Federal funding cuts could impact Louisiana sexual assault survivor groups
The Lafayette Parish coroner's office is taking over responsibility for sexual assault forensic medical exams in the Acadiana region. (Getty Images)
Organizations providing services to sexual assault survivors plan to ask Gov. Jeff Landry and the Louisiana Legislature for an extra $2 million in state funding this year. The groups say they need the money to insulate themselves from potential federal funding cuts.
'Without money coming in, all of our rape crisis centers and us as a coalition are not going to survive,' Rafael de Castro, executive director of the Louisiana Foundation Against Sexual Assault, said during a meeting of the Sexual Assault Oversight Commission last week. Louisiana's rape crisis centers are dependent on three types of federal funding to pay for almost all of their operations. One of those sources, which comes through the Victims of Crime Act, was slashed 40% last year and is expected to be cut another 40% before the end of the year, de Castro said.
The two other buckets of federal money come through the Violence Against Women Act, which expires in 2027 and could face a difficult renewal in Congress.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Several of the competitive grants in the U.S. Department of Justice that rape crisis centers receive annually have also been in limbo since President Donald Trump took office, said Morgan Lamandre, president and CEO of Sexual Trauma Awareness and Response (STAR), the largest provider of survivor services in the state.
The missing money from the Victims of Crime Act alone threatens to close 12 to 14 local rape crisis centers in Louisiana before the end of the year. They currently operate in every Louisiana parish except for Catahoula, Concordia, LaSalle and Winn. The centers provide therapy, support groups, emergency hotlines and volunteers to accompany survivors to hospital. STAR also provides legal services for clients who need help with restraining orders, child custody matters and other civil disputes.
The survivor organizations ran into funding problems earlier this year when the Trump administration temporarily froze a wide swath of federal money it provides to states. Among the assistance held back was funding for sexual assault prevention programs, de Castro said. The centers were only able to avoid laying off staff because the Louisiana Department of Health backfilled the loss of federal funding for 30 days until the original grant funding started flowing again, he said.
Attorney General Liz Murrill and Gov. Jeff Landry's office will also appeal to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to open up federal grants again for sexual assault services. Monica Taylor, Landry's director of human trafficking, said she and Murrill personally talked to Bondi about the issue. Taylor is also drafting a letter explaining how the federal funding in question is used in Louisiana, she said at the commission meeting last week. Louisiana is unusually dependent on the federal government for sexual assault survivor resources. The state provides money for sexual assault forensic medical exams – commonly called rape kits – but it directs no financial help to rape crisis centers for victim advocacy or counseling.
'There's no money specially allocated for those services,' Taylor said.
The Landry administration is working on legislation that would, for the first time, provide a steady source of state funding for rape crisis centers as well as domestic violence shelters and child advocacy centers, which support abuse victims who are minors.
Taylor said the proposal would bring a 'small amount of money through court fees that would go to all of those groups.' She declined to provide further details about the plan, which is still being drafted. State Rep. Kellee Hennessy Dickerson, R-Denham Springs, will sponsor the bill from the governor's office once it is finalized.
Lawmakers might have to be convinced that more money needs to be spent on sexual assault response. Members of the legislature, who are overwhelmingly men, aren't always aware of how significant the problem is, said Sen. Beth Mizell, R-Franklinton. 'They think the numbers are minute. They don't realize the number of victims that we are talking about,' Mizell said at the commission meeting. 'There's a general attitude of 'we've already put enough money into that.''
Taylor agreed that it will take a push from advocates and sexual assault survivors to convince legislators to make the services a budget priority. 'There are a lot of really good people in that building across the way,' Taylor said, referring to the State Capitol where legislators meet. 'But there are some who think this is somebody else's problem.'
'I just wish that the people in their lives who are hiding [as sexual assault survivors] would stand up to them,' she said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Revisit the Last Major U.S. National Military Parade of 1991
Soldiers who served in the Gulf War march along the streets of Washington, D.C., on June 8, 1991. Credit - Mark Reinstein—Getty Images To mark the 250th anniversary of the United States Army, Washington D.C. will play host to a national military parade on Saturday, June 14. The date also falls in line with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, but the U.S. Army has said it has no plans to mark the occasion alongside the parade. Either way, the President is still expected to play a significant role in the celebrations. But the event comes at a highly precarious time, amid nationwide protests which started in Los Angeles when people rallied against raids conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). After some of the protests descended into violence, Trump controversially deployed the National Guard and active-duty Marines to L.A. to quell the demonstrations. The move was made without a request from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has since taken legal action against the Trump Administration. Amid backlash, the 'No Kings' movement is expected to hold nationwide protests against Trump on Saturday, including in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. Speaking at the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump warned against people who planned to protest at the upcoming parade, telling reporters: "For those who want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force." Read More: L.A. Protests Intensify as Police Report 'Mass Arrests' Despite Curfew, While Trump Says City Is 'Lucky' He Got Involved Even prior to the recent escalated tension over immigration efforts, Trump's decision to hold the parade received criticism, especially from some Democratic lawmakers. Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, who is an Iraq War veteran, has called it an 'egotistical, nonsensical birthday parade.' While Sen. Adam Schiff of California described it as a 'dictator-style military parade' and accused Trump of spending millions of tax dollars to throw himself a 'birthday party.' The upcoming parade is expected to cost around $45 million, including $16 million in damages to roads after tanks and other heavy vehicles tour the streets of Washington. It's set to be a grand affair, involving an estimated 6,500 U.S. troops, 150 vehicles, and 50 aircraft. This is the first major national military parade in the U.S. since 1991. President George H. W. Bush held the event on June 8 that year, after the U.S. led a successful coalition in the Gulf War. As the U.S. gets ready for Trump's much-discussed June 14 military parade, here's everything you need to know about the last one that took place 34 years ago. The parade was held to celebrate the military success of the U.S.-led coalition in the Gulf War, which came to a conclusion in late February. The first phase of the war, named Operation Desert Shield, involved a military and personnel coalition in Saudi Arabia from August 1990 to January 1991, hashed out on the border with Kuwait which had been invaded by Iraq, under the eye of Saddam Hussein. On Jan. 17, 1991, the war entered its second phase, Operation Desert Storm, in which the U.S-led coalition orchestrated an aerial and naval bombardment of Iraqi forces in Kuwait. This was followed by a ground operation, which lasted for five days, concluding on Feb. 28, with Kuwait liberated and Iraqi forces expelled. On the evening that Desert Storm began, President Bush addressed the nation in a speech from the Oval Office, saying: 'I've told the American people before that this will not be another Vietnam, and I repeat this here tonight. Our troops will have the best possible support in the entire world, and they will not be asked to fight with one hand tied behind their back.' He added: 'This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order.' But it wasn't only the Gulf War occupying the minds of Americans during the 1991 military parade. Bill Allison, a professor of history at Georgia Southern University, says that the legacy of the Vietnam War, which ended in April 1975, was still very much felt. 'Vietnam was looming large in that rear-view mirror. Vietnam veterans didn't get a parade and the war was a hot mess,' he says. "[For symbolic reasons], there was also a group of Vietnam veterans invited to march in the 1991 parade and as Bush said, 'We've kicked the Vietnam syndrome.'' Connor Williams, a professor of history at Yale, says that this campaign changed the American mindset on the military. 'Desert Shield and Desert Storm provided a relationship with the military that had not been seen in a generation… The incredible swiftness and completeness of that victory left a lot to celebrate,' he notes. The Gulf War was also the first major conflict in which the U.S. deployed a fully voluntary military force after conscriptions in both World Wars, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. 'For the United States, [the parade] was a testament to the volunteer work force and that had been a very risky move at the time,' says Allison. The parade is estimated to have cost around $12 million, which adjusted for inflation, translates to roughly £28 million today. An estimated $5 million dollars in 1991 was raised by the volunteer Homecoming Foundation, established to support military personnel returning from the Gulf and to help coordinate the parade. Around 700 foundation volunteers were also present to help the clean-up operation. Although, with roughly 8,000 troops marching through the streets of the nation's capital, the show of military might attracted a far smaller crowd than expected. Only 200,000 showed up to the parade early in the day, with numbers peaking later in the evening, when around 800,000 were present for the glittering fireworks display. Whilst there were some, such as anti-war protesters and people concerned about the cost, who voiced disapproval over the parade, there didn't appear to be too much criticism from lawmakers, according to historians. "One thing that will always unite politicians is supporting the troops, [even though] there's different opinions on how the troops should be supported," Williams says, adding that this sentiment can change if there is no notable military success to honor. 'In 1991, it was very much a campaign event for everybody. The salute Bush exchanged with Norman Schwarzkopf [a U.S. Army General during the Gulf War] was highly photographed. There was a [presidential] election the next year and there was a lot of B-roll happening because Bush and Democratic leaders wanted to be seen shaking hands and supporting the troops,' Williams says. The only significant demonstration was a group of anti-war activists delivering speeches in Lafayette Park, on the opposite side of the White House to the parade, which went down Constitution Avenue. In January 1991, during the conflict in Kuwait, thousands of protestors attended multiple anti-war demonstrations, centered around humanitarian worries. Read More: Veterans Condemn Trump's 'Misuse of Military Power' Amid L.A. Protests Experts tell TIME that, generally speaking, there are three key reasons behind military parades, including the one held in 1991: Celebrating the troops Rallying the public Sending a message to other countries 'In 1991, it was more about rallying the people and celebrating the troops. To some extent, the U.S. didn't need to display power like the Soviets did. The power had already been displayed. People had been watching the capability of the U.S. military on the nightly news,' says Williams. 'Not everyone [tanks and personnel] rolled down Pennsylvania avenue to give off that effect. It was more a way for people to celebrate what they thought was emerging, a unipolar world.' As for Trump's upcoming parade on June 14, Williams says that it "will be interesting" to see how U.S. strength is displayed anew. 'Will it be demonstrated in a peaceful way or in attack mode? How will the people respond?' That remains to be seen. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
White House Hints at Thawing of Trump-Musk Feud
Elon Musk shakes hands with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025, days before a feud erupted between them over social media. Credit - Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images The President of the United States and the world's richest man may be tired of fighting. After Elon Musk wrote Wednesday on X that he regretted some of the things he posted about President Donald Trump the week before, Trump hinted he was ready to move on. It was 'very nice' Musk expressed regret, Trump told the New York Post in a phone interview Wednesday morning. Trump's White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavit echoed that sentiment speaking with reporters Wednesday afternoon. 'The President acknowledged the statement that Elon put out this morning and he is appreciative of it. We are continuing to focus on the work of the American people,' Leavitt said. Last week, Trump publicly threatened to terminate Musk's government contracts as a feud between the two men unfolded on social media spat. Musk's companies SpaceX and Tesla have benefited from tens of billions in subsidies, contracts and tax breaks over the years. But it appears Trump hadn't yet followed through on that threat. Asked if Trump had moved to block government funds going to Musk's companies, Leavitt said, 'No efforts have been made on that as far as I'm aware.' The very public breakup between Trump and Musk began last week over Musk's opposition to the massive tax-and-spending bill that Republicans are trying to push through Congress. The bill is the centerpiece of Trump's domestic agenda. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the current version of the bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. As both men attacked one another, Musk claimed Trump wouldn't have won the 2024 election without him and, in what Musk described as 'the really big bomb,' wrote in a post on X—without evidence—that Trump is named in the case files of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and suggested that was the reason the full files have not been made public. Musk's message was later deleted. Then early Wednesday, Musk posted on X: 'I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far.' Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
History Shows the Danger of Trump's Health Policies
U.S. President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attend an event in the East Room of the White House on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit - Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images On May 11, 2023, President Joseph Biden ended the COVID-19 public health emergency, calling an finish to the pandemic. By the end of 2023, COVID-19 claimed the lives of over 20 million people around the world. But through international cooperation and evidence-based science, vaccines were developed and the world moved on. Indeed, perhaps the biggest success of the period was the quick production of a COVID-19 vaccine. The research behind the mRNA vaccine had been ongoing since the 1970s, but the emergency of the pandemic and international sharing of knowledge helped bring the vaccine to fruition. Today, the COVID-19 vaccine has been credited with saving 2.4 million lives around the world. But now, the U.S. is choosing competition over cooperation. With President Donald Trump's day one executive order to leave the World Health Organization (WHO)—blaming their COVID-19 response—and the shuttering of USAID, the country is taking steps towards further dividing health efforts across the globe. Here in the U.S., a sudden end to $11.4 billion of covid-related grants is stifling national pandemic preparedness efforts on the local and state levels. And most recently, Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. purged experts from the CDC Advisory Committee, putting lives at risk. Historical lessons demonstrate the need for global health infrastructure that works together, shares knowledge, and remembers that pathogens do not stop at borders. White House's Pandemic Office, Busy With Bird Flu, May Shrink Under Trump One of the greatest global health achievements of all time—smallpox eradication—provides a perfect example of what can be done with independent scientific research and international cooperation. During the Cold War between the U.S. and USSR, decades of tension brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Yet, incredibly, the nations managed to find common ground to support the efforts of smallpox eradication. Indeed, they understood the strategic benefits that came from letting public health practitioners and scientists work outside of political divides. The WHO was founded after World War II in 1948. Its formation marked a move from international health, that focused on nations, to global health, that would serve humanity first. The WHO's first eradication effort was the failed, U.S.-backed, Malaria Eradication Program from 1955 to 1969. The Smallpox Eradication Program, with intensive efforts beginning in 1967, provided a chance for redemption for the U.S. and WHO. For the United States, investing in disease eradication and poverty helped to mitigate growing backlash against the Vietnam War. In June of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated, 'I propose to dedicate this year to finding new techniques for making man's knowledge serve man's welfare.' He called for 1965—the same year he ordered ground troops to Vietnam to stop the spread of communism —to be a year of international cooperation that could bypass the politics of the Cold War. Previously, the USSR did not participate in the U.S. and WHO's first, failed global eradication plan for malaria. But upon rejoining the WHO in 1956, it was the Soviets who made the first call and investment into global eradication of smallpox in 1958. The WHO functioning as a mediator was crucial to allowing the USSR and the U.S. to work together. It allowed both nations to avoid giving credit to each other; rather success went to science itself. President Johnson called this 'a turning point' away from 'man against man' towards 'man against nature.' The limited role of politicians in the program proved to be key to its success. Scientists made decisions and worked together—no matter what country they came from—by focusing on disease and vaccination, not international tensions. The Soviet-initiated program was lead by Donald A. Henderson, a U.S. epidemiologist, who worked alongside the Russians until the last case of smallpox occurred in Somalia on October 26, 1977. During the 20th century, smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths. Smallpox was officially declared eradicated by the WHO in October 1980, and is today still the only human disease to achieve this distinction. Less than a year after the declaration of smallpox eradication, the emergence of another pandemic, the HIV/AIDS crisis, reinforced the importance of science-first cooperation over politically-driven decision making. In June 1981, the first cases of a new unknown disease were reported in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. In short order, gay men were stigmatized and blamed in what would become one of the biggest public health disasters of all time. It took years of grassroots science-based activism to move beyond HIV/AIDS victim-blaming and find medical solutions. The Poster Child for AIDS Obscured as Much About the Crisis as He Revealed Too often, governments across the globe placed blame on the gay community for their 'sins' and did not provide needed support, leaving the sick to suffer and die. The pharmaceutical companies profited from the limited medications they had available and did not pursue sufficient development. The FDA process for new drugs was scheduled to take nine years, at a time when life expectancy after receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis was one year. These issues sparked activism, spawning the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) in 1987. ACT UP organizers took science into their own hands and began educating themselves. Members began reading scientific journals religiously, learning the chemistry and epidemiology of drug manufacturing and clinical trials. Members learned how to translate these dense scientific messages to educate the community members on what was—and what was not—being done to help. Because of this work, the FDA changed policies to allow for new treatments to be tested at accelerated rates in times of emergency. ACT UP was able to shift the cultural blame showing that the issue was a result of politics getting in the way of scientific advancements. By 1990, ACT UP influenced the largest federal HIV program to pass Congress, the Ryan White CARE Act. This program was a vital precursor to the 2003 PEPFAR (The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) global initiative. Both of these histories offer a powerful lesson: global health is national health, and national health is local health. With the recent funding cuts from the U.S. government, the future of global health is going in an unknown direction. And yet, the occurrence of pandemics is expected to increase in frequency due to climate change, mass migration, urbanization, and ecosystem destruction. It has been estimated that there is about a 25% chance we will have another COVID-sized pandemic within the next 10 years. No matter how secure the world makes borders, history shows that it can not protect us from disease if we do not have a strong, interconnected public health infrastructure. Luke Jorgensen is a Master of Public Health student at Purdue University where his epidemiology research examines human migration and infectious disease. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. Write to Made by History at madebyhistory@
