongside record numbers of women governors. She also noted the significance of candidates like Nikki Haley and Harris, who are reshaping expectations for women in leadership roles through their debate performances. These advancements suggest a gradual but important shift in the political landscape, reflecting broader societal changes.

The panel concluded with a sense of cautious optimism. While the results of the 2024 elections revealed entrenched divisions and surprising shifts in voter demographics, they also illuminated pathways for future candidates. As political strategists and party leaders reflect on these lessons, the insights shared during the event will undoubtedly influence the strategies employed in upcoming elections. The 2024 election was not just a referendum on candidates, but a complex interplay of identity, policy, and public sentiment. As we move forward, understanding these dynamics will be crucial for both parties aiming to connect with an increasingly diverse electorate.

>