Top Sexual Assault Hotline Bans Referrals To Resources For Marginalized Groups
The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) has dropped more than two dozen resources from its list of permitted referrals, according to documents obtained by The New York Times. Staff and volunteers who answer phone calls, online chats and texts have been told not to make referrals to organizations that help immigrants and LGBTQ+ people — who are at disproportionately higher risk of experiencing sexual violence.
'Our priority is and always will be to ensure the continuation of our mission of ending sexual violence and helping every survivor who reaches out to us,' a RAINN spokesperson told HuffPost on Thursday.
But RAINN confirmed to the Times that it has removed referrals to LGBTQ-centered mental health hotlines, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, a group educating students on sex-based discrimination, and books on understanding same-sex sexual violence, among others.
RAINN and its local affiliates run the National Sexual Assault Hotline, one of the country's biggest crisis lines for survivors of sexual violence. RAINN also operates a federally funded crisis line for members of the military.
The nonprofit attributed the changes to President Donald Trump's executive orders that cut federal funding for organizations with diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The orders currently face legal challenges, but RAINN moved to comply with them regardless.
'We have done everything possible to ensure both that we are compliant with federal requirements and that we stay true to our values of offering every survivor the respect and support they deserve,' the spokesperson said. 'And that's never going to change.'
The spokesperson did not immediately say whether the group is planning to add alternative resources for marginalized people to make up for ones that were dropped.
RAINN previously faced backlash for removing all mention of transgender people from its website, The Washington Post reported in February. The organization erased a page featuring stories by trans survivors as well as another detailing RAINN's inclusion policy, according to archived information obtained by journalist Mady Castigan.
Volunteers have reportedly sent multiple letters to RAINN's board of directors urging the group to restore resources for marginalized communities and create a plan for operating should the group lose federal funding. The most recent letter cited the Trevor Project, a suicide-prevention group for LGBTQ youth that launched an emergency fundraising campaign to keep its resources in the face of potential funding cuts.
'When trans, queer, Black, brown, Asian and undocumented survivors come to the hotline in crisis, we are not allowed to provide them with the same level of supportive care as other survivors,' the most recent letter said, according to the Times. 'RAINN may face uncertain risks in the future if we stand by marginalized survivors, but we are certain to lose our values now if we do not stand with them today.'
Trump Administration Proposes Eliminating Funding For Crucial Mental Health Services
Leak Shows Trump Administration Could Make A Shocking Cut With Deadly Consequences
We Work In DEI. Trump's Wild Anti-Diversity Claims Are Spreading Popular Lies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
a few seconds ago
- Fox News
DAVID MARCUS: I've seen enough human suffering in homeless encampments to know Trump's new policy is right
When the ambulance arrived in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia two years ago, an angry EMT got out and barked at the crowd, "Who called this in?" Standing next to my cameraman and above the prone body of a shirtless soul bedecked in boils and not moving, I said, "I did." He didn't say a word, he looked at me, then down the street at the dozens of strung out bodies, then back at me as if to say, "Look at all this, what do you want me to do?" I had no PEOPLE CAN BE REMOVED FROM STREETS BY CITIES, STATES IN NEW TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER Last week, President Donald Trump did answer that question with a much-welcome executive order (EO) intended to bring back civil commitment, in other words, the ability to put people who are a danger to themselves or others in institutions, even against their will. Civil libertarians are in a tizzy over the EO. They insist this is an abuse of due process and harkens to the bad old days, when hundreds of thousands of Americans were committed to mental institutions, sometimes for dubious reasons. But in examining and judging Trump's proposed policy here, it is important to understand and accept what the status quo on the ground is right now, and it is nothing short of horrific. I've traveled to homeless encampments all over America, from tucked-away Manhattan underpasses to the sprawling chaos of San Francisco's Tenderloin, a place you literally smell a block before you enter. In these encampments, your gag reflex is challenged by needles sticking out of necks and mountains of human detritus, but the real soul-crushing, existential sadness comes from knowing that these human beings are just being left to die. For decades now, Democrats have spent endless dollars on fruitless efforts to fix the homeless problem. In California alone, Gov. Gavin Newsom has spent $20 billion on failing to fix it, and only recently admitted the encampments have to go. In these encampments, your gag reflex is challenged by needles sticking out of necks and mountains of human detritus, but the real soul-crushing, existential sadness comes from knowing that these human beings are just being left to die. What the Trump administration realizes is that Democrats refuse to accept is that homelessness is, actually, two very distinct problems. One is financial, the other is a matter of addiction and mental health. Financial homelessness is fairly easy to address. The evicted mother living in her car can be given temporary housing and job assistance. She really does just need a hand up. Homelessness related to mental illness and addiction, however, isn't really a homelessness problem at all, it's an addiction and mental illness problem, and shockingly, just letting people in tents shoot up in what was once a thriving commercial district doesn't solve it. As I have wandered the streets of these hellscapes in city after city, my question hasn't really been if these people would be better off in an institution, but rather, if they weren't in a de facto open-air institution already. What does it matter if these places lack walls and locks? They are cages nonetheless, cruel prisons whether voluntary or not. As I have wandered the streets of these hellscapes in city after city, my question hasn't really been if these people would be better off in an institution, but rather, if they weren't in a de facto open-air institution already. Opponents of civil commitment insist you cannot take away people's freedom! But freedom to do what? Shoot fentanyl every day until they die on a curbside, pockets rifled by another desperate junkie? If it was your child on these broken and brutal streets of death, would you want them to be left in freedom to waste away, or would you want them taken somewhere where they could be protected and helped? Opponents will say that civil commitment can be abused. They will point to the 1950s when homosexuals were sent to institutions, but it's not 1950. We aren't going to institutionalize gay people, and we cannot be paralyzed by a bigoted past when trying to save lives today. Could there be abuses or mistakes made regarding civil commitment? Sure, but people are dying in the streets right now, and we must trust ourselves to actively help them, without stepping over the line. Annoyed with me, or not, that day in Kensington, the EMT revived the man at my feet, who, it turns out, wasn't dead, after all. Instead, he was angry, because the Narcan that woke him up also negated the high he had paid for. There are really only two sides to be on here: the side that says we are going to do everything we can to save that man's life, even against his will, or the side that condemns him to an open-air prison of his own making. President Trump has chosen wisely, and if local governments take heed, it is going to save a lot of lives across America.
New York Times
a minute ago
- New York Times
Tariffs on Medicines From Europe Stand to Cost Drugmakers Billions
The trade deal reached between the United States and the European Union on Sunday will impose a 15 percent tariff on imported medicines from Europe. Drugmakers manufacture some of their biggest and best-known blockbusters there, including Botox, the cancer medication Keytruda and popular weight-loss drugs like Ozempic. The tariff rate is much lower than the levies of up to 200 percent that President Trump had threatened. Still, the new import costs stand to add billions of dollars in expenses for the drug industry and could lead to price increases for some medicines. That could translate into higher out-of-pocket costs and higher health insurance premiums for Americans. The 15 percent rate is final and will not be affected by the national-security-related tariffs that Mr. Trump is expected to impose on pharmaceuticals made elsewhere in the world, according to a White House official and senior European Commission officials. This outcome is something of a win for the pharmaceutical industry, which had feared that drugs from Europe would be hit with high levies related to national security. Both sets of pharma tariffs are expected to take effect simultaneously sometime next month, officials said. The pharmaceutical industry depends on a complex global supply chain: Production of most medications happens in multiple countries, with plants around the world handling different stages of the process. Europe is perhaps the most important piece of the global network that produces brand-name drugs — those with patent protection and typically high prices and fat profit margins. Pharmaceutical products are Europe's No. 1 export to the United States. European officials have expressed worries in recent months that pharma tariffs could prompt drugmakers to pull back on investments, at the expense of jobs, factories and tax revenue. Ireland in particular has become a pharma manufacturing hub, in part because doing business there helps drug companies lower their overall tax bills. Nearly all of the largest drugmakers have factories there. Last year, Ireland sent the United States $50 billion worth of pharma products, most of which were made by multinational drug companies. Europe manufactures the active ingredients for 43 percent of the brand-name drugs consumed in the United States, according to U.S. Pharmacopeia, a nonprofit that tracks the drug supply chain. No other region produces a greater share. Europe also makes active ingredients for 18 percent of the generic drugs taken in the United States, which have lower prices and account for a vast majority of Americans' prescriptions. Certain generic drugs made in Europe will be exempt from the new tariff, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said on Sunday. The White House and the European Commission did not respond to requests for comment on which generic drugs would be exempt. The threat of tariffs on generic medicines, which have thin margins, has raised concerns about exacerbating shortages. Experts who track pharmaceutical supply chains said they were not worried that brand-name drugs produced in Europe would go into shortage because they have such high profit margins. The new tariffs will be paid by drugmakers importing finished products or ingredients into the United States. Many are expected to try to pass at least some of the costs along to employers and government programs like Medicare that cover most of the tab for Americans' prescription drugs. Patients whose insurance requires them to pay a deductible or a percentage of a drug's price could eventually face higher out-of-pocket costs for some drugs. In some cases, however, contractual agreements and the threat of steep financial penalties may deter manufacturers from sharply raising prices. Some health insurance premiums are already set to rise. Insurers in New York, Oregon and Maryland recently told regulators that tariffs were prompting them to seek higher premium increases next year for certain health plans than they otherwise would have. The pharmaceutical industry has lobbied fiercely against the tariffs, saying that drugmakers could spend less on research and manufacturing in the United States as a result. 'Tariffs are not the answer for promoting greater domestic production of these products,' the drug industry's main lobbying group, PhRMA, said in a statement in May. For months, Mr. Trump has been promising to impose punishing tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals. His goal, he has said, is to bring more manufacturing back to the United States. In April, the Trump administration opened an investigation into whether imports of medicines and pharmaceutical ingredients threatened America's national security. Mr. Trump brought the inquiry under a legal authority known as Section 232, which he has used to justify tariffs on cars and other industries. With medicines from Europe exempt from Section 232 tariffs, those levies now threaten two of the other most important regions in the drug industry's global production network: India and China, both of which focus on generic drugs. India has been negotiating a trade deal that could address its giant generic drug industry and avert national-security-related tariffs from the United States. Ana Swanson and Jeanna Smialek contributed reporting.
CNN
a minute ago
- CNN
Analysis: Would Trump actually pardon Ghislaine Maxwell?
Plenty of Republicans are walking a tricky line right now on the Jeffrey Epstein files. But few have walked one as tricky as congressional leadership in recent days. Asked about President Donald Trump potentially pardoning Epstein's convicted sex-trafficking accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell – something Trump conspicuously left the door open to Friday and then again Monday – House Speaker Mike Johnson punted on Sunday. 'Well, I mean, obviously that's a decision of the president,' he told NBC's 'Meet the Press,' adding: 'I won't get in front of him. That's not my lane.' When pressed, the Louisiana Republican relented a bit and said that the idea gave him 'great pause' because of her 'unspeakable crimes' – while again emphasizing that's 'not my decision.' Similarly on Monday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune would not say if Trump should rule out a pardon for Maxwell. 'Well, that's up to him,' the South Dakota Republican told CNN's Manu Raju. 'But it looks to me like she's going to spend a good long time in jail.' Maxwell, who's serving 20 years, is a convicted sex trafficker. Of children. Leadership's message to Trump seemed to be: Please don't do it. But also, just in case you do pardon a sex trafficker of children, I need to cover myself and emphasize that you have the full right to do it. And they weren't the only Republicans to curiously avoid rejecting such a pardon. 'I don't know enough about Maxwell or the conversation to even weigh in on that,' Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday. So why on earth are Republicans treating this seemingly unthinkable maneuver so gently? Would Trump actually do such a thing? And how on earth would that not blow up in his face? It's difficult to see how. And indeed, this prospect seems to work better as a carrot for Maxwell, who met last week with the deputy attorney general, than as a legitimate possibility. You could certainly be forgiven for thinking Trump wants Maxwell to believe she might get a pardon – or other help in her ongoing appeals – even if that's not realistic. The conventional wisdom among some on the left has been that Trump has indeed cued up a Maxwell pardon, ever since his administration made interviewing her its first big move to allay concerns about its handling of the Epstein files. The idea would be that Maxwell will say the things the Trump administration wants – such as clearing the president and/or implicating others – and he rewards her with a pardon. Trump certainly hasn't shied away from controversial pardons before. He has gone to historic lengths to pardon allies. He has granted clemency to virtually all January 6, 2021, defendants – including hundreds who were convicted of assaulting police. But even against that backdrop, pardoning a convicted sex trafficker is on another level. Let's say Trump does it. The idea would apparently be that Maxwell provides Trump and his team enough information that they can change the subject by focusing the conversation on other people she might implicate. (It's worth noting that Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.) But what happens then? Maxwell clearly has a credibility issues and reason to say what helps her in this moment. And that's not just me saying it; it's Trump's own Justice Department, circa 2020, which called her a brazen liar. A pardon would only reinforce the idea that this was some kind of corrupt bargain. About the only way to combat that would be if she gave information that actually panned out. But justice takes a long time to be served. The Justice Department needs time to build cases, and those cases might or might not succeed. Are you really going to pardon her before any of that happens? What happens if the end result is that the only Epstein associate to actually be convicted walks free? It also seems likely that a pardon would only add new fuel to a subject that Trump badly wants to move on from. If other people were implicated, that would create all kinds of threads to be pulled moving forward. That would also inject new life into theories about a possible cover-up. The question would become whether these people were subjects in the various investigations, and whether those leads were followed up. It would also lead to questions about whether other people could be brought to justice, which would make withholding the Epstein files even more difficult for the Trump administration. And that's a very big risk here. Polls show huge numbers of Americans already believe there is some form of a cover-up at play. A Reuters-Ipsos poll this month showed Americans agreed 60-12% that the federal government was 'hiding information' about Epstein's death, and 69-6% that it was hiding information about his clients. That latter belief was overwhelmingly bipartisan, with 82% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans agreeing. These people would have their fears confirmed – and probably would want to know more. And then there is just the 'yuck' factor. Trump's January 6 pardons were highly unpopular; a February Washington Post-Ipsos poll showed Americans opposed the pardons of violent offenders 83-14%. At the same time, the president doesn't seem to have paid much of a price. Those pardons during his first week back in office quickly faded amid a barrage of early Trump maneuvers that competed for the attention of the media and news consumers. But the attack on the US Capitol was also years in the past by that point. People were probably unfamiliar with the many hundreds of defendants, and many Trump supporters had been convinced over many months that these people were railroaded. It just wasn't as much of a political hot potato, even as it was unseemly in most Americans' eyes. It's difficult to see how a Maxwell pardon wouldn't instantly be news for days and weeks, because of how people feel about her crimes and the entire Epstein saga, and because of questions about whether this was some kind of corrupt trade. It would also force GOP lawmakers into some very uncomfortable interviews. (A president indeed has the power to pardon whomever he wants to. That doesn't mean every pardon is morally just.) For all of the MAGA movement's seeming willingness to go along with whatever Trump says, it's hard to see how even much of the base would be okay with all that. The question of whether Trump pardons Maxwell might not even be the right one. A better one might be whether Trump's Justice Department could do something else to help her – such as in her ongoing appeals. Maxwell's legal team has based its appeal around the idea that the 2008 non-prosecution agreement Epstein secured in Florida should have covered Maxwell. To this point, the Trump administration has rejected that argument, saying earlier this month that Maxwell was 'not a party to the relevant agreement.' Perhaps it could change its tune? Even that seems pretty far-fetched, though. While this would be a more limited step, it would still look pretty bad and would lead to all kinds of questions about quid pro quos with a convicted sex trafficker. In the end, this debate seems a whole lot more valuable to Trump in the abstract than in reality. Maxwell didn't just talk to a top Trump appointee in the Justice Department last week, she could soon be testifying to Congress. What better way to guide what she says than to have her believe maybe the administration could do her a solid. Or perhaps this is just another example of Trump's strange commentary about Maxwell – remember 'I wish her well' – and never wanting to rule things out. He loves to keep his options open, even when one of those options seems to be ridiculous. But at least for now, it's apparently significant enough for Republicans to treat it as a real possibility. And that, in and of itself, is shocking.
