The GOP's new bill is structural racism at its deadliest
This isn't just policy. It's punishment.
Cutting Medicaid while attacking Planned Parenthood isn't fiscal responsibility. It's a targeted cruelty that hurts women nationwide. But particularly for women in the South — where health systems are already under-resourced, rural clinics are vanishing and maternal mortality rates are similar to those in developing nations — it's nothing short of a death sentence for them and their babies.
Let's talk facts.
In 2023 in Mississippi, 57% of births were covered by Medicaid. In Louisiana, it was 64%. These aren't just statistics. These are lives — sisters, daughters, mothers and aunties — trying to survive a system designed to abandon them.
In many rural ZIP codes, Planned Parenthood is the only accessible provider of cancer screenings, contraception, prenatal maternal care and postpartum care. Gutting its funding while simultaneously choking Medicaid is like setting fire to the only lifeboat in a flood. Let's be even more real: If you are a woman living in rural Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas or Alabama, this bill doesn't just inconvenience your access to care. It incinerates it.
In rural Southern counties, hospitals have shut down their labor and delivery units in droves. Some counties don't have a single practicing OB-GYN. That's not a policy failure — that's an egregious policy choice being carried out with surgical precision.
Imagine being six months pregnant, with no car and no public transit and with the closest provider two hours away — if it's even taking Medicaid patients. That's not health care. That's sanctioned neglect.
Rural women — especially Black, Indigenous and Latina women — have been treated like afterthoughts for generations. But now, they're being treated like collateral damage in a culture war they didn't ask to be in. This is structural racism at is deadliest.
If you're a lawmaker who's gutting access to women's reproductive while smiling for photo ops at church on Sunday, understand this: Every rural woman who dies from a preventable complication, every baby born undernourished because its mother couldn't access prenatal care, every ZIP code that loses a clinic because of these budget cuts is your fault.
These attacks aren't incidental. They are ideological. They are part of a long game to control women's bodies while criminalizing their autonomy — especially in Black and brown communities. It's no coincidence that the same states eager to shred Medicaid expansion are the ones leading the charge against abortion rights, denying gender-affirming care to trans youths and standing opposed to the very notion of care as a public good.
That's exactly why we released 'Shift the South,' groundbreaking report rooted in the lived realities and leadership of women and girls of color across the American South. It maps the merciless, maniacal movement to suppress autonomy, erase reproductive justice and underfund communities into silence. But it also lifts up the blueprint for transformation — investing in Southern women as agents of change, not casualties of policy. It's more than data — it's our declaration. And in the face of cruelty disguised as governance, we offer clarity, courage and counterstrategy.
What's left when the clinic closes, the OB-GYN relocates and the Medicaid card is worthless?
Silence. Suffering. Stillbirths.
We've been here before. But we refuse to die quietly this time.
At the Women's Foundation of the South, we refuse to act as if women are disposable. We know that maternal health, reproductive access and community wellness aren't luxuries — they are basic rights.
This bill? It's not just bad policy. It's a betrayal.
We will fight it — not just with data and dollars, but with the righteous rage of every grandmother who buried a daughter too soon, every mother who had to drive 200 miles for care and every young girl growing up in a state that sees her more as a womb than a whole human being.
Republicans Thursday passed their bill that cuts Medicaid and defunds Planned Parenthood, and Friday, President Trump signed it into law. They should all be aware, though, of the rage they've unleashed in women — in the South and across the country — who don't plan to sit around silently and die.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Senegal's ‘schools for husbands' aim to keep mothers from dying
Africa Maternal health Women's healthFacebookTweetLink Follow On a recent evening in Senegal's capital of Dakar, an imam named Ibrahima Diane explained to a group of men why they should be more involved in household chores. 'The Prophet himself says a man who does not help support his wife and children is not a good Muslim,' the 53-year-old said, as he described bathing his baby and helping his wife with other duties. Some of the 14 men chuckled, not quite sold. Others applauded. Diane was taking part in a 'school for husbands,' a United Nations-backed initiative where respected male community members learn about 'positive masculinity' in health and social issues and promote them in their communities. In Senegal, as in many other West African countries with large rural or conservative populations, men often have the final say in major household decisions, including ones related to health. Women may need their permission for life-changing decisions on accessing family planning or other reproductive health services, along with hospital deliveries or prenatal care. Following his sessions at the school for husbands, Diane regularly holds sermons during Friday prayers where he discusses issues around gender and reproductive health, from gender-based violence to fighting stigma around HIV. 'Many women appreciate my sermons,' he said. 'They say their husbands' behavior changed since they attended them.' He said some men have told him the sermons inspired them to become more caring husbands and fathers. Habib Diallo, a 60-year-old former army commando, said attending the sermons and discussions with the imam taught him about the risks of home births. 'When my son's wife was pregnant, I encouraged him to take her to the hospital for the delivery,' Diallo said. 'At first, he was hesitant. He worried about the cost and didn't trust the hospital. But when I explained how much safer it would be for both his wife and the baby, he agreed.' The program launched in Senegal in 2011 but in recent years has caught the attention of the Ministry of Women, Family, Gender and Child Protection, which sees it an effective strategy to combat maternal and infant mortality. 'Without men's involvement, attitudes around maternal health won't change,' said 54-year-old Aida Diouf, a female health worker who collaborates with the program. Many husbands prefer their wives not be treated by male health workers, she said. The classes for husbands follow similar efforts in other African countries, particularly Niger, Togo, and Burkina Faso, where the United Nations Population Fund says it improved women's access to reproductive health services by increasing male involvement, growing the use of contraceptives by both men and women and expanding access to prenatal care and skilled birth attendants. Discussions for men also have focused on girls' rights, equality and the harmful effects of female genital mutilation. The program now operates over 20 schools in Senegal, and over 300 men have been trained. In some communities, men who once enforced patriarchal norms now promote gender equality, which has led to a reduction in the number of forced marriages and more acceptance of family planning, according to Senegal's ministry of gender. Men join the groups after being recruited based on trust, leadership and commitment. Candidates must be married, respected locally and supportive of women's health and rights. After training, the men act as peer educators, visiting homes and hosting informal talks. 'My husband used to not do much around the house, just bark orders. Now he actually cooks and helps out with daily tasks,' said Khary Ndeye, 52. While maternal and infant deaths in Senegal have declined over the past decade, experts say it still has a long way to go. It recorded 237 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in 2023, while 21 newborns out of every 1,000 died within their first month. The U.N. globally wants to reduce maternal deaths to 70 deaths per 100,000 live births and newborn deaths to under 12 per 1,000 by 2030. One key problem was that many women have been giving birth at home, said El Hadj Malick, one of the Senegal program's coordinators. 'By educating men about the importance of supporting their wives during pregnancy, taking them to the hospital and helping with domestic work at home, you're protecting people's health,' Malick said. He said he still experiences difficulty changing mindsets on some issues. 'When we just talk to them about gender, there is sometimes tension because it's seen as something abstract or even foreign,' Malick said. Some men mistakenly believe such talk will promote LGBTQ+ issues, which remain largely taboo in much of West Africa. 'But when we focus on women's right to be healthy, it puts a human face on the concept and its becomes universal,' Malick said.
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Federal judge blocks parts of Mississippi ban on DEI in public schools
JACKSON, Miss. — A federal judge blocked portions of Mississippi's ban on diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools from being enforced while a lawsuit against it is underway. The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate on Monday seek to prohibit public schools from discussing a list of 'divisive concepts' related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation and national origin. They would also prevent public schools from maintaining programs, courses or offices that promote DEI or endorse 'divisive concepts' and ban diversity training requirements. The law, which took effect in April , aims to prevent public schools from 'engaging in discriminatory practices' by banning DEI offices, trainings and programs. Any school in violation of the act could lose state funding. A group of teachers, parents and students is suing the state, alleging the law violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Wingate's ruling follows a temporary restraining order he granted to the plaintiffs in July . At an Aug. 5 hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued that the law is too confusing, leaving parents, teachers and students wondering what they can and cannot say and whether they could face consequences as a result of their speech. Cliff Johnson, a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School and Mississippi director of the MacArthur Justice Center, testified that he and his students often discuss what could be considered 'divisive topics.' In an exchange with Wingate, Johnson said he did not believe the law would allow him to teach about the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the court case that paved the way for the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII; portions of the Civil Rights Act; or the murders of Emmett Till and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'I think I'm in a very difficult position. I can teach my class as usual and run the serious risk of being disciplined, or I could abandon something that's very important to me,' Johnson said. 'I feel a bit paralyzed.' The Mississippi Attorney General's Office argued that public employees do not have First Amendment rights. 'They are speaking for the government and the government has every right to tell them what they need to say on its behalf,' said Lisa Reppeto, an attorney at the state attorney general's office. She added that the First Amendment does not give students the right to dictate what their school does or does not say. Reppeto also said the consequences of the law are aimed at the schools — not students or teachers — and that the plaintiffs' 'argument is not consistent with what is in the statute.'
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
No Tax on Social Security for Seniors? Trump Tax Policies Explained
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump pledged to end taxes on Social Security as part of the GOP's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' signed into law on July 4. The exact wording of the law actually stipulates a $6,000 tax deduction for individuals aged 65 and older, likely raising the number of seniors who won't pay taxes on Social Security to 88 percent. Currently, 64 percent of seniors already don't pay taxes on Social Security benefits. Why It Matters Seniors who rely on Social Security are at an increased risk of poverty. While more than 70 million Americans receive benefits each month, about one in three adults aged 65 and older are living below the poverty level, according to ConsumerAffairs. If taxes no longer apply to Social Security earnings, seniors will have more income to cover basic living expenses such as housing, transportation and health care. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an event at the Kennedy Center on August 13, 2025 in Washington, D.C. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an event at the Kennedy Center on August 13, 2025 in Washington, To Know What is the One Big Beautiful Bill? Trump's massive tax and spending package was nicknamed the "One Big Beautiful Bill" and makes changes across a wide range of policy areas. While the law extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts, it also eliminates taxes on tips and overtime, and increases funding for immigration enforcement and defense. However, to accomplish that, the bill also cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid and lowered food assistance. When was the bill passed? Trump signed OBBBA on July 4, just a day after the House of Representatives narrowly approved the legislation 218—214. Since then, critics have sounded the alarm on the law's newly imposed 80-hour-per-month work requirements on many adults receiving Medicaid and the expansion of SNAP work rules to more beneficiaries. The law also gets rid of many clean energy tax credits that were available under President Joe Biden. How does the bill impact senior citizens? As it concerns seniors, one of the most pressing issues is whether or not the bill actually translates into no taxes on Social Security. The law's $6,000 tax deduction for Americans aged 65 and older means couples filing jointly can reduce taxable income by up to $12,000, with the benefit available from 2025 to 2028. Since the threshold for income is $25,000 for individuals and $32,000 for couples before benefits get taxed, OBBBA effectively will raise the percentage of seniors who don't pay taxes on Social Security to 88 percent, according to the White House. Because low-income retirees have already been tax-exempt, however, the law provides tax relief to middle and upper-middle class seniors. To get the full $6,000 deduction, single filers must have a modified adjusted gross income under $75,000, while married couples must be below $150,000. "This new deduction is not an "above-the-line" deduction, so it does not lower your AGI nor MAGI, and therefore does nothing to reduce the taxable amount of your Social Security benefits. But it still lowers your total taxable income," Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek. "In practice, seniors will calculate AGI and MAGI just as they always have, and a corresponding percentage, 0 percent to 85 percent, of their Social Security benefits will be added to their taxable income. Then they will subtract standard or itemized deductions, just as they always have, but now will receive an additional $6,000 deduction per taxpayer." When will the changes begin? The deduction starts for the tax year 2025, so seniors will be able to claim it when they file next year. As of today, the deduction is only available until 2028, at which point it would need to be reauthorized by Congress. "The provisions are retroactive and already in effect for 2025," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "Now is the time to work with a financial adviser who understands these rules and can run simulations on how it affects your plan." What People Are Saying The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in a statement: "The Trump Administration has been peddling false and exaggerated claims about the harmful Republican megabill's effects on the taxation of Social Security benefits, including in a blast email from the Social Security Administration. The new law doesn't help most low- and middle-income seniors, and it depletes the Social Security trust funds faster. Moreover, the Administration's misleading claims shouldn't distract from how the law's deep cuts to health care and food assistance will leave millions of seniors with low incomes worse off." The White House said in news release on July 21: "The largest tax cut in history for working- and middle-class Americans—including No Tax on Tips, No Tax on Overtime, and No Tax on Social Security—is now the law of the land, along with unprecedented tax relief for small businesses, farmers, workers, and families." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "The deduction is set to expire in 2028. Whether it stays or goes will depend on the political climate. Expect this to be used as a political talking point in upcoming elections, with both sides dangling senior tax savings as a way to win votes." What Happens Next Seniors will start benefiting from the tax deduction in 2026, but experts are warning that it could further escalate Social Security's funding problems, as the agency is set to run out of money for full benefits by 2033. "While this certainly could benefit some seniors, it could further escalate problems with solvency," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. "With Social Security's funding scheduled to encounter a shortfall in the next few years, worries over further additions for existing beneficiaries and future ones, while certainly good for those individuals, could further complicate the long-term viability of the program. Legislators will have to examine how these tax benefits can be balanced down the line to accommodate present and future enrollees."
