Connecticut officials underscore challenges for LGBTQ+ community during Pride Month
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — June marks pride month! On Monday morning, members of the State House Democrats LGBTQ+ caucus spoke about the importance of pride at the state capitol, while recognizing the challenges the community continues to face.
This Pride Month is taking a more solemn tone for many in Connecticut's LGBTQ+ community.
Lawmakers debate expanding legal protections to providers of gender affirming care
'It's not just about celebrating, it's about recognizing that the government is trying to eradicate members of our community,' Robin McHaelen, secretary of the LGBTQ+ Justice & Opportunity Network said.
Those gathered at the capitol in Hartford Monday shared their personal stories of resilience.
'Suicide rates are going up, calls to hotlines are going up, families of trans and non-binary kids are losing their minds,' McHaelen said.
'We see you, we respect you, and we are not going to start fighting for you,' Lieutenant Governor Susan Bysiewicz said.
Pride Month starts this weekend. Here's what to expect
This legislative session, lawmakers passed a bill prohibiting discrimination against long-term care home residents based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Connecticut House Republicans declined to comment for this story.
Despite the overall fear the LGBTQ+ community said it's feeling right now, lawmakers say pride month is more important now than ever.
There are numerous flag raisings, celebrations and parades happening in multiple municipalities throughout the month.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
15 minutes ago
Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania would see funding cut under bill passed by the state House
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A Democratic-sponsored proposal to limit per-student payments to Pennsylvania's cyber charter schools and make other changes to how they operate narrowly passed the state House on Wednesday over Republican objections that it would imperil the online learning programs. The 104-98 vote, with only two Republicans in favor, sets down a marker on the perennially contentious issue of school funding as state lawmakers work to complete the coming year's state budget for the fiscal year that starts in July. The bill's $8,000 limit on how much public school districts would have to reimburse the cyber charters was the central piece of the sprawling legislation and would be a boost to the districts and the property tax payers who bear much of the cost of public education in Pennsylvania. There currently is no cap for the districts' payments to cyber charters, an amount now linked to how much districts spent on their own students in the prior year. Supporters said changes to the cyber charter rules are widely backed among the state's 500 school boards and that cyber school spending has been the subject of critical reviews, including recently by Republican Auditor General Tim DeFoor. But opponents defended the existing system as a critical lifeline to the students and families that for various reasons have sought alternatives to traditional schools. The bill would set annual tuition payments from school districts to cyber charters at $8,000 per student, with potential yearly increases. Special education funding would also see changes. Cyber charters would not be able to maintain cash balances above 12% of their spending and would not be able to provide payments or gifts to parents as incentives to enroll their children. The bill would bolster disclosure requirements regarding cyber charters' policies, instructional materials and budgets. It would bar the state Education Department from approving any additional cyber charter schools through the 2029-30 school year. A new Cyber Charter School Funding and Policy Council would be set up to make recommendations concerning enrollment, governance and funding. During floor debate Wednesday, Rep. Martina White, a Philadelphia Republican, said the measure will 'close real schools, displace real students, strip families of the very choices that they depend on to give their children a chance at success.' The moratorium would be highly damaging to cyber charters, said Rep. Craig Williams, a Delaware County Republican. 'You limit the number of cyber charters now in existence, you choke off its funding, and eventually you can kill cyber charter. Sixty-plus thousand students in our school system, finding another way to learn, and we're going to choke it off with this bill,' Williams said. The chair of the House Education Committee, Lehigh County Democratic Rep. Peter Schweyer, enumerated cyber charter spending issues raised in the auditor general's report, including staff bonuses, gift cards, vehicle payments and fuel stipends. 'Gift cards?' Schweyer asked his colleagues. 'We would all get in trouble if we were taking gift cards as part of our compensation.' Leaders of existing public cyber charter schools say the measure would cut their funding by about $450 million or more across the state, with a third of the total reductions targeting special education student reimbursements. A Democratic analysis put the figure at more than $600 million. About 65,000 Pennsylvania students currently attend the state's 14 public cyber charter schools, which are public, nonprofit corporations. They do not have to follow all of the requirements mandated of public schools under state law. Cyber charter school are considered independent public schools, approved to operate with a 'charter' issued by the Education Department. They use technology to provide much of the teaching. Students usually do not need to attend a physical location beyond certain events, such as standardized testing. The proposal was sent over to the Republican majority state Senate for its consideration. The bill becomes part of a wider negotiations to determine the budget before lawmakers recess for the summer.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration signals it will slash funds for long-delayed California high-speed rail project
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Trump administration signaled Wednesday that it intends to cut off federal funding for a long-delayed California high-speed rail project plagued by multibillion-dollar cost overruns, following the release of a scathing federal report that concluded there is 'no viable path' to complete even a partial section of the line. Voters first authorized $10 billion in borrowed funds in 2008 to cover about a third of the estimated cost, with a promise the train would be up and running by 2020. Five years beyond that deadline, no tracks have been laid and its estimated price tag has ballooned to over $100 billion. In a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which oversees the project, Federal Railroad Administration acting Administrator Drew Feeley wrote that what was envisioned as an 800-mile system connecting the state's major cities has been reduced to a blueprint for 'a 119-mile track to nowhere.' After a $4 billion federal investment, the California agency 'has conned the taxpayer ... with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,' Feeley wrote. State officials defended what's known as the nation's largest infrastructure project and said they remain committed to construction, though it's not clear what funding would replace the federal support if it's withdrawn. Feeley noted the FRA could seek repayment of the federal funds but is not proposing to claw back those dollars at this time. Carol Dahmen, the state authority's chief of strategic communications, said in a statement that the federal conclusions are misguided and 'do not reflect the substantial progress made to deliver high-speed rail in California.' Dahmen noted that the majority of the funding for the line has been provided by the state and that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's budget proposal would extend at least $1 billion a year for 20 years to complete an initial segment of the line. State officials are focused on a stretch connecting the Central Valley cities of Bakersfield and Merced, which is set to be operating by 2033. The state agency has about a month to formally respond to the FRA, after which the grants could be terminated. State Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican from Huntington Beach who is vice chair of the Transportation Committee, said that 'commonsense has prevailed" and urged the Legislature's dominant Democrats to redirect the funds from the rail line to lowering gas prices or investing in viable construction projects. 'Let's stop wasting California's hard-earned taxpayer dollars,' Strickland said. There is no known source for the billions of dollars that would be needed to complete the line. California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri suggested in April that private investors could step in and fill the funding gap for the project that promised nonstop rail service between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours. At the time, he acknowledged that even if funding is secured, it might take nearly two more decades to complete most of that segment. President Donald Trump said in May that his administration will not continue to fund the line. 'That train is the worst cost overrun I've ever seen,' Trump told reporters at the time, calling it "totally out of control.' Michael R. Blood, The Associated Press Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio
Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The New York mayor's race shows a badly divided Democratic Party
At first glance, it's stunning that former New York governor Andrew M. Cuomo and state Rep. Zohran Mamdani are so far ahead of their competitors in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York. After all, the field of candidates, who will debate one another for the first time Wednesday night, includes numerous contenders with more traditional résumés — they aren't 33 years old like Mamdani or had a government report conclude they sexually harassed 11 women like Cuomo. But if you follow Democratic politics closely, the ascendance of Cuomo and Mamdani is less surprising. In primaries across the country over the past decade, a bloc of disproportionately younger, college-educated and very liberal Democrats have coalesced around progressive candidates. At the same time, older and more-ideologically moderate Democrats, particularly those without college degrees and African Americans, often back more centrist candidates with deep ties to the party's establishment. Ahead of the June 24 primary in New York, Mamdani has become the candidate of the city's young progressives; Cuomo of the older moderates — and there's not much space left for anyone else. The persistence of this divide matters far beyond New York. Older moderate Democrats and younger progressives have disagreed sharply on how to take on President Donald Trump in the first few months of his administration. Looking forward to 2026 and 2028, it will be hard for Democrats to be unified if every primary results in one big bloc of the party feeling frustrated and unrepresented. I am shocked that the perennial Democratic divide is so strong that it has made Cuomo and Mamdani the top candidates for mayor of New York. Neither is a conventional candidate for the job. In a city that often chooses insiders with long résumés for mayor, Mamdani is fairly new to the scene and not part of the political establishment. He worked on the campaigns of a few left-wing New York politicians before running on his own in 2020. Helped by an endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America, he defeated an incumbent in the primary for a Queens state house district and then easily won the general election. Mamdani of course isn't the only 30-something progressive rising in New York politics. But U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), who has not endorsed Mamdani but is very critical of Cuomo, isn't in an executive role in a massive city. If elected, Mamdani will need to work with police chiefs, chief executives of major companies and other power brokers who aren't likely to show much deference to a 33-year-old. Cuomo, who has been the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban development, New York's attorney general and governor, has the requisite experience. But four years ago, it was hard to imagine him holding office again. The report from the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James detailing Cuomo allegedly touching women without their consent and making inappropriate comments seemed (and should have been) permanently disqualifying, particularly for a party that prides itself on women's rights and autonomy. Cuomo denies the allegations, but resigned under the threat of impeachment. Also, in 2021, it seemed the Democratic Party had moved decidedly left and would no longer tolerate the centrist Cuomo, who for years had collaborated with Republicans in the New York State Senate to reduce the power of progressives in Albany. But the ethics scandals and unpopularity of current mayor Eric Adams, who is a Democrat, created a huge void. Numerous candidates — moderates, progressive and those trying to position themselves in between — are all running, including city Comptroller Brad Lander and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams. (She is not related to the incumbent mayor.) It's a very complicated election. The Democratic primary will be decided by ranked-choice voting, meaning that New Yorkers actually select up to five candidates, putting them in order of their preferences. Eric Adams, fearing he would lose the primary, is running as an independent. Mamdani or Cuomo, who are affiliated with minor parties in New York, could run in the general election even if they lose the primary. So it's possible New York has a four-way race in the fall: the Democratic primary winner; the runner-up; Adams; and the Republican candidate. What's less complicated is how voters and activists have aligned themselves so far. New York is one of the nation's most distinct cities, but its mayoral race is playing out similarly to other recent Democratic primaries across the country. Cuomo is getting support from veteran politicians, church leaders and labor unions who backed his past campaigns and in some cases his father's. (Mario Cuomo was New York's governor from 1983-1994). That establishment support is helping him with voters more likely to be connected with those institutions, particularly voters older than 50 and African Americans. His voting base resembles the ones that helped former secretary of state Hillary Clinton defeat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) in the 2016 Democratic primary and former president Joe Biden beat Sanders in 2020. The kind of voters who were drawn to Sanders nationally are behind Mamdani in New York: White college graduates, people younger than 50 and those who identify themselves as very liberal in particular. Like Sanders, Mamdani is courting voters by proposing progressive ideas, such as a rent freeze and free city buses. He's also appealing to them with clever, personable ads and videos. I hope Mamdani wins. My policy views are closer to his than Cuomo's. And while Cuomo says he did nothing wrong, James's report depicts someone who should never again be given a powerful job. That said, even if Mamdani became mayor, I would be concerned about how he got there and what it portends for the broader American left. It's entirely logical that there are some fissures in the Democratic Party, which is made up of millions of people. What's so troubling is how big and perhaps intractable those divides are. Biden entered the presidency facing deep skepticism from progressives and younger Democrats because so few of them backed him during the primary. He never really gained their trust. Similarly, President Sanders likely would have received little grace or loyalty from moderate or older Democratic voters, who opposed him en masse. In New York, Mamdani would triumph despite strong resistance from older moderates in the party; a Cuomo win would be a defeat for young progressives. The party desperately needs to break this old/moderate/non-college vs. young/progressive/college-educated divide. But that's not easy. Progressives like me view the old guard as stuck in the past, conservative and uncreative. Moderate Democrats view progressives as elitist and impractical. Having such negative views of people you are supposed to be in coalition with is not ideal. Progressives think the party's left wing should be in charge. (The moderates' leadership has led us to a country where Trump dominates politics.) The moderates would rightly point that Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden didn't win presidential elections by calling themselves socialists. Mamdani is a charismatic, inspirational politician. He has a much better chance of moving people in the other camp to his than Cuomo, who is disliked even by people who agree with him on policy. But the New York race has made me even more nervous about 2027 and 2028. Will Democrats, instead of focusing on Trump, engage in a super-divisive, toxic presidential primary? If progressives and moderates remain divided by age, education, ideology and race, then the answer to that question seems, obviously, yes.
