Pedro Pascal, Daniel Radcliffe, Sabrina Carpenter, and more demand funding for LGBTQ+ youth suicide prevention
Pedro Pascal, Daniel Radcliffe, Sabrina Carpenter, and Ariana Grande are among more than 100 celebrities who are speaking out against the Trump administration's plan to cut funding for LGBTQ+ youth suicide prevention programs.
In an open letter published Monday by the nonprofit organization the Trevor Project, the stars are calling for the protection of $50 million in federal funding to maintain the life-saving mental health programs.
"We are heartbroken by the proposal to eliminate federal funding for the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline's LGBTQ+ Youth Specialized Services — a move that will have devastating, life-threatening consequences for young people across the country," the letter begins. "As artists, creators, and public figures, our platforms come with responsibility. And today, that responsibility is clear: we must speak out to protect the mental health and lives of LGBTQ+ youth. We will not stay silent."
The letter comes weeks after a leaked budget draft from President Donald Trump's administration proposed plans to eliminate all funding for the 988 federal program, which provides emergency crisis support to LGBTQ+ youth who are considering suicide. If enacted, the budget cuts would be effective Oct. 1.
The open letter explains that since the 988 federal funding program launched in 2022, it has helped connect "nearly 1.3 million crisis contacts with life-saving, affirming care to LGBTQ+ young people during their most vulnerable moments."
Other celebs to sign the letter include Sarah Paulson, Jonathan Van Ness, Bobby Berk, Cara Delevingne, Jamie Lee Curtis, Dua Lipa, Darren Criss, Bob the Drag Queen, Troye Sivan, Aly & AJ, Alan Cumming, Margaret Cho, Nathan Lane, Kelsea Ballerini, Diplo, Paul Feig, Dylan Mulvaney, Josh Hutcherson, David Archuleta, Benito Skinner, Orville Peck, Colton Underwood, and Eugene Lee Yang.
"Suicide among LGBTQ+ youth is a public health crisis, and it should be treated as such. LGBTQ+ young people are more than four times as likely to attempt suicide than their peers," the letter continues. "This is about people, not politics. At a time of deep division, let this be something we as people can all agree on: no young person should be left without help in their darkest moment. Stripping away this lifeline leaves LGBTQ+ youth with the message that their lives are not worth saving. We refuse to accept that message."
The letter concludes, "We rise together — loudly and determined — for hope, for dignity, and for every LGBTQ+ young person to know that their lives are worthy and that there will always be someone on the other end of the line."
Trevor Project CEO Jaymes Black thanked those who signed the letter in a statement, saying, "I am deeply grateful to the influential voices in entertainment who are speaking out and reminding the public that suicide prevention is about people — not politics."Several of the signees have been vocal about the protection of LGBTQ+ rights over the years. Pascal, who has a transgender sister, recently made headlines for calling out J.K. Rowling after she publicly celebrated an April 16 U.K. Supreme Court ruling excluding transgender women from the legal definition of a woman under Britain's Equality Act.
"Heinous loser behavior," he wrote in an Instagram comment.
Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
18 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Supreme Court makes it easier to claim ‘reverse discrimination' in employment, in a case from Ohio
WASHINGTON — A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' — without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Jackson wrote. The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years. Though he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's 'largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.' Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that 'American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans.' Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal court. Jackson's opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames. The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing 'background circumstances' that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group. The appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such circumstances. But Jackson wrote that 'this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
16 LGBTQ Activists You Should Know
Activists have long been at the forefront of creating change for LGBTQ people. Over the years, these trailblazers have helped moved the needle on gay and transgender rights, influencing laws and attitudes. Early pioneers in the gay liberation movement, such as Audre Lorde and Harvey Milk, paved the way for modern activists, like Elliot Page, to take up the mantle and continue to push for equality. To celebrate Pride Month in June, here are some of the most prominent LGBTQ activists, both past and 'Edie' WindsorBest known for his contributions to civil rights movement, Bayard Rustin also became involved in the gay liberation movement later in his Gay Task ForceTKtkPoetPlaywright and ACT UP You Might Also Like Nicole Richie's Surprising Adoption Story The Story of Gypsy Rose Blanchard and Her Mother Queen Camilla's Life in Photos
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
On a big decision day, the Supreme Court sent a message about unity
Supreme Court justices sent a message to the American public on Thursday: We're not as divided as you think. Of the six rulings that were released, four were unanimous, including the opinions in high-profile battles over reverse discrimination and faith-based tax breaks. Another decision was nearly unanimous, with just one justice peeling away on one part of the ruling. And the sixth decision had just one dissent, meaning that nearly all of the justices agreed with the plan to dismiss the case as 'improvidently granted.' Here's an overview of the six rulings released on Thursday — and a look at what's still to come from the Supreme Court in June. Ruling: Unanimous In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the court was considering whether members of a majority group, such as straight, white males, should have to meet a higher burden of proof in order to make an employment discrimination claim. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight, white woman, who accused her former employer of privileging LGBTQ employees during the promotion process. Ames lost in front of lower courts, but the Supreme Court overturned those decisions on Thursday. The justices unanimously said that members of majority groups should not have to meet a higher burden of proof and sent Ames' case back to the lower courts for reconsideration. The question in this case is whether ... a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' We hold that this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico, the court was asked to determine whether the Mexican government could sue seven gun manufacturers based in the U.S. over their role in unlawful gun sales in Mexico. The Supreme Court unanimously said on Thursday that the Mexican government's lawsuit cannot move forward 'because Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.' 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales 'as in something that (they) wish to bring about,'' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state of Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment's religious freedom protections by denying a faith-based tax break to a group of Catholic nonprofits. The nonprofits said their service to people in need was clearly motivated by Catholic teachings, but Wisconsin officials said they didn't qualify for the religious exemption to the state's unemployment tax because they did not seek to serve only Catholics or evangelize to their clients, as the Deseret News previously reported. State officials won in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said that the Catholic nonprofits' work did not serve 'primarily religious purposes.' In Thursday's unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment by privileging certain religious beliefs and actions over others. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In CC/Devas (Mauritius) v. Antrix, the justices were considering under what circumstances federal courts in the U.S. can assert jurisdiction over foreign states. The case stemmed from a conflict between a company that's active in the U.S. and a corporation owned by India. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that federal courts did have jurisdiction over India in this dispute and reversed a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion. Ruling: Nearly unanimous, with one justice taking issue with one part of the majority opinion. In Blom Bank v. Honickman, the court was considering whether victims of terrorist attacks or their surviving family members could reopen their case against a bank that had allegedly aided and abetted terrorists by providing financial services. The Supreme Court ruled that the people who brought the case did not meet the high standard that must be cleared to reopen the case. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, was nearly unanimous. Eight of the justices, including Thomas, joined it in full, but Jackson only joined it in part. Ruling: Dismissed as improvidently granted, with one justice dissenting to the dismissal In Lab Corp v. Davis, the justices were considering whether a federal court can certify a class action suit if some of the parties in the suit lack legal standing. A majority of the justices decided to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, meaning that they felt the court should never have agreed to weigh in. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented to that decision, writing that he felt it was possible — and would be valuable — to rule on the case. The Supreme Court will release around two dozen more rulings throughout the month of June as it works to wrap up its 2024-25 term by early July. The justices have yet to announce their decision in four of the five cases that the Deseret News highlighted in its list of this term's highest profile battles. The Supreme Court's next decision day has not yet been announced, but it will likely be Thursday, June 12.
