House Democrats' bill would combat LGBTQ elder abuse
Legislation introduced Friday, during Pride Month, by more than a dozen House Democrats would help combat abuse against elderly LGBTQ Americans.
The Elder Pride Protection Act would establish a task force within the Department of Justice to study the 'increased incidence of elder abuse' against LGBTQ seniors and develop best practice solutions to be implemented by state and local law enforcement, according to a copy of the bill, shared first with The Hill.
'No one, especially our vulnerable seniors, should ever be mistreated because of who they are or who they love,' said Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), who introduced the bill Friday alongside Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who recently launched a bid to replace retiring Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) in the Senate next year.
In November, Gottheimer announced he would run for governor of New Jersey.
Craig, who is gay and one of 13 openly LGBTQ members of Congress, said the measure would help shield seniors from abuse and discrimination 'as we continue the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights.'
'LGBTQ+ seniors led the fight for so many of the rights LGBTQ+ Minnesotans enjoy today, and now it's our turn to fight for them,' she said in a statement.
LGBTQ older adults are at heightened risk for adverse health and social outcomes compared to their cisgender and heterosexual peers, according to the Center for Health Care Strategies, a New Jersey nonprofit. SAGE, an advocacy group for LGBTQ elders that has endorsed Gottheimer and Craig's bill, has said LGBTQ seniors are more vulnerable to abuse and neglect.
Comprehensive data on elder abuse is lacking, though the Justice Department estimates that more than 10 percent of Americans age 65 and older experience some form of elder abuse each year. In limited data, LGBTQ seniors, who are at higher risk of isolation, report elevated rates of abuse, according to SAGE.
'These are challenging times, and now more than ever, LGBTQ+ elders deserve to age without fear of elder abuse,' said Aaron Tax, SAGE's managing director of government affairs and policy advocacy.
The bill, which has 14 Democratic co-sponsors, stands little chance of passing the GOP-controlled House. Republicans and President Trump have denounced initiatives that prioritize diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), claiming they stoke divisions and promote 'woke ideology.'
A National Center on Elder Abuse webpage previously dedicated to 'advancing justice for LGBTQ elders' appears to have been deleted this year in the administration's purge of government websites following Trump's executive orders targeting DEI and 'gender ideology.'
Updated at 10:32 a.m. EDT
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
33 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Standoff over red flag hearing continues in Maine Legislature, may go to court
Jun. 6—A partisan standoff over whether to hold a public hearing on a citizen-initiated red flag referendum is likely to stretch into next week's legislative sessions and could wind up in court. Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, tried late Thursday to force Democrats to schedule a public hearing on the referendum, proposing a series of floor motions in the Senate, all of which were rejected. He said Friday that he intends to introduce additional motions next week if Democrats still haven't agreed to hold a hearing on the initiative. "I don't think this thing is over yet," Stewart said. "If I had to wager a bet, there are some other motions I'm intending to make when we get back next week, assuming they still haven't done the right thing." The red flag proposal, if passed by voters, would make it easier to confiscate the guns of a person in crisis by allowing family members to initiate the process and by removing a required mental health evaluation. The proposal came forward in the wake of the mass shooting in Lewiston in October 2023 and is certain to generate intense debate over gun rights and restrictions ahead of the November vote. Meanwhile, the impasse over a public hearing on the proposal has added to tensions at the State House as lawmakers are in the busy final days of the legislative session. Republicans point to a 2019 law that requires public hearings for citizen initiatives that are headed toward statewide referendum votes, unless lawmakers formally vote to waive the requirement. Such hearings have been held on other citizen proposals, but not all: A 2021 citizen initiative never received a hearing or the required waiver and was still sent to referendum and passed by voters. Democrats have so far not backed down, arguing in part that the Maine Constitution does not require the hearing and also citing legislative rules. Gun rights supporters who are opposed to the referendum proposal are pointing to the state law and threatening legal action against Democratic leaders, with one top advocate saying Friday that they have attorneys drafting a lawsuit. "When there's a state law on the books the Legislature can't just ignore it, so that will be the basis for the challenge," said David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, an advocacy group for gun owners and sportsmen that is working on the lawsuit. Nacole Palmer, executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, which initiated the citizen's referendum, said in a written statement Friday that the group is "happy to debate this issue any time" and accused Republicans of playing "political tricks" by waiting until the end of the session to raise questions. "Now the National Rifle Association has joined them, parachuting into our state to muddy our Democratic process," Palmer said. "While they are doing that, we are focusing on the next five months, where we will be having this conversation publicly, talking to voters throughout the state, and in November every Maine voter will have the chance to make their voices heard." Citizens initiatives are brought forward by voters though a signature-gathering and application process. While the Legislature can choose to enact the proposals, they typically send them to statewide referendum votes. Maine's Legislature held a public hearing last month on the only other citizen initiative currently pending. That proposal would require photo identification prior to voting in Maine and put new restrictions on absentee voting. It also is headed for a fall referendum vote. Lawmakers also held a public hearing last year on the only citizen-initiated referendum they received in 2024, LD 2232, to limit contributions to political action committees that make independent expenditures. All four citizen initiatives in 2023 also received hearings. Legislative records, however, show that no public hearing or vote to waive the hearing was held for an initiative in 2021 that was aimed at stopping the New England Clean Energy Connect transmission line through western Maine. At a committee work session on that initiative, a legislative analyst did not address whether lawmakers needed to hold a public hearing but did note some unique circumstances. Two weeks after the initiative was handed to the Legislature, lawmakers adjourned and the bill was carried over to a special session. Sen. Dick Bradstreet, R-Vassalboro, the sponsor of the 2019 law to require public hearings, said Friday that the circumstances of the 2021 case were different because lawmakers are supposed to hold the hearing in the same session in which they receive it and in that case they had just received the proposal when they ended up adjourning. He said the reason no hearing was held in 2021 was "kind of a technicality." LD 1378, the bill resulting from the red flag citizen initiative, was transmitted to the Legislature on March 27, during the current session that's scheduled to end June 18. "You really can't compare the two because in this case they're choosing not to have the hearing, even though the legal requirements are there," Bradstreet said. "Before, they could say they weren't in the same session. ... Now they're kind of flouting the law." Bradstreet said he didn't recall any outcry over the lack of a public hearing on the 2021 measure, but said there was less knowledge of the relatively new law at the time. He said he put forward the bill in 2019 because of a handful of initiatives that had been put forward around that time that were generating a lot of advertising. DISCERNING FACT FROM FICTION "I thought, 'How can people discern fact from fiction?'" Bradstreet said. "The only way to do that would be some type of hearing where people could question what the initiative does and what some repercussions would be, and where both sides would have a chance to present their arguments without the propaganda." In a late-night session Thursday, Senate President Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick, rejected a proposal from Stewart to consider a formal waiver of the public hearing requirement to comply with state law, saying that his proposal was "not properly before the body." Daughtry said the Legislature's rules take precedence over statutes passed by prior groups of lawmakers regarding legislative proceedings and that Stewart's motion was asking for lawmakers to take an "unnecessary vote" on the citizens initiative. Daughtry also noted that the initiative was still before the Judiciary Committee, where she said it could have further action. A spokesperson for Daughtry and Sen. Anne Carney, D-Cape Elizabeth, the Senate chair of the committee, said Friday that they would not comment on the calls for a public hearing. Rep. Amy Kuhn, D-Falmouth, the House chair of the committee, did not respond to a voicemail message or email. Trahan, from the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, said his group in conjunction with Gun Owners of Maine and the National Rifle Association will focus their lawsuit on the 2019 law and argue that lawmakers need to either hold the hearing or vote by a two-thirds majority to waive it. The group is also fundraising to support the effort. Trahan said that just because lawmakers "got away with" not holding a hearing on the 2021 initiative, it does not mean it's not required in the law. "Why don't they just make this easy and hold the public hearing?" he said. "There's nothing to hide. Good public discourse adds to the debate." Copy the Story Link
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
Americans are questioning the value of a college degree. Trump is joining the debate.
President Donald Trump wants to tweak a traditionalfeature of the American dream: a college degree. Trump has continued to escalate his battle with Harvard University, threatening to cut off the Ivy League school from federal funding if it does not meet the administration's demands, which include eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and cracking down on campus activism. The latest threat against Harvard, however, floated shifting funding to trade schools, an alternative path to a four-year college degree. "I am considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land," Trump wrote in a May 26 post on Truth Social. "What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!" The White House's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, added onto the president's comments in an interview with Fox News: "Apprenticeships, electricians, plumbers, we need more of those in our country, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University. And that's what this administration's position is." Over the past few years, a growing number of Americans have started to question the value of a college degree due to high costs and a tough labor market, making trade schools and apprenticeships a favorable alternative. It marks a shift in the standard American dream, in which a four-year college degree had been viewed as a step to middle-class success. However, Jon Fansmith, assistant vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, told Business Insider that taking funding away from Harvard and other research institutions isn't the answer to boosting investment in trade schools. "The money that he is talking about withholding from Harvard is money that Congress provided to research agencies to perform advanced scientific and biomedical research," Fansmith said, adding that Harvard earned grant money because "they had the best researchers, the best laboratory facilities, the best understanding of how to advance that science," he continued. "You can't simply take that money and use it for another purpose." Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Department of Education, told BI that "American universities that are committed to their academic mission, protect students on campus, and follow all federal laws will have no problem accessing generous taxpayer support for their programs." 'Two very separate stories' Higher education doesn't have the same draw that it once did. Some Gen Zers previously told BI that despite being taught that college was the primary path to success, they felt they could make a living by directly entering the workforce or going to trade school. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. What is your job title? (1 of 2) Entry level position Project manager Management Senior management Executive management Student Self-employed Retired Other Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . That's why Trump's push to invest more in trade schools is important, Fansmith said — they help Americans get a stable career to support themselves and their families, and the federal government can help support those schools by asking Congress to approve more funding, not redirecting the funding unilaterally. "There are two stories here. One is this administration's attack on Harvard, and the other is, what is the role of trade schools, and is there a need for more support for trade schools? And as much as the president's trying to conflate the two, those are two very separate stories," Fansmith said. While Trump's big spending bill proposes some provisions to expand Pell grant eligibility to short-term programs, it does not detail a significant funding increase for trade schools. The Trump administration's rhetorical focus on trade schools isn't new. Before he won the 2024 election, Linda McMahon, now Trump's education secretary, wrote an opinion piece in The Hill advocating for the expansion of Pell Grant eligibility to workforce training programs. "Our educational system must offer clear and viable pathways to the American Dream aside from four-year degrees," she wrote. Trump also signed an executive order on April 23 to strengthen and expand workforce development and apprenticeships programs, which McMahon called a "significant step in ensuring every American can live their American Dream." Congress' role in rethinking education For years, Democratic lawmakers have been pushing for greater access to postsecondary education options, like free community college, and there has been bipartisan agreement on the need to boost apprenticeships and workforce programs without redirecting funding from higher education institutions. Amid the heightened focus on alternatives to a four-year college degree, the New York Federal Reserve said in a recent report that college still pays off; the median worker with a college degree earns about $80,000 a year, compared to $47,000 for a worker with just a high school diploma. Trump hasn't yet implemented his idea to redirect Harvard's federal funding to trade schools, and it's unclear how, or if, he will attempt to follow through. While he has already withheld billions of dollars from Harvard and other schools across the country for failing to meet his administration's political demands, the moves have been met with lawsuits, and Fansmith said it's likely more legal action would ensue should Trump attempt to move around funding without congressional approval. "We're talking about spending money that Congress said would go to support really critically needed research into things like cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes, and other things that impact everyday Americans' lives, and give it to trade schools," Fansmith said. "Trade schools are great schools. They have lots of benefits. They deserve a lot of federal support, but not just to make a political point at the expense of Harvard." Jason Altmire, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities — a group that represents for-profit colleges — said in a statement that Trump's focus on trade schools "is an investment in America's workforce." "The best way to support trade schools is to reduce the regulatory burden facing private career schools while increasing funding that allows students interested in the trades to choose the highest quality school," Altmire said.
