LGBTQ+ youth in Missouri and Kansas face higher suicide risk
LGBTQ mental health is a concern for youth in Missouri and Kansas (Zachary Linhares / The Beacon).
In Missouri and Kansas, almost four in 10 young people who identify as gay or transgender have seriously considered suicide in the past year, and 15% have attempted it.
That's according to a new survey by The Trevor Project, which asked 18,000 people ages 13 to 24 across the country questions about issues like depression and anxiety, bullying and access to mental health care.
Overall, the survey found that young people in the Midwest reported some of the highest rates of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts compared to youth in other regions of the country.
The survey also found that youth in the Midwest experienced the highest rates of reported physical threats and harm based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
'We must be careful to reiterate that these young people are not prone to higher suicide risk compared to their peers,' said Ronita Nath, vice president of research at The Trevor Project, an organization that focuses on suicide prevention and crisis intervention in the LGBTQ+ community. 'But rather, they're placed at higher risk because of how they're mistreated and stigmatized, including through anti-LGBTQ+ politics.'
Nath said results from the survey, conducted in 2024, are meant to offer policymakers, educators and other organizations a road map for how to change the environment.
'By reporting these numbers, we aim to highlight the ongoing risks LGBTQ+ youth face,' Nath said, 'and reinforce the need for policies and support systems that protect them from these harmful experiences.'
In Missouri and Kansas, where anti-transgender legislation has been a central focus in the Republican-dominated legislatures, anxiety and depression are top concerns, according to the survey results.
Among Missouri respondents, 69% — including three-quarters of people who identify as transgender or nonbinary — reported experiencing symptoms of anxiety. In Kansas, 65% reported anxiety symptoms. In both states, almost half of young people said they had experienced depression.
Jennifer Mahurin, a therapist who treats LGBTQ+ patients in the Kansas City area, has seen an uptick in anxiety since the November election, and since President Donald Trump began handing down executive orders aimed at limiting transgender rights.
'The messages that are coming into our schools, into our homes, into wherever we are,' Mahurin said, 'are impacting everybody.'
Mahurin sees clients trying to deal with the anxiety in a variety of ways, from doomscrolling on social media, to looking for answers, to just tuning out. Her goal is to help them find healthy ways to cope.
'I'm usually checking in with them to see what is working for them, what isn't working and where do they want to see the change,' Mahurin said.
Talking to a trained therapist can help with anxiety and depression, but therapy is not always an option. Appointments, especially with a therapist who takes insurance, can be hard to find. And in some rural areas, options are even more limited.
According to The Trevor Project survey, more than half of young people in Missouri who wanted mental health care didn't get it. Of that group, 47% said they didn't get care because they couldn't afford it. The survey found that 46% of young people in Kansas who wanted care didn't receive it, 43% because they couldn't afford it.
In recent years, anti-transgender bills have been ubiquitous in Kansas and, to an even greater extent, Missouri.
Last month, Kansas legislators passed a law outlawing gender-affirming care for Kansans younger than 18. The ban applies to gender-affirming medical care, including puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy and surgeries, and also targets social transitioning, which critics say could even prohibit teachers from using a student's preferred pronouns.
In Missouri, legislators have introduced dozens of anti-transgender bills, including several that would make permanent a previously adopted ban on gender-affirming care for minors, which is set to expire in 2027. Other bills would extend the state's ban on transgender children playing sports for teams that reflect their gender identity, also set to expire in 2027.
The bill closest to the finish line that would repeal the sunset provisions of those laws is sponsored by Sen. Lincoln Hough, a Greene County Republican. He did not return a request for comment.
Other bills being considered in Missouri this year include restrictions about what gender people are allowed to list on state IDs, bathroom bans that require people to use a bathroom that matches their gender assigned at birth and a bill that would strip protections against discrimination for transgender people.
State Rep. Wick Thomas, a Democrat who represents parts of Jackson County, said Missouri Republicans are 'trying to remove trans people from existence.'
'I think the next step, once there's no legal trans person,' Thomas said, 'is to then go after the gay community as well.'
Thomas, the state's first nonbinary legislator, understands the toll the constant barrage of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation has on people. They have met with dozens of LGBTQ+ young people since getting to Jefferson City. Telling them there's little they can do to stop the bills, Thomas said, is one of the toughest things they've had to do.
But Thomas will continue to try.
'I want to be sure that I am not only standing up for my district and my constituents,' they said, 'but also for my 16-year-old self who needed adult support and couldn't find it.'
This article first appeared on Beacon: Kansas City and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
14 minutes ago
- Washington Post
How one meeting in 2020 and a GOP senator helped create RFK Jr.'s vaccine wreck
In more than 20 years of covering policy, I have witnessed some crazy stuff. But one episode towers above the rest in sheer lunacy: the November 2020 meeting of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Sounds boring? Usually, maybe. But that meeting was when the committee's eminent experts, having considered a range of vaccine rollout strategies, selected the plan that was projected to kill the most people and had the least public support. In a survey conducted in August 2020, most Americans said that as soon as health-care workers were inoculated with the coronavirus vaccine, we should have started vaccinating the highest-risk groups in order of their vulnerability: seniors first, then immunocompromised people, then other essential workers. Instead of adopting this sensible plan, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee decided to inoculate essential workers ahead of seniors, even though its own modeling suggested this would increase deaths by up to 7 percent. Why did they do this? Social justice. The word 'equity' came up over and over in the discussion — essential workers, you see, were more likely than seniors to come from 'marginalized communities.' Only after a backlash did sanity prevail. I've thought a lot about that meeting as I've watched the havoc Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is wreaking as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services — including, most recently, firing all the members of the ACIP panel and replacing them with advisers more to his liking. That 2020 committee meeting was one of many widely publicized mistakes that turned conservatives against public health authorities. It wasn't the worst such mistake — that honor belongs to the time public health experts issued a special lockdown exemption for George Floyd protesters. And of course, President Donald Trump deserves a 'worst supporting actor' award for turning on his own public health experts. But if you were a conservative convinced that 'public health' was a conspiracy of elites who cared more about progressive ideology than saving lives — well, there was our crack team of vaccine experts, proudly proclaiming that they cared more about progressive ideology than saving lives. This is one of the reasons we now have a health and human services secretary who has devoted much of his life to pushing quack anti-vaccine theories. That's not to say that public health experts deserve all of the blame. They don't even deserve most of the blame, which properly belongs to Trump, who appointed Kennedy to curry favor with Kennedy's supporters, and to the Republican senators who confirmed Kennedy to curry favor with Trump. When Kennedy was being considered for the nomination, I interviewed Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute about what that might mean for HHS. Levin, a former George W. Bush staffer who worked on health-care policy, said that as secretary, Kennedy would have significant power to shape our vaccination policy, thanks to his control over advisory boards such as ACIP. 'In practice, the secretary can more or less remove and add individuals to these advisory boards at his discretion,' Levin told me. I concluded that column by begging senators not to confirm him. For a moment it looked as if they might actually put principle over party. On Feb. 3, our Editorial Board praised Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) for the probing questions he asked during Kennedy's confirmation hearing, pressing him to admit that there's no good evidence vaccines cause autism. The next day, Cassidy, who is a medical doctor, made one of the clearest and most forthright defenses of vaccination in a speech on the Senate floor: 'Vaccines save lives. They are safe. They do not cause autism. There are multiple studies that show this. They are a crucial part of our nation's public health response.' Alas, he said those things while explaining why he was voting to confirm Kennedy. His excuse was that Kennedy had promised that he was committed to vaccination … including to maintain ACIP 'without changes.' Now Levin's warning has proven prophetic. Kennedy's ACIP moves were entirely predictable to anyone who has read his book 'Vax-Unvax.' If Cassidy believed Kennedy's assurances, he was a fool, and if he didn't, he's a disgrace to his office. Not all the ACIP appointments are terrible, and one could argue that the board is now better positioned to reestablish credibility with vaccine-skeptical conservatives, something Cassidy talked about in his floor speech. But I'm afraid I can't make that argument very convincingly. Two of his appointments, Vicky Pebsworth and Robert Malone, are known for their hostility to vaccines. Most of the rest seem to be experts in fields other than vaccination. Vaccination specialists, of course, tend to have a long paper trail of public disagreement with Kennedy's theories. I'm no believer in blind deference to experts. Science isn't an answer; it's a process, and sometimes that process spits out answers that have to be revised. But I agree with Cassidy that vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements in humanity's history. The evidence is clear that they protect millions of Americans from diseases that can kill or cripple. So if it's a choice whether to trust my health to experts who might recommend a somewhat suboptimal vaccination schedule to score political points, or to experts selected by a guy who has casually suggested that the polio vaccine has killed more people than polio, well, that's not a hard decision. And it shouldn't have been hard for Republicans to spare us that decision, either. Instead they made the same mistake as that ACIP committee, only more so: They let politics get in the way of the job they'd been given by the American public. Before writing this column, I re-listened to a recording of that 2020 committee meeting. Almost five years on, it remains equal parts enraging and mystifying. During the brief discussion period — the committee had allocated a full 10 minutes for deciding who would live or die — the panel's members didn't seem to have much to say, other than 'equity good.' But each of them said it anyway, commending one another on their high ethical standards before voting to condemn thousands of innocent people to death. The speeches were wholly unnecessary, except as a signal to fellow experts, who were then caught up in the moral fervor of America's racial reckoning. Listening, I wondered whether any of them harbored private qualms at the time, even as they publicly declared their fealty to the politics of the moment. I wonder, too, whether any of them now wake up at night, blushing in shame and humiliation, as they remember what they did, and the pompous, self-congratulatory little speech they gave about it. And that's also the question I'd really like to ask Cassidy.
Washington Post
24 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act : no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements.
Associated Press
32 minutes ago
- Associated Press
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. What's in the bill House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. Who would lose health coverage The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Why Republicans want Medicaid changes Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. What polling shows While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
