‘She'll fall through the cracks': Parents of kids with disabilities brace for new reality
Jolene Baxter's daughter, Marlee, has overcome immense challenges in her first eight years of life.
Marlee, who was born with a heart defect, has undergone four open-heart surgeries — suffering a stroke after the third. The stroke affected Marlee's cognitive abilities — she's in the second grade, but she cannot read yet. A mainstream class with neurotypical students felt overwhelming, so Marlee mostly attends classes with kids who also have disabilities. Her care includes physical, occupational and speech therapies.
For years, Baxter has relied on Medicaid to cover Marlee's medical expenses while advocating for her daughter's right to an equal education. Medicaid — which covers therapies, surgeries and medication for Marlee — and disability protections under the Department of Education have been a critical safety net for Baxter, a single mom in Oklahoma City. Now Baxter fears that proposed cuts to Medicaid and those already underway at the Department of Education, which President Donald Trump has effectively gutted, will have a disastrous impact on her daughter.
As the Trump administration overhauls federal agencies with budget cuts, layoffs and inexperienced leadership, parents of children with complex medical needs and disabilities told The 19th they are navigating uncertainty over how the federal government plans to maintain key pillars of their kids' lives.
Baxter, who fostered and, later, adopted Marlee, fought to give her life-saving medical treatment when the child was an infant. Since Marlee was both an abandoned child and is Kiowa, the officials overseeing her welfare weren't invested in getting her the care she needed to survive, Baxter believes. Cuts to Medicaid would be yet another obstacle for the Baxters to overcome. Just getting Marlee enrolled in local public schools that tried to turn her away was a battle, Baxter said. Now, the mom is gravely concerned that her daughter will be left behind due to the restructuring of the Department of Education.
'I'll do everything I can at home, but she'll just fall through all the cracks, and she won't get the education that she deserves,' Baxter said.
In March, Trump signed an executive order to close the Department of Education. The Republican-controlled Congress is also considering massive funding cuts to Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health insurance to millions of low-income Americans and is a key safety net for Americans with disabilities.
'It is 50 plus years of work to get these protections for people with disabilities that we could potentially see — maybe not fully diminished — but very deeply eroded, in a very short period of time,' said Robyn Linscott, director of education and family policy at The Arc, an organization that advocates for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
The Department of Education's primary duty has been to ensure that all students have equal access to education, and it is equipped with an Office for Civil Rights to investigate schools accused of discrimination. In March, the Department of Education cut nearly half of its staff, with workers who enforce students' civil rights hit particularly hard. Advocates worry how this could potentially impact students with disabilities, and a lawsuit filed in March began to paint a picture: Newly closed regional offices, frozen investigations and new alleged politically-based cases.
The Trump administration claims that the nation's most vulnerable will be spared from his plans for federal downsizing.
The White House has tentative plans to assign oversight of special education to the Department of Health and Human Services. Conservative groups are calling for the Trump administration to refer civil rights complaints to the Department of Justice, an agency that has had an exodus of staff departures since Trump returned to office and changed its mission.
Nicole Jorwic, chief program officer at Caring Across Generations, a national caregiver advocacy organization, said the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights receives about 20,000 complaints annually. She worries about the impact of staffing cuts on handling these complaints on the families of children with disabilities.
'Some of those staff were the ones who were looking into those complaints,' she said.
It's not just OCR complaints, she added. When she was a practicing special education attorney, Jorwic turned to reports and guidance issued by the agency. That helped local school districts, superintendents and special educators know how to implement different laws or changes.
'The lack of that federal agency to provide that clarity is also important, as well as something that we're really worried about,' she said.
Parents and advocates are doubtful that students with disabilities won't be impacted. Before the Department of Education was created in 1979, schools often denied these children a right to education with impunity. Dissolving it, families fear, could see a return to the period when states and schools failed to prioritize special education.
Baxter's daughter, Marlee, is guaranteed the right to free and appropriate schooling by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1975, which is enforced by the Department of Education. This federal law mandates that children like Marlee attend classes suited to their cognitive and physical abilities and that they get the services needed, such as speech, physical and occupational therapy, to attend school . Ninety-five percent of students with disabilities attend public schools, a higher share than the 90 percent of students overall who do — and that's largely because of the services federal policy requires public schools to provide.
Kim Crawley, a mother to a teenager with medically complex needs, has a 25-year career as a special education teacher. As part of her training, she learned about the history of education, including how five decades ago, schools were not obligated to accommodate students' special needs. The agency never took power away from the states, she said, but stepped in to ensure that they educated all students equitably.
'We learn about this for a reason because we don't want to repeat it,' Crawley said. 'We don't want to have to start over again. To think of losing everything we have gained through the Department of Education over these years is scaring not only parents but teachers. Teachers are scared because we don't know where this is going to end up for those kids. And that's why we go to work every day.'
Critics of closing the department and redirecting disabled children's needs to other agencies say that it will create a bureaucratic nightmare for parents. Instead of one federal agency overseeing research on students with disabilities, state funding for special education or discrimination claims, multiple departments would be involved. Families might not know which agency to reach out to with questions and concerns.
As it is, families are sometimes unaware of the services legally available to them — a reality that has cost them time and energy in the past and could be even more complicated in the future.
Baxter, for one, pulled Marlee out of class for two years to homeschool her after the child's kindergarten teacher retired and subsequent teachers did not know how to educate her properly, she said. It was not Baxter's first choice to homeschool Marlee, an option unavailable to most working parents, but one she made after multiple public schools said they could not accommodate her child.
'Our special needs are full,' Baxter said they told her. 'We don't have room for her.'
When an acquaintance told her that public schools could not lawfully refuse to enroll Marlee, Baxter finally got a local public school to admit her. But after her ordeal last year, she has no faith that the federal government will hold schools that discriminate against children with disabilities accountable if the education department is disbanded.
'We have enough stuff to worry about [with] making sure that she gets taken care of as far as medical care,' Baxter said of parents like herself. 'We don't need to worry about what we're going to do as far as their education.'
For some families, the potential Medicaid cuts could both unravel a child's well-being and their family's finances.
In Philadelphia, Meghann Luczkowski has three kids with varying levels of specialized health care needs, including a 10-year-old son who spent his first year of life in a hospital intensive care unit.
'His ability to grow and thrive and be part of our family and part of this community is dependent upon significant health care support at home,' said the former special education teacher, who now works in public health.
Luczkowski said her husband has robust health insurance for the family, but it does not cover a lot of her son's home-based medical needs — a reality for many families whose children are on Medicaid for care related to a disability. Private insurance never paid for his ventilator to breathe, or home health nurses that allow family caregivers to sleep at night.
'It doesn't pay for the nurse to go to school with him, to make sure that he can be at school, accessing his education with his peers,' she said. 'That's all been provided through Medicaid.'
In the first months of his second term, Trump has mostly indicated support for Medicaid when asked about his budgetary plans for other popular programs like Social Security and Medicare. But the president has also said he supports cutting fraud and waste — a description that health policy experts warn could be used to defend more expansive cuts. Congress is considering hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts, a dollar figure that goes way beyond known cases of fraud.
Among the considerations are work requirements and a cap on Medicaid enrollee spending. Such restrictions could have ripple effects on state education budgets and subsequent reductions in services for students with disabilities. Medicaid is one of the largest providers of funds to public school districts. It is the responsibility of school districts and states to find funding if Medicaid reimbursements are insufficient. Trump has not addressed general concerns about how such spending cuts could impact disabled children and adults.
'We know that before 1975 and the passage of IDEA, 50 percent of kids with disabilities were not educated at all. So we know that this is a crucial piece of legislation, and that mandate to find funding for these is really important,' said Linscott, who previously worked as a special education teacher in New York City. 'But we also recognize that school districts and state budgets are so limited, which is why we want Medicaid to be able to provide as robust funding and reimbursement as they possibly can for students and for these services.'
Jorwic said federal funding for special education services is crucial, and local governments cannot make up for the lost funds. The federal government currently spends more than $15 billion annually on special education services, and Medicaid funding accounts for about $7.5 billion annually in school-based services.
Jorwic said Medicaid cuts could also translate into higher taxes on a local or state level. This week, the Democratic Kansas governor said she had asked the state's congressional lawmakers not to cut Medicaid in large part because of the ramifications on services.
'There's no state, even the wealthiest states, that could afford cuts to those programs, either when it comes to education or when it comes to providing home and community-based services,' Jorwic said.
Rachael Brown is the mom of a medically complex second grader in Washington, D.C., who receives special education services and multiple therapies at his public school.
Brown's son, who has autism and cerebral palsy, has a rare vascular anomaly in his brain that has required multiple surgeries. He receives extensive support from Medicaid and IDEA, which are crucial for his care and education. Brown is concerned about how cuts to Medicaid would impact her son's care and her family's personal finances. She noted that pediatric hospitals are heavily reliant on Medicaid. If the rate of that reimbursement is cut, those hospitals' operational costs would be on the line — impacting everything from how many doctors and other health care providers are hired to what therapies are covered for her son.
'There's just a ripple effect for our whole community,' she said, adding: 'We are relatively privileged. There's a lot of families who aren't. It would be much worse for families for whom Medicaid is their only insurance.'
Brown said she lives in fear and worry about what happens next, and it's exhausting. While she and other advocates have some experience fighting for health care rights given previous political battles, 'this time, everything feels a little more cruel.'
On Wednesday, Luczkowski planned to travel to D.C. — taking a day off from work and rearranging child care needs — to advocate for Medicaid as part of a multi-organization advocacy day. She said parents of kids with medically complex needs and disabilities often aren't able to get out and advocate as much as they would like to, in part because of the needs of their families.
'Despite the fact that it's an incredible hardship on my family for me to be in D.C. talking to legislators and being at rallies on the Capitol steps, that's what me and a great number of families are doing — because our kids' lives depend on it,' she said. 'We're hopeful that our voices will be valued, and our children will be valued.'
The post 'She'll fall through the cracks': Parents of kids with disabilities brace for new reality appeared first on The 19th.
News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pharmacy benefit managers wield significant influence over patient care, costs
Multiple Republican-led states have sued to rescind a federal rule keeping the records of those who sought legal reproductive care private, while a federal judge in Texas is questioning the constitutionality of the federal HIPAA law in its entirety. (Photo by) As a physician, I have witnessed firsthand the inefficiencies in our health care system that make it harder for patients to access the care they need. One of these complexities patients now have to navigate is a growing industry of insurance middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), whose practices meddling in our local health system increase health care costs and block access to critical medications. PBMs work between health insurance companies and drug manufacturers to negotiate lower drug prices for the health plans they represent. Their function and influence in the health care industry have evolved significantly, and today, PBMs operate with very little oversight or transparency and their decisions are often based on what is most profitable for a health plan rather than what is best for a patient. PBMs wield significant influence over what treatments patients can access and how much they will be required to pay. These middlemen receive significant rebates and discounts from pharmaceutical manufacturers for the cost of medications and treatments after negotiations, but they don't pass those savings on to patients receiving the care, increasing what patients are required to pay out of pocket when they pick up their medication at the pharmacy counter. PBMs can also require only certain drugs be covered by a health plan, impose arbitrary rules around access to provider-prescribed medications, and PBM revenue is often directly linked to the list price of a medicine, so PBMs are incentivized to recommend treatments that would yield the most profit. The three largest PBMs – CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx – manage nearly 80% of prescription drug claims for 270 million people across the country. To make matters worse, PBMs are increasingly integrating and consolidating with other health care services, including distributors and pharmacies, making the influence PBMs hold over the health care system even larger. As these for-profit entities merge and collaborate, it's unclear if the system is actually functioning in the best interest of patients regarding quality and cost of care. PBMs have flown under the radar for far too long, but scrutiny of these middlemen and their impact on our health care system has rightfully grown in recent years, with many federal and state policymakers and regulators calling attention to the outsized role PBMs play in driving up health care costs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found that PBM integration with chain pharmacies and insurers has allowed them to dominate the broader health system and that PBMs have significant control over what drugs are available to patients and how much they are required to pay. The FTC even filed suit against the three of the nation's largest PBMs, citing their anticompetitive tactics as a barrier to health care access. In addition, numerous investigations found that PBMs often act in their own financial interest, including pushing patients toward drugs with higher out-of-pocket costs because it's more profitable for the PBM. Access to consistent treatments is necessary for Louisiana patients, particularly those living with chronic health conditions or hard-to-treat illnesses such as cancer. Each year, more than 25,000 Louisianans receive a new cancer diagnosis. Alleviating access and financial barriers to care is a necessary step to improving health outcomes for patients. It is overwhelmingly clear that we must take action to reform PBM practices to improve access to care for patients and stop letting middlemen meddle in our health system. There has never been a time when we can do more for patients as doctors, but at the same time, there has never been a time when we have more complexities in the health care systems impede healthcare access and affordability. This 'profit over patients' business model is putting critical care out of reach for many Louisiana patients. Time is overdue to curb harmful PBM practices.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cheerleaders for Violence: The Troubling Defense of Terror in Boulder
It was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration. Instead, it ended in flames. But what came after the attack in Boulder may be even more incendiary, especially online, where some users in their teens and 20s were not condemning the violence. They were endorsing it. On a clear afternoon in late May, a pro-Israel demonstration on Boulder, Colorados iconic Pearl Street Mall turned into a scene of terror. An Egyptian citizen, wielding improvised firebombs, attacked the crowd, injuring 15 people and igniting panic in a city more often associated with peaceful protests and college town calm. Authorities swiftly arrested the suspect, now charged with multiple felonies including attempted murder and arson. Law enforcement has labeled the incident an act of terrorism. But while the violence rattled the city and the Jewish community in particular, a very different response was unfolding online. Videos posted by major outlets such as ABC News, Daily Mail, and MSNBC quickly amassed thousands of views on TikTok and Instagram. In the comment sections, a disturbing trend emerged: Rather than denouncing the attack, many young users applauded it. "He just wanted freedom for Palestine." "Keep up the good work brother! Hero." "Free him, he did no wrong. He did what we all wanted." "I was about to comment about how terrible this is and then I realized it was a pro-Israel rally and I suddenly didnt feel bad anymore." Some expressed outright Jew-hatred, writing things like, "Reduce their population" and "We owe Germany an apology." Others painted the attacker as a martyr or revolutionary. Several claimed the incident was staged entirely, a so-called "false flag" to build sympathy for Israel. This chorus of justification, denial, and celebration is jarring but not entirely surprising given the current climate. Recent polling shows a dramatic shift in how young Americans view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to Pew Research Center, 53% of U.S. adults now hold an unfavorable view of Israel. Support for the Palestinian cause has grown, particularly among Democrats and younger voters. In one RealClearPolling analysis,respondentsunder 28 years old were more likely than any other age group to sympathize with Palestinians over Israelis and to view Israels military actions in Gaza as unjustified. As someone from this generation, and from Boulder, Ive watched these sentiments evolve online, where politics blur with memes and moral lines often collapse under the weight of outrage or irony. Seeing this unfold in my own hometown made it feel less like an aberration and more like a wake-up call. Whats chilling isnt just the cruelty of the comments. Its how natural they seem to the people posting them, many of whom are my peers. Layered atop this political shift is a deepening distrust of institutions. A significant share of younger Americans express skepticism toward government narratives, traditional news media, and even the legitimacy of domestic law enforcement. According to the spring 2025 Harvard Youth Poll, fewer than one in three express trust in major institutions. But when that skepticism is applied to something as clear and violent as the Boulder attack, is it truly thoughtful or is it reflexive, corrosive doubt - the kind that opens the door to conspiracism and moral disengagement? That mindset helps explain the abundance of conspiracy-laden responses: "Yeah they set this up. Dont believe it at all," read one comment. Another called it a "planned distraction," while others insisted it was staged with actors. Though many of these reactions remain anonymous and ephemeral, they point to a generational divide not just in foreign policy, but in the moral frameworks through which violence is interpreted. Zoe Mardiks, a recent graduate of the University of Colorado Boulder and a Jewish student leader, was at her apartment when she learned of the attack. "My first reaction was to text some of my other Jewish friends to check in and ensure that everyone was okay and safe," she said. "I felt very scared that this had happened in my community." What disturbed her just as much as the attack itself was the flood of online comments defending it. "The ongoing justification for violence significantly downplays the rights of Jews and Israel to exist," Mardiks said. In her view, social media has warpedher generations sense of moral clarity. "Because of how the war has been broadcast on social media, everyone feels they have a say in the issue and believes they possess all the knowledge," she said. Mardiks said her response to those defending the attacker is simple: "If you truly care about saving or freeing anyone, we can only do that by educating each other in a non-attacking way … the line is drawn when you praise violence." The Boulder attack marks a grim milestone: a foreign conflict spilling onto American soil in the form of violence, and met, in some corners of the Internet, with tacit approval. That many of those corners are populated by Americans under 30 raises hard questions about what this generation, my generation, believes, whom they stand with, and what they consider justifiable resistance. For us, the line between protest and terrorism used to feel clear. Now, for too many, that line seems negotiable. "He did what we all wanted." If thats true, we may need to start asking what "we" really means now. Adair Teuton is a 2025 intern with RealClearPolitics.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Evers responds to Republicans' decision to back out of bipartisan budget negotiations
MADISON, Wis. (WLAX/WEUX) – Republicans in the Wisconsin State Legislature on Wednesday backed out of months' worth of bipartisan budget negotiations with Gov. Tony Evers toward reaching bipartisan compromise on the 2025-27 Biennial Budget. Despite having secured the governor's support for Republicans' half of the proposal, which included an income tax cut targeting Wisconsin's middle-class and working families and eliminating income taxes for certain retirees, Republican lawmakers are unable to reach consensus with their caucuses in order to support the governor's half of the proposal, which included meaningful increased investments in child care, K-12 schools, and the University of Wisconsin (UW) System. Republicans' decision to cease discussions comes after meetings between Gov. Evers and Republican leaders, as well as several staff-level meetings with leaders, have occurred over the span of several months and ramped up in recent weeks, including meetings every day this week. Gov. Evers Wednesday released the following statement responding to Republican leaders' decision: 'I am grateful to the legislators and legislative staff for their efforts over the past several weeks to reach a bipartisan agreement that would have delivered on key priorities for Wisconsinites. 'The concept of compromise is simple—everyone gets something they want, and no one gets everything they want. 'I told Republicans I'd support their half of the deal and their top tax priorities—even though they're very similar to bills I previously vetoed—because I believe that's how compromise is supposed to work, and I was ready to make that concession in order to get important things done for Wisconsin's kids. 'Unfortunately, Republicans couldn't agree to support the top priorities in my half of the deal, which included meaningful investments for K-12 schools, to continue Child Care Counts to help lower the cost of child care for working families, and to prevent further campus closures and layoffs at our UW System. So, today, Republicans decided not to move forward with any more bipartisan negotiations with me. 'We've spent months trying to have real, productive conversations with Republican lawmakers in hopes of finding compromise and passing a state budget that everyone could support—and that, most importantly, delivers for the people of Wisconsin. I am admittedly disappointed that Republican lawmakers aren't willing to reach consensus and common ground and have decided to move forward without bipartisan support instead. 'I will always try to do the right thing—and compromise in order to get good things done. Wisconsinites expect their elected officials to show up, act in good faith, and work together across the aisle to get things done—that's what I've been committed to doing in these bipartisan negotiations from the get-go, and that remains my commitment.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.