Gwen Walz on RFK Jr. comments: People with autism ‘contribute more to this nation than this man ever will'
Minnesota's first lady, Gwen Walz, slammed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert. F Kennedy Jr. over comments he made about autism on Wednesday.
In a Wednesday press conference on a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Kennedy said that 'autism destroys families.'
'More importantly, it destroys our greatest resource, which [is] our children,' he added. 'These are children who should not be, who should not be suffering like this. These are kids who, many of them were fully functional, and regressed because of some environmental exposure into autism when they're 2 years old.'
'And these are kids who will never pay taxes, they'll never hold a job, they'll never play baseball, they'll never write a poem, they'll never go out on a date,' Kennedy continued. 'Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted. And we have to recognize we are doing this to our children.'
Gwen Walz, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's (D) wife, responded to a video featuring Kennedy's comments in a post on the social platform X.
'This is deeply upsetting, especially coming from our nation's highest-ranking health official,' Walz said in her post on X on Thursday. 'Individuals with autism are family, neighbors, students, and coworkers and they contribute more to this nation than this man ever will.'
Gus Walz, one of Walz's two children, has a nonverbal learning disorder and ADHD. During the 2024 presidential campaign, conservative commentator Ann Coulter faced backlash due to a post in which she mocked Gus, who became emotional during a Democratic National Convention speech from his father.
Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) also criticized Kennedy's comments in his own post on X.
'This is disrespectful and a flat out lie that further stigmatizes autism. It's not a virus or a disease – it's a neurological condition with a wide spectrum. Many Americans with autism work, pay taxes, and are living happy and healthy lives,' Frost said in his post Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
5 minutes ago
- UPI
Senators propose $15-per-hour federal minimum wage
A proposed federal act would raise the federal minimum wage law to $15 an hour on January 1, two U.S. senators announced on Tuesday. The Service Employee International Union was fighting for that wage in 2021 (pictured). File Photo by Tasos Katopodis/UPI | License Photo June 10 (UPI) -- The federal minimum wage would rise to $15 per hour, with annual cost-of-living increases based on inflation, in a proposed bipartisan measure. Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Peter Welch, D-Vt., co-sponsored the bill that they have named the "Higher Wages for American Workers Act" and would increase the federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 per hour for non-exempt workers. "For decades, working Americans have seen their wages flatline," Hawley said on Tuesday in a joint press release with Welch. "One major culprit of this is the failure of the federal minimum wage to keep up with the economic reality facing hardworking Americans every day," Hawley added. Welch said inflation and rising costs are making it too hard for families to afford basic necessities. "We're in the midst of a severe affordability crisis, with families in red and blue states alike struggling to afford necessities like housing and groceries," Welch said. "A stagnant federal minimum wage only adds fuel to the fire," he continued. "Every hardworking American deserves a living wage that helps put a roof over their head and food on the table -- $7.25 an hour doesn't even come close." "Times have changed, and working families deserve a wage that reflects today's financial reality," Welch added. Hawley said the current federal minimum wage is less than what a worker earned in 1940 when adjusted for inflation. If the proposed federal minimum wage increase is passed into law, it would take effect on Jan. 1 and allow cost-of-living increases that match inflation in subsequent years. Many states have respective minimum wage laws that exceed the current and proposed federal minimum wage, but a dozen still were at the federal minimum wage in 2024. Many large employers also have higher minimum wages, including Walmart, which has paid its workers at least $14 an hour and often more since 2023. President Joe Biden in 2021 ordered the federal government to pay contract workers at least $15 an hour. California lawmakers in 2022 raised the state's minimum wage for many fast-food workers to up to $22 an hour.
Miami Herald
6 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Is Elon Musk right to oppose the budget bill? What Americans said in a new poll
During his public falling out with President Donald Trump, Elon Musk slammed the president's proposed spending bill — dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — claiming it will balloon the deficit. It turns out, most Americans agree with his critique, new polling reveals. In the latest Economist/YouGov poll, half of respondents were asked to react to a statement from Musk on the GOP-backed spending bill, which passed in the House without a single Democratic vote. The legislation, Musk wrote on X on June 3, 'will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion and burden (American) citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' A majority of respondents, 56%, said they agreed with this statement, while just 17% said they disagreed. More than one-quarter, 27%, said they were unsure. The answers were largely linked to partisan affiliation, with Democrats largely siding with Musk for a change. Seventy-two percent of Democrats said they concurred with the billionaire's statement about the spending bill, as did 55% of independents. Among Republicans, a plurality, 44%, said they agreed. The poll — which sampled 1,533 U.S. adults June 6-9 — posed the same statement before the other half of respondents, but this time, it did not attribute it to Musk. Without reference to Musk, a slightly smaller share, 49%, said they agreed with the statement, while 23% said they disagreed. Smaller shares of Republicans, independents and Democrats agreed, though Democrats saw the largest decrease in support — from 72% to 60%. The poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. More on the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' The spending bill, which provides funding for fiscal year 2025, passed in the House in a 215-214 vote in late May and is now under consideration in the Senate. It contains many pieces of Trump's agenda, including a road map to extend the 2017 tax cuts, as well as an increase in funding for the Pentagon and border security, according to previous reporting from McClatchy News. At the same time, it slashes funding for social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Further — to Musk's point — it would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency. In addition to Musk, the bill has received criticism from several other prominent conservatives in Congress. One of the most vocal opponents has been Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who wrote on X that 'the spending proposed in this bill is unsustainable, we cannot continue spending at these levels if we want to truly tackle our debt.' Other Republican lawmakers have come out in defense of the bill, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has said the legislation will deliver 'historic tax relief, ensure our border stays secure, strengthen our military, and produce historic savings.' Meanwhile, Democrats have been united in their opposition. In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries labeled the bill 'the GOP Tax Scam' and said it would rip 'healthcare and food assistance away from millions of people in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthy, the well-off and the well-connected.'
Washington Post
7 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Sending the National Guard is bad. Arresting 3,000 a day is worse.
ICE agents making arrests in the parking lot of a Home Depot helped set off mass protests in Los Angeles. But that wasn't an isolated incident. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is increasingly taking actions at courthouses, restaurants and other spaces it previously stayed away from. President Donald Trump and his top aides have long favored harsh immigration policies. But what's shifted in recent weeks is that the administration has set a specific goal of ICE arresting at least 3,000 people per a quota may help Trump accomplish his goals, but it is leading to overly aggressive tactics that are deeply unsettling Americans across the country. It was perhaps inevitable that a president who promised to deport more people than his predecessors would implement an arrest quota. In the first months of Trump's tenure, the number of deportations and ICE arrests wasn't that much higher than when President Joe Biden was in office. That reportedly frustrated Trump administration officials, particularly Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. So last month, Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem privately gave ICE leaders — and then publicly confirmed — the goal of making 3,000 arrests per day. The administration also replaced ICE's leadership with people it felt would be more aggressive. That's a huge increase: The agency was making between 700 and 900 arrests per day at the end of Biden's term and the start of Trump's. And it appears this new policy is being carried out. ICE officials say they arrested 2,267 people on June 3 and 2,368 on June 4. It's possible these numbers are being inflated by the agency to please Trump and Miller. But there are articles in news outlets across the country about unprecedented ICE enforcement actions in their communities, so I believe the agency is going beyond its usual moves. But this policy is misguided. Quotas are problematic in many contexts. I support increased gender and racial diversity but am wary of organizations trying to hire a set number of women and people of color. In law enforcement, they are more troublesome. Police officers operating under quota systems feel pushed to make arrests for minor offenses. They sometimes target not the most dangerous people but those who are easiest to apprehend. That's what's happening now. Undocumented immigrants showing up to court hearings, working at clothing stores or looking to get Home Depot customers to hire them for day labor are probably not leading human trafficking organizations on the side. I am deeply concerned that ICE will soon start making arrests at schools and hospitals, since those are other places where you can arrest lots of people at once — few of whom will be armed or dangerous. I am opposed to these arrests in part because I don't support Trump's overarching goals of deporting 1 million immigrants a year and creating a climate in which other undocumented immigrants return to their native countries on their own. But you could argue that while Trump did not specifically campaign on 3,000 arrests per day, he promised to crack down on undocumented immigrants, and Americans elected him, so the public wants this. It's hard to determine why people voted for a candidate and what kind of mandate that gives them. But even if Trump campaigned explicitly on arresting 3,000 people a day, we should be wary of that policy — and not just because quotas generally aren't smart. This particular quota is excessive. If ICE arrested 3,000 a people a day, that would add up to about 1.1 million arrests after a year. There are about 11.7 million undocumented people in the United States. So if no individual was arrested more than once, about 9 percent of undocumented immigrants would be arrested in a given year under this policy. Arresting 9 percent of any group would almost certainly result in the other 91 percent being constantly worried about being arrested or jailed. And because about three quarters of undocumented immigrants are from Central or South America, some U.S. citizens and authorized residents who are Brown almost certainly will be unjustly arrested or questioned by ICE. This arrest quota echoes stop-and-frisk policies many police departments used to employ. At the height of that approach, there were about 350,000 stops of the 1.9 million Black New Yorkers. Basically every Black New Yorker had to be on guard for being stopped and frisked, and a judge invalidated the program on the grounds that it was racially discriminatory. Miller and Trump may want all 11.7 million undocumented immigrants to live in terror. But the rest of us shouldn't. The overwhelming majority of those people came to the United States seeking a better life. If we want to deter future immigrants, cracking down on employers who hire undocumented people and making it harder to enter the country in the first place are obvious solutions. Making life excessively difficult for people already here will probably discourage future migrants, but the U.S. government should not be in the business of rushing into restaurants and courthouses with guns to arrest people for the purpose of scaring others into leaving the country. Many Democratic politicians and political commentators have criticized Trump for deploying the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, to stop the protests of ICE's actions in Los Angeles. But Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson rightly invoked the National Guard, without support from governors, to integrate schools and defend civil rights marches respectively. The problem isn't that Trump is using the National Guard; it's that he's using the National Guard to defend a policy that will target people of color indiscriminately and inhumanely. The quota must go.
