Interval House, OPP raises awareness for teen dating violence on Valentine's Day
At a press conference Friday morning, leaders of Interval House, a nonprofit that runs a safe house and provides services for victims of domestic violence, highlighted the prevention work they have been engaged in across the state. They also raised concerns about the impacts they may face from a potential loss of federal funding.
Lawmakers advocating for bills to help veterans and veteran families this legislative session
According to a 2013 study, one in three Americans between 14 and 20 years old reported they were victims of dating violence. Another study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2021 found that roughly one in 12 high school students reported having experienced physical dating violence. The same CDC study also reported that about one in 10 high school students experienced sexual dating violence.
'Let me repeat that,' Mary-Jane Foster, President and CEO of Interval House said. 'One in three teens report that he or she experiences physical or sexual violence in their dating relationship.'
In terms of prevention programs, Interval House has been teaming up with groups like Our Piece of the Pie (OPP) to reach young people in the state. OPP holds teen dating workshops aimed at educating youth about red flags in relationships.
Tajah Ryder, a youth life coach with OPP, said that through these workshops, she has seen some students begin to identify red flags in their own dating experiences.
In one teen dating violence workshop, Ryder said, a coach from OPP displayed a slide listing signs of unhealthy relationships.
'I had a young person, a 15-year-old female, sitting next to me and she whispered, she was like, 'Miss, all those signs, I've experienced in a past relationship and I had no idea that it was that bad,'' Ryder said.
Ryder added that the workshops OPP runs are especially crucial, as teen dating violence may be a difficult topic for teachers, mentors, or other adults to bring up.
'It's also nice to watch the young people kind of become their own teachers and really educate their peers as well through the process,' Ryder said.
Candidates for State Senate special election highlight their campaign
Ryder also noted the role that technology can play in contributing to or exacerbating teen dating violence. To address these issues, OPP has developed workshops specifically focused on 'technological abuse.'
'I think we know the aspects of like, sharing your location with a partner, constantly texting a partner but a like of folks don't really connect the dots to understand when that can be borderline abusive,' Ryder said.
Teen dating violence is a part of Interval House's broader mission to aid all victims of family and partner violence. Along with the 20-bed safe house in Hartford, they also provide a 24-hour hotline, counseling services and funding for victim advocates in court.
Foster said that roughly 80% of the federal funding they receive for those advocate positions could face cuts. She said that this could amount to $600,000 out of the Interval House budget which would cause them to lose 10 court advocates.
Meanwhile, members of Connecticut's Congressional delegation, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal, are pushing to preserve that funding.
Those in need can call the Interval House hotline at 860-838-8467 (or 844-831-9200 español).
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Drinking Rate Plunges to Record Low in US, New Poll Shows
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. Alcohol consumption among U.S. adults has fallen to its lowest recorded level in nearly 90 years, with 54 percent saying they drink, down from 58 percent a year ago, according to Gallup's latest annual survey. Why It Matters Gallup has tracked alcohol consumption among U.S. adults since 1939. The latest figure falls below the previous record low of 55 percent in 1958. The poll also found that a majority of Americans, 53 percent, believe that moderate drinking is bad for one's health. Alcohol can lead to many health problems, including liver diseases and increased risk of some cancers. Mixed drinks are displayed at a bar in Baltimore on February 8, 2023. Mixed drinks are displayed at a bar in Baltimore on February 8, 2023. AP Photo/Julio Cortez What To Know The latest Gallup survey, conducted July 7-21, found that a smaller share of Americans are drinking alcohol than at any point in the poll's history. In the mid-1970s, the share peaked at 71 percent for three consecutive years starting in 1976. Since then, drinking rates have generally trended downward, averaging about 60 percent, with periodic rises and dips. In 2022, 67 percent of adults said they drank alcohol, which Gallup noted as an outlier, followed by 62 percent in 2023, 58 percent in 2024 and 54 percent this year. The poll found that the decline in drinking is disproportionately among women, down 11 percentage points since 2023, to 51 percent, whereas men are down 5 points, at 57 percent. Along party lines, 61 percent of surveyed Democrats drink compared with 46 percent of Republicans. A record-low 54% of Americans say they consume alcohol. — Gallup (@Gallup) August 13, 2025 The survey also found that 53 percent of Americans say drinking in moderation, which is one to two drinks a day, is bad for one's health. Thirty-seven percent believe it does not make a difference. The results come as 45 percent of Americans believe moderate drinking is bad for health, according to a Gallup poll last year. That poll found drinking beliefs vary greatly among age groups, with 65 percent of young U.S. adults aged 18 to 34 believing that alcohol consumption negatively affects one's health, while 37 percent and 39 percent hold that view among those aged 35 to 54 and 55 and older, respectively. The view has shifted sharply in recent years. Between 2001 and 2011, about 25 percent of Americans said drinking was good for one's health. Women are more likely than men to view moderate drinking as unhealthy, 60 percent to 47 percent, respectively. The poll also found the lowest recorded figure of average number of drinks over the past week since 1996 at 2.8. What People Are Saying Lydia Saad, Gallup's director of social research, in the August 13 survey announcement: "The declines in alcohol consumption does not appear to be caused by people shifting to other mood-altering substances—in particular, recreational marijuana, which is now legal in about half of U.S. states." The Office of the Surgeon General, in a January 2025 announcement: "Alcohol consumption is the third-leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity." What Happens Next As Americans' drinking habits shift, the change is expected to affect the alcohol industry as well as the growing market for alternative beverages, driven in part by rising health concerns.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
A record share of Americans are giving booze the boot
The percentage of U.S. adults consuming alcohol has hit a new low, according to Gallup data released Wednesday. The big picture: The share of Americans who say that drinking in moderation is detrimental to one's health hitting a historic high, a belief that's echoed by recent scientific research. Driving the news: In 2025, just over half (54%) of U.S. adults reported having alcoholic beverages on occasion. Between 1997 and 2023, at least 60% said they drank. Drinking among young adults had been trending downward, and Gallup notes that has only accelerated. Since 2023, the percentage of adults under 35 that reported drinking fell by nine percentage points, from 59% to 50%. Zoom in: The drop in women drinking from 2023 to 2025 has been more pronounced than it has among men, though both groups have seen a decline. Among partisans, there's a drinking divide: Among Republicans, the share who drink has dropped sharply in the last two years (19 percentage points), but there's only been a three-point slip for Democrats. State of play: Meanwhile, the majority of Americans — a first for Gallup's trend — say drinking in moderation (one or two drinks a day) is bad for one's health. That belief follows increases in 2023 and 2024, including a surge among young adults. Around 2001 to 2011, the share of U.S. adults who said moderate alcohol consumption was bad for one's health hovered around a quarter. Since 2023, a majority of 18- to 34-year-olds have viewed moderate drinking as bad for health. Follow the money: And as alcohol consumption has slipped, the nonalcoholic beverage sector has boomed. Bars and bottle shops in recent years have increasingly catered to the "sober-curious" as consumer behavior mirrors consumption trends. Zoom out: Research and health organization guidance on safe alcohol consumption has evolved in recent years. Notably, former U.S. surgeon general Vivek Murthy in January released an advisory detailing the link between alcohol consumption and several kinds of cancer and called on Congress to update warning labels on booze. The World Health Organization has emphasized that there is no safe amount of alcohol consumption that does not affect health, and the CDC warns that drinking in moderation may "increase your overall risks of death and chronic disease." The bottom line: Goodbye, "Dry January." Cheers to sober lifestyles. Methodology: Results are based on telephone interviews conducted by ReconMR July 7-21 2025, with a random sample of 1,002 adults. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
NIAID acting director's view of ‘risky research'
THE LAB Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says conducting so-called gain-of-function research shouldn't be dismissed. He discussed the controversial topic with his boss, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, on the latter's 'Director's Desk' podcast this week. What is it? Gain-of-function involves genetically altering pathogens to make them deadlier or more transmissible to better study them. But the research is a lightning rod issue for President Donald Trump and many Republicans in Congress who believe the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by a lab leak stemming from gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, where the virus first emerged. That thinking puts them at odds with most of the scientific community who believe the virus most likely spilled over from animals into humans. In May, Trump signed an executive order banning all 'present and all future' federal funding for gain-of-function research in countries like China,which Trump said has insufficient research oversight. He also ordered the National Institutes of Health to review and possibly halt experiments the administration believes could endanger Americans' lives. In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) Risky Research Review Act, which hasn't yet been taken up by the full Senate, would create a panel to review funding for gain-of-function research. Not black and white: During the podcast, Bhattacharya asked Taubenberger how the institute should approach gain-of-function research. 'It's not a simple black-and-white issue,' replied Taubenberger, a senior investigator in virology who's a leading expert on the 1918 flu pandemic and sequenced the virus that caused it. He's also co-leading the effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, backed with $500 million from the Trump administration. 'Very reasonable, very well-informed people could fall on opposite sides of the line, wherever you draw the line,' he said. 'Having a wide variety of people with different levels of expertise — not just logic expertise, but safety, national security, all sorts of other questions — having them weigh in on this is really important.' Regardless of where people fall, gain-of-function work shouldn't be shut down, he said. 'Work on nasty bugs that have the potential to kill people, for which we want to develop better therapeutics, diagnostics, prognostics, treatments and preventatives, needs to happen. That's important for global health. It's important for U.S. health,' Taubenberger said. But that research has to be done very carefully, with oversight and should be evaluated on a risk-benefit basis, he warned. While the pandemic turbocharged the issue, the controversy over gain-of-function predates Covid-19. The government paused funding for the research roughly a decade ago, Taubenberger pointed out, while they put stronger oversight mechanisms in place. 'I favor this kind of work being done, where possible, in U.S. government labs, by U.S. government scientists, monitored by U.S. government safety officials and regulators — with openness and transparency.' What didn't come up in conversation: The implementation of Trump's executive order hasn't gone as smoothly as the podcast discussion might have suggested. A July post on the NIH's X account implied that staff at the NIAID had acted inappropriately by omitting certain grants while compiling a list of potentially dangerous gain-of-function research experiments in compliance with the order. Contacted by POLITICO at the time, an official at HHS described the behavior as 'malicious compliance' and said the administration wouldn't tolerate it. NIH Principal Deputy Director Matt Memoli, according to The Washington Post, overrode staff by classifying tuberculosis studies NIH reviewers deemed safe as potentially dangerous gain-of-function research. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) described undergoing mental health treatment with the psychedelic drug ibogaine to the New York Times. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. TECH MAZE Under Gov. Gavin Newsom, California has moved faster than other states to regulate artificial intelligence, including signing a bill last year barring health insurers in the state from using AI to deny claims. Now, a prominent AI company is urging the Democratic governor to consider a less rigid regulatory approach. In a letter to Newsom, obtained by our POLITICO colleagues at California Decoded, OpenAI suggests that California should consider AI companies that sign onto national and international AI agreements as compliant with state AI rules. The letter, dated Monday, from OpenAI's Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane, comes as Sacramento continues to debate key AI legislation, including Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener's bill SB 53, which would require large AI developers to publish safety and security protocols on their websites. Lehane recommended that 'California take the lead in harmonizing state-based AI regulation with emerging global standards' when it comes to the technology, dubbing it the California Approach. World view: OpenAI and other developers have already signed, or plan to sign, onto the EU's AI code of practice and have committed to conducting national security-related assessments of their programs. Lehane said that 'we encourage the state to consider frontier model developers compliant with its state requirements when they sign onto a parallel regulatory framework like the [European Union's] CoP or enter into a safety-oriented agreement with a relevant US federal government agency.' Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said, 'We have received the letter. We don't typically comment on pending legislation.' Worth noting: The EU code is a voluntary way for companies to comply with the bloc's AI Act and is nonbinding in the U.S., which has no equivalent. Commitments to work with federal regulators don't necessarily cover all the areas, like deepfakes or chatbots, where Sacramento wants to regulate AI. But the letter offers Newsom something of an off-ramp, after he vetoed Wiener's broader AI safety bill last year that would have required programs to complete prerelease safety testing. Last week, Newsom spoke with cautious positivity about Wiener's effort this year, saying it was in the spirit of an expert report on AI regulation he commissioned. But SB 53 — which would establish whistleblower protections for AI workers and require companies to publish their own internal safety testing — still faces opposition from the tech industry. Lehane's letter puts an industry-sponsored solution on the governor's desk. He framed the simplified California Approach as a way to give 'democratic AI' an edge in the race with Chinese-built programs by removing unnecessary regulation, a key priority for the Trump administration. 'Imagine how hard it would have been during the Space Race had California's aerospace and technology industries been encumbered by regulations that impeded rapid innovation,' Lehane wrote.
