There is frank recital of the grooming and threats that happened to these women, in case you might need to skip reading this one. If you or someone you know needs help, please call the Human Trafficking Hotline at 888-373-7888, or text INFO to 233733. See the website at https://humantraffickinghotline.org/en
Saturday will mark one year since the death of Virginia Giuffre, one of the first women to surrender her anonymity, detail her experiences and publicly call for criminal charges against convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. For other Epstein survivors such as Liz Stein and Jess Michaels, Giuffre’s public reckoning made it possible to finally name what had happened to them.
“I saw myself in Virginia, in [Epstein survivor] Maria Farmer, in all of them,” said Danielle Bensky, who was pulled into Epstein’s orbit when she was 17. “And I thought: if they can be victimized, anyone can be. I was not alone. I finally understood that we were not going to be silent any more.
More than a dozen Epstein survivors will gather in Washington DC this weekend for a memorial vigil in Giuffre’s honor. But they will also be marking something larger: the emergence of a survivors’ movement Giuffre helped make possible – and that is only gaining momentum.
Epstein survivors have held press conferences and met with congressional lawmakers; in November, the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed, and the release of more than 3.5m pages of documents followed. However, in the more than two months since the justice department released its latest batch of files – more than 2m documents have yet to be released – prosecutors have not brought any new charges, despite federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continuing to demand accountability.
As for Ghislaine Maxwell – the only person convicted in connection with Epstein’s network – she was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022 and has exhausted her appeals. Rather than facing harsher scrutiny, however, Maxwell was controversially transferred from a low-security prison in Florida to a minimum-security federal camp in Texas in August.
While the lack of action has left survivors with little faith that the full scope of Epstein’s network will ever face justice, they don’t intend to back down.
Stein, Bensky, Lisa Phillips and Michaels discuss, in their own words, what made them come forward, the power of survivors banding together and where they want the movement to go.
‘If I could go back, I would tell someone’
Liz Stein, human trafficking specialist and survivor advocate
When I met Epstein and Maxwell, I was a senior in college. I had aspirations of going to law school. People had a lot of expectations for what my life would look like. But my life turned out the exact opposite. For decades, I buried what happened to me. I thought these were friends I had met in New York – that is how they made the relationship feel. So the narrative in my mind was that I had these unspeakable, horrific experiences with people I thought cared about me. I never wanted to think about it. I never wanted to talk about it. I just lived with it.I wasn’t ready for his face to appear on television the day he was arrested. And what followed confused me further, because the coverage focused on the girls in Florida – and I had these preconceived notions about what trafficking was and who it happened to. I wasn’t underage. I never went to the island. So I thought: that’s different, that’s separate. But I educated myself. I immersed myself in the national anti-trafficking movement, consuming every webinar and publication I could find. And when I did that, I thought: this is exactly what happened to me. And I was just enraged and saddened to know it wasn’t just me – that it was potentially hundreds of other young women.When I delivered my victim impact statement after Maxwell’s sentencing [for sex trafficking], I nearly shouted. I talked about my emotional health, my physical health, how this derailed my life. I wanted to project my voice so that no one in that courtroom could ignore what I was saying. And it was important to me to look at her directly while I spoke. I didn’t want her to see me cry. I didn’t want to give her that satisfaction.That moment changed something. I couldn’t imagine having this visibility and not fighting for justice. If I could go back, I would tell someone. And if they didn’t listen, I would tell someone else, and I would just keep telling until someone listened.What I want people to understand is that speaking out publicly is not a requirement. For those who aren’t ready, know that there are women standing in their truth on your behalf. And for those who are afraid, if you tell someone and they don’t listen, tell someone else. Just keep telling until someone listens. Even if it falls on deaf ears, you will still be proud of yourself for being willing to stand in your uncomfortable truth.
‘What changed everything was meeting other survivors’
Danielle Bensky, choreographer, performer and survivor advocate
I don’t know if all republicans are racist bigots but they certainly do tolerate them in their midst. Pride month, pride flags, and black history month, MLK, and other non-white persons of note are too political, divisive, and too morally offensive to be displayed or talked about. No month to celebrate the oppressed minorities yet one to celebrate the oppressors? No pride flags on government buildings or school classrooms but confederate battle flags are OK to be displayed everywhere. Some how the people calling for the end of DEI as racist along with those saying the pride symbols and history months are divisive and too political, think displays of people wanting to own / deny rights to a group based on skin color are not divisive or political. Hugs
Two Confederate flag bearers walk across the lawn of the Mississippi State Capitol in Jackson, Miss., on Monday, July 6, 2015. A group of about 50 people participated in the rally sponsored by the Magnolia State Heritage Campaign as they opposed efforts to remove Mississippi’s 1894 Confederate-themed state flag. Five years later, in 2020, Gov. Tate Reeves would sign a bill retiring the old state flag, even as he continued declaring Confederate Heritage Month annually. AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis
Nearly six years after signing the bill that removed the Confederate symbol from Mississippi’s state flag, Gov. Tate Reeves declared April 2026 as Confederate Heritage Month, continuing a tradition that began 33 years ago.
Though the governor does not publish the Confederate Heritage Month proclamations on any official government websites, the Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans posted a copy of the latest proclamation on its Facebook page. The proclamation shows that the governor signed it on April 17.
Tap or click the preview image to read Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves’ April 17, 2026, Confederate Heritage Month proclamation. Courtesy Mississippi Division Sons of Confederate Veterans
As in past years, Reeves’ proclamation does not mention the central role of slavery and white supremacy in the Confederacy’s birth, instead speaking only vaguely about how April “is the month when, in 1861, the American Civil War began between the Confederate and Union armies, reportedly the deadliest war ever fought on American soil.”
“WHEREAS, as we honor all who lost their lives in this war, it is important for all Americans to reflect upon our nation’s past, to gain insight from our mistakes and successes, and to come to a full understanding that the lessons learned yesterday and today will carry us through tomorrow if we carefully and earnestly strive to understand and appreciate our heritage and our opportunities which lie before us,” says the governor’s proclamation. “NOW, THEREFORE, I, Tate Reeves, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2026 as CONFEDERATE HERITAGE MONTH in the State of Mississippi.”
Kevin M. Levin, a Boston-based historian whose work has focused heavily on the Civil War-era, wrote on his Substack, Civil War Memory, on April 18 that Reeves issued the document “with the quiet, almost regularity of a bureaucratic obligation.”
“There is no mention of what the Confederacy stood for, no celebration of Southern martial valor, no invocation of states’ rights, and—most conspicuously—no mention of slavery, even though it was the explicit cause Mississippi named when it seceded from the Union in 1861,” Levin wrote. “What the proclamation most resembles is a permission slip signed reluctantly, just legible enough to satisfy the requester and vague enough to require no defense.”
Slavery Defined the Confederacy
The Sons of Confederate Veterans is a neo-Confederate organization that espouses “Lost Cause” ideology, which promotes a revisionist version of the Civil War that whitewashes the Confederacy’s white supremacist history and downplays the role of slavery in the Civil War. SCV owns and operates Beauvoir, the museum and historic home of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, located in Biloxi, Mississippi; the organization annually receives $100,000 from the State of Mississippi for development and maintenance.
The Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans issued this Confederate History and Heritage Month proclamation on April 1, 2026. Courtesy Mississippi Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans
The Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans issued its own 2026 “Confederate History and Heritage Month” proclamation on April 1, saying that “states of the South, including Mississippi, did legally declare their independence from the United States in 1861, and … these states did form a Confederation to protect and defend themselves from an invading army.”
What the SCV proclamation left out was the defining issue that led Mississippi and other Southern states to secede from the Union—the “cause” the Confederacy fought for.
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world,” Mississippi’s 1861 Declaration of Secession declared. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.”
The 2026 SCV proclamation, signed by Mississippi Division Commander Forrest S. Daws, says that the people of the Confederacy spent “four long years fighting and sacrificing for their independence” as part of “their commitment to defend the rights secured under the United States Constitution.”
But the historical record shows that that, too, is a revisionist view of history.
Confederate Vice President Alexander Hamilton Stephens said in a speech on March 21, 1861, that slavery “was the immediate cause of the late rupture” that led to the American Civil War and that the Confederate Constitution enshrined the idea that the enslavement of Africans to white men was “natural and normal.” Photo Public Domain / Wikimedia Commons Credit: NARA
In his 1861 Cornerstone Speech announcing the Confederate Constitution, Confederate Vice President Alexander Hamilton Stephens said that it made “great improvements upon the old constitution.”
“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution,” Stephens said. “(Thomas) Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the ‘rock upon which the old Union would split.’ He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.
“The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.”
“This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. … Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong,” Stephens continued. “They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the ‘storm came and the wind blew.’ Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
The bust of Mississippi State University’s first president, Confederate Lt. Gen. Stephen D. Lee, has long been an iconic center of the Mississippi State campus from its perch on the Drill Field in front of the building bearing Lee’s name. He led efforts long after the Civil War to successfully rewrite history about the Confederacy and its documented motives out of school textbooks and classrooms, furthering the Lost Cause. Photo by Donna Ladd
In the decades after the Civil War ended, Confederate veterans, such as Mississippi State University’s inaugural president, Stephen D. Lee, and groups like SCV and the United Daughters of the Confederacy began the work of remaking history in a way that shone a more favorable light on the South—muddying the waters over the cause of the war and falsely describing it as a “war of northern aggression.”
White-supremacist leaders in Mississippi renewed efforts to enshrine Confederate heritage in the 1950s and 1960s in reaction to the rise of the Civil Rights Movement.
Young white Mississippians wave Confederate flags at civil rights marchers near Highway 7 on the outskirts of Greenwood, Miss., on June 17, 1966, weeks after James Meredith, who integrated the University of Mississippi, was shot while leading the group of marchers. AP Photo
Despite his campaign pledge to supporters of the old Confederate-themed flag not to use his power to change the flag, Gov. Reeves signed the bill retiring it, calling it “a law to turn a page in Mississippi today.”
“It is fashionable in some quarters to say our ancestors were all evil. I reject that notion. I also reject the elitist worldview that these United States are anything but the greatest nation in the history of mankind. I reject the mobs tearing down statues of our history—north and south, Union and Confederate, founding fathers and veterans,” the governor said in 2020, criticizing Black Lives Matter protesters from across the country even as he signed the bill with several Mississippi civil rights icons behind him. “I reject the chaos and lawlessness, and I am proud it has not happened in our state.”
‘An Ideology Reduced to a Form Letter’
The Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ 2026 Confederate Heritage proclamation notes that “in 1993 Mississippi Governor Kirk Fordice, understanding the importance of remembering and preserving all history, did declare the first Confederate History Month.”
Mississippi Gov. Kirk Fordice issued the first Confederate Heritage Month proclamation in 1993. During his time as governor, he courted support from white supremacist groups, including the Council of Conservative Citizens. He is seen here on Aug. 22, 1996, with (from left) Donald Wildmon of the Tupelo-based American Family Association; then-Mississippi House Rep. Phil Bryant; and Mississippi Family Council’s Forest Thigpen. Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File Credit: AP
Since then, one Democratic governor and three Republican governors have followed Fordice’s lead.
Starting in 2016, Donna Ladd, then the editor of the Jackson Free Press and now the executive editor of the Mississippi Free Press, first reported on then-Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Confederate Heritage Month proclamations. Despite issuing Confederate Heritage Month proclamations annually for his first seven years in office between 2011 and 2018, former Gov. Phil Bryant did not issue one in 2019, his last year in office; he opted instead for a “Month of Unity” proclamation on behalf of a Christian religious organization.
The Mississippi Free Press has since reported on each of Reeves’ annual proclamations, including in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025.
Reeves’ ties to the Sons of Confederate Veterans stretch back long before his time as governor. In 2013, he spoke to the SCV’s national gathering in Vicksburg, Mississippi, in front of a massive Confederate battle flag and in a room decorated with smaller Confederate flags and cotton plants. After then-Lt. Gov. Reeves congratulated the organization for “keeping history for our youth,” speakers defended the Confederate “cause” and compared “Yankees” to German “Nazis” in World War II.
Then-Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves appeared at this July 2013 Sons of Confederate Veterans event in Vicksburg with a massive Confederate flag behind him. Photo via R.E. Lee Camp 239 SCV Facebook group
Long before entering politics, Reeves was part of a Millsaps College fraternity known for lionizing Confederate General Robert E. Lee and for Confederate-themed parties where members wore blackface. When it became an issue in his 2019 campaign for governor, though, he said he never participated in blackface during his time in the fraternity.
Reeves’ Democratic opponent at the time, then-Attorney General Jim Hood, was also in a fraternity at the University of Mississippi, where members wore blackface; he similarly denied ever participating.
Reeves defended issuing the proclamations in 2021.
“For the last 30 years, five Mississippi governors—Republicans and Democrats alike—have signed a proclamation recognizing the statutory state holiday and identifying April as Confederate Heritage Month,” the governor’s office said in a statement to WAPT at the time. “Gov. Reeves also signed the proclamation because he believes we can all learn from our history.”
The governor’s annual proclamation routinely notes that state law designates the last Monday in April as Confederate Memorial Day. However, state law does not require governors to issue Confederate Heritage Month proclamations.
Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, seen here speaking at a press conference in Ridgeland, Miss., on Thursday, April 9, 2026, has signed Confederate Heritage Month proclamations each year as governor from 2020 to 2026. MFP Photo by Rogelio V. Solis
The language in Reeves’ Confederate Heritage Month proclamations uses much of the same language as the one that former Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, who served from 2000 to 2004, issued in April 2000.
In 2023, Musgrove told the Mississippi Free Press that Confederate Heritage Month is “something that should not continue in today’s world.”
“I cannot say why the practice started, but it was one that should never have been started,” the former governor said. “It was one that I should not have signed, and it should have ended a long time ago.”
Former Republican Gov. Haley Barbour also signed Confederate Heritage Month proclamations every year between 2004 and 2016.
In his Substack post, Kevin M. Levin wrote that the earlier proclamations that began with Fordice “were issued with more ideological confidence” and as “instruments of the Lost Cause.” Now, instead, the historian wrote, they appear on Sons of Confederate Veterans Facebook groups—a sign of the Lost Cause’s “crumbling infrastructure” and that it is now “an ideology reduced to a form letter.”
“A celebration conducted in secret, or at least in silence, is not really a celebration. It is a favor done for a diminishing constituency that the issuer would prefer the broader public not notice,” he wrote.
Members of the Mississippi Poor People’s Campaign burn a Confederate battle flag at the Governor’s Mansion in Jackson, Miss., Monday, June 18, 2018. AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis
Levin called it “the political logic of a cause in retreat.”
“The Lost Cause did not die in a single moment, not with the removal of Confederate statues after Charleston in 2015, not with Mississippi’s replacement of its Confederate-emblem state flag in 2020, and not with any particular court ruling or protest march. It has died the slower death of a story that fewer and fewer people believe, or are willing to say publicly that they believe,” the Boston historian continued. “What remains is a three-paragraph proclamation, quietly signed, quietly announced in a Facebook group, saying as little as possible about a cause its issuer is no longer willing to name.”
The Trump administration has made attacking transgender people one of its signature priorities. It has issued a orders threatening to defund hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to trans youth, targeted children’s television through the FCC for including transgender characters, and spent millions in taxpayer resources pursuing anti-trans executive orders across the federal government. But according to the latest Fox News poll, released this week, the American public is not on board. Voters say Democrats would do a better job on transgender issues by a 13-point margin, 56 to 43 percent—the second consecutive Fox News poll this year to show a significant Democratic advantage on the issue.
The finding is consistent with the January Fox News poll, which showed Democrats with a 22 point advantage on transgender issues. While the margin has narrowed somewhat, the direction has not changed: voters across nearly every demographic subgroup continue to say they trust Democrats more than Republicans on this issue.
The demographic breakdown is significant. Black voters backed Democrats on transgender issues by a 54-point margin, 77 to 23 percent. Hispanic voters favored Democrats 59 to 40 percent. White voters—a group Republicans depend on for their electoral coalition—sided with Democrats 53 to 46 percent. Every age group favored Democrats, with the strongest support coming from voters under 35, who backed the Democratic approach 61 to 39 percent. But the finding was not limited to young voters: Americans 65 and older also preferred Democrats on the issue, 58 to 38 percent—a 20-point margin among seniors.
Self-identified moderates backed Democrats 60 to 38 percent—a 22-point margin that suggests anti-trans messaging continues to backfire outside the Republican base. Liberals preferred Democrats 86 to 13 percent. Even among self-identified conservatives, nearly a third—31 percent—said Democrats would do a better job. And among 2024 Trump voters, 27 percent crossed over to say they trusted Democrats more on the issue—more than one in four of the president’s own supporters.
The geographic breakdown was equally striking. Urban voters backed Democrats 68 to 31 percent and suburban voters—the decisive battleground in American politics—preferred Democrats 57 to 43 percent. Rural voters were the only geographic group to favor Republicans, 52 to 46 percent, but even that margin was narrow. Democrats also led among Catholics (54-45), white Catholics (51-48), Protestants (50-48), and military voters (54-44). White evangelicals were the only religious group to side with Republicans.
I’m setting this up as we’re between storms here in S. Central KS. The front is so close, but just isn’t moving East our way, to take the tornado danger away. sigh So far, though, so good, but North Central and probably NE Oklahoma are getting tornadoes, and one looks really extra bad right now. It is East of where suze lives, at least. I’m posting this at 7:10 PM; it should go live in around 12 hours, depending on time zones, so when you see this, it will be over. Anyway, back to this. It’s interesting, so have a nice cuppa with your read.
Present at our nation’s founding — but excluded from its promise
Elizabeth Freeman demanded her rightful place among this country’s founders and helped forge a tradition of forcing America to live up to its ideals.
This story was co-published with Nonprofit Quarterlyand #WeTheCivic: America 250, a narrative movement centering the multiracial nonprofit and civil society workers, organizations, and communities in America 250 narratives.
In 1776, a group of White male landowners in the original Thirteen Colonies wrote that all men were created equal — words that denied most of their fellow colonists the same certain unalienable rights.
The real founders of our democracy were those who took the promises in the Declaration of Independence literally, the people who rejected the hypocrisy of its ideals and declared that its words would have meaning in their lives, too. Two hundred and fifty years later, that declaration is still being made.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That anyone outside of themselves — the other, the unfamiliar — deserved the same rights proclaimed in our founding documents was not a self-evident truth to the original founders. The phrase “all men are created equal” implied inclusivity, but was not intended as a universal promise. It was a boundary defining who was entitled to life, liberty and happiness — and who was not.
Here’s a self-evident truth: Women, the enslaved and Indigenous people were all present at the birth of this country, but they were also excluded from its promise and potential. The true birth of this nation is the longer, harder story of what they did next.
How one woman acted after hearing those words was as patriotic as anything that happened in Independence Hall on July 4, 1776. She would test whether democracy was a promise or a lie. And she would demand her rightful place among this country’s founders.
In 1776, Elizabeth Freeman was an enslaved woman named Mumbet, working for the Ashley family in Sheffield, Massachusetts. At the dinner table, the Ashleys and their guests spoke of the Declaration. Present in a conversation about freedom that didn’t include her, Mumbet tried not to draw attention to herself as she went about her work.
A few years later, Mumbet heard the words of the newly written Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, words that sounded much like the ones mentioned in those dinnertime conversations: “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possession, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”
One of its framers was Theodore Sedgwick, a lawyer and friend of her enslaver. Mumbet walked to Sedgwick’s office and asked, based on what he had written, if he would plead her case. Sedgwick agreed, asserting that slavery was unconstitutional under the ratified Massachusetts Constitution.
On August 21, 1781, she became the first enslaved woman to have her self-proclaimed independence validated in a court of law. She changed her name to Elizabeth Freeman to reflect her new status.
Freeman sued for her freedom and won. As a founding mother, she is the first example in a lineage, a creator of the tradition of forcing the country to answer its founding promises. She was among the first to show that the power of the Declaration was not that it frees anyone, but that its language gives us the power to demand equality and freedom for ourselves.
Freeman’s case established a pattern that has repeated itself across American history: Hear the promise. Claim the promise. Force the law to answer it. From women’s suffrage to the civil rights movement, to the fight for marriage equality, immigrant rights and beyond, the work of perfecting the union has always been done by those who have had to imagine — and assert — their equal and rightful place within it.
Freeman’s life challenges us to interpret the Declaration of Independence for ourselves, and to continue the work of expanding the promise of our democracy to include those who are still left out.
“She is a founder and a revolutionary,” said Johns Hopkins University historian Martha Jones. “It takes no time for someone like Elizabeth Freeman to recognize that there are principles that have been articulated that have inspired elite White men that should apply to her. She is the person who gave new, unintended meaning to those terms. Why don’t we know her name or what she did?”
To be a founder of democracy is not just to declare equality or the right to freedom. It is to hold accountable those who claim to believe in these words and to compel them to go beyond just making a declaration. It is to do the work of making word and deed real.
Throughout our nation’s history, Black women have done the work. They have challenged America to become her truest self and claimed freedom denied for themselves and others — freedom for which they are still fighting in the courts today.
At America’s 250th anniversary, a Black woman is, for the first time in our nation’s history, interpreting those same ideals as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. While Freeman asked the law to see her, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson now helps to define what the law sees and what equality means under the law today.
In October, civil rights lawyer and head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Janai Nelson, appeared before the Supreme Court for the first time to argue a voting rights case, which challenged whether Louisiana’s congressional map discriminates against Black voters; a ruling is expected this spring. It was only the latest time Nelson has tested the question of whether the Constitution’s promise of equal citizenship applies to all.
“The language of the Declaration has power for marginalized people, which can be scary for those who have power,” said Adrienne Whaley, a lead curator at the Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia. “So you have this necessary tension between freedom and power and equality and inequality, which is part of what makes the Revolution ongoing.”
It is a tension that is still shaping and defining our democracy. Just as the Declaration of Independence cannot remain a fixed document, but must be continuously interpreted to force inclusion, the American Revolution is not a fixed event in our history. It plays out daily, in courtrooms, communities, classrooms and movements.
For 250 years, people who have been repeatedly excluded from America’s promise have insisted on their rightful and equal place. In this way, our nation is still being founded, not by the people who invoke the Declaration, but by those who test its meaning every day.
We must now insist, as Freeman insisted, that our founding words be made real for every American. She didn’t wait for permission to belong. She claimed her place by testing the idea of a nation against her reality — and compelled its authors to answer her.
The question for us at this milestone in our democracy is whether we are willing to be the kind of founders who do the same.
After reading, what came up for you? What has shaped your sense of belonging in this country — or challenged it? Send a note or voice memo.
Your response may help shape future editions of our Revolutionary project. I really look forward to hearing from you.
NB: originally this post was published under Sarah’s byline. This post is by CarrieS.
On May 1, you can fight fascism by staying home with a good book. A coalition of organizations across the country is calling for a general strike. This strike calls for no school, no work, and no shopping.
May Day Strong is made up of a coalition including but not limited to Indivisible, 50501, Sunrise Movement, and MoveOn. Many of the coalitions joining May Day Strong are local, so in addition to visiting the May Day Strong website, you should also keep an eye on your local groups.
In addition to withdrawing your labor and your commerce, you can join your community to make the strike even more visible. There will be a lot of demonstrations around the country and local sources are often the best places to get information about them. Because this is a one-day strike, it’s important to be as visible as possible and demonstrate just how many workers, students, and shoppers are on the side of democracy.
Here’s what the strike demands (taken from the main webpage):
That we tax the rich so our families, not their fortunes, come first,
No ICE. No war. No private army serving authoritarian power.
Expand democracy. Hands off our vote.
How is this relevant to the SBTB community? In addition to the fact that we support the causes that this strike promotes, strikes are an important part of feminist history. Women have been crucial in the success of the labor movement in the U.S.A., as leaders, strikers, volunteers, and educators. Here a just a few examples:
I’ve previously written about Dolores Huerta, who co-founded the United Farm Workers Association.
Our Kickass Woman coming up in May will be Emma Tenayuca, a Mexican-American woman from Texas, who led a strike of 12,000 pecan shellers in 1938.
The Mink Brigade was the name given to wealthy society women who supported the garment workers’ strikes in the early 1900’s. By marching and picketing along with workers, they lent prestige and respectability to the cause, and their presence tended to reduce violence from police.
Lucy Parsons
Lucy Parsons led a march of 80,000 people in 1886 in the first May Day Parade. Among other causes, she championed the 8-hour workday.
Ai-jen Poo has been organizing domestic workers since 1996 and is currently the president of National Domestic Workers Alliance and the director of Caring Across Generations. Domestic workers had been considered too difficult to organize, making Ai-jen Poo’s success all the more remarkable.
My personal favorite, Emma Goldman, was a Russian Jewish immigrant who was described as “The most dangerous woman in America.” Despite dedicating her life to her work, she always prioritized joy. She is credited as saying, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution,” but what she actually said was: I did not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for anarchism, for release and freedom from conventions and prejudice, should demand the denial of life and joy. . . If it meant that, I did not want it.
I’m closing with my favorite version of “Bread and Roses,” performed by Judy Collins and choir. In 1911, Helen Todd, a suffragist and labor rights activist, used the phrase “Bread and roses” in one of her speeches:
Not at once; but woman is the mothering element in the world and her vote will go toward helping forward the time when life’s Bread, which is home, shelter and security, and the Roses of life, music, education, nature and books, shall be the heritage of every child that is born in the country, in the government of which she has a voice.
Rose Schneiderman
Rose Schneiderman, a remarkable woman who was born in Poland, came to America as a child, and campaigned for suffrage as well as improved safety condition for workers, used the phrase in her speeches, including this one from 1912:
What the woman who labors wants is the right to live, not simply exist — the right to life as the rich woman has the right to life, and the sun and music and art. You have nothing that the humblest worker has not a right to have also. The worker must have bread, but she must have roses, too. Help, you women of privilege, give her the ballot to fight with.
In 1911, James Oppenheim wrote a poem inspired by the slogan. Mimi Farina set to music in 1974. The song will forever be associated with the Lawrence Textile Strike, also known as the Bread and Roses Strike, of 1912. This strike was largely organized and conducted by women, who, along with children, made up the majority of the workforce in the mills.
Women have always been crucial to the success of strikes in America and worldwide. Why stop now? On May 1, protest, march, or stay home and read, but if you are able, join the strike.
No work, no school, and no shopping: by ceasing these three actions, we honor our past and our future.
Judge’s repeal of Trump ban on gender-affirming care for children ‘a meaningful win for patients’, experts say
A federal judge overturned the Trump administration’s ban on gender-affirming care for children on Saturday, decrying Robert F Kennedy Jr’s “wanton disregard” for the law that “causes very real harm to very real people”.
It’s another loss for Kennedy’s agenda as secretary for the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the second Trump administration – an agenda that has focused on restricting healthcare, including vaccines, abortion and gender-affirming care.
A different legal decision recently halted the agency’s attempt to raze vaccine recommendations, and new research and regulatory decisions have undermined controversial announcements by Trump and Kennedy on autism.
“Unserious leaders are unsafe,” Mustafa T Kasubhai, a US district judge in Oregon wrote in the opening to his final judgment on the gender-affirming care case, a 49-page decision that excoriated the administration for disregarding the law and overreach in its regulations. The judge also barred the administration from implementing similar policies under any other names to restrict care nationally by withholding funding.
Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, called the ruling “incredibly powerful” and “far-reaching”.
“It enjoins them from doing anything to interfere with the authority of states to regulate medical practice,” Minter said.
For healthcare providers and families who have been in limbo for months, “this is a huge, huge step forward”, said Jan Oosting, an associate professor of nursing at City University of New York (Cuny).
Khadijah Silver, director of gender justice and health equity at Lawyers for Good Government, who uses they and them pronouns, said they were “so overwhelmingly ecstatic” and “couldn’t actually process” that the ruling “was real life”.
In December, Kennedy announced that any health system providing pediatric gender-affirming care would be suspended from receiving Medicaid and Medicare funding. Medicaid and Medicare would also be banned from paying for any gender-affirming care, he said.
As nearly all major hospitals and health systems rely on Medicaid and Medicare, the proposed rule amounted to a ban on gender-affirming care for children, setting a precedent for the government limiting healthcare for any patients.
At the same time, Kennedy issued a declaration invoking a regulation to allow the HHS to exclude healthcare providers from Medicaid and Medicare when the providers no longer “meet professionally recognized standards of healthcare”. Unusually, the new rule was enforced immediately, without going through the usual rule-making process, including public comment.
Gender-affirming care often includes puberty blockers and hormones, but can also involve psychosocial support and, very rarely and after extensive medical consultation, surgery. It is widely agreed to be essential to the health of gender-expansive individuals. The Kennedy declaration claimed pediatric gender-affirming care for minors was “neither safe nor effective” and therefore fell below these standards.
Declarations like these are meant to be used for emergencies when the HHS needs to communicate the steps it’s taking to protect public health, Silver said, who added: “They have never once been abused in such a fashion to go against standards of medical care that are widely accepted … let alone to override the state’s primary authority in the regulation of medicine.”
Minter said: “This was an attempt by the federal government to impose a national ban and usurp the authority of states to regulate medical practice within their borders.”
Within eight days, the HHS general counsel, Mike Stuart, began referring health systems to the HHS office of inspector general for violating the new policy. The decision included several screenshots of posts from Stuart celebrating referrals of health systems for violating the rule.
At least 40 health systems have said the threat of losing federal funding is why they stopped providing care in recent weeks. Oregon and 21 other states sued the administration. In response, the US government argued that the Kennedy declaration was merely an individual’s personal opinion.
When the judge overturned the declaration, he called this argument “a bald-faced lie” and an attempt to “bully or gaslight” the court. The judge said the Kennedy declaration was “clearly unlawful” because it violated administrative law and the Medicare statute that forbids federal officials from exercising “any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided”.
Following the judge’s preliminary injunction against the new rule in March, Children’s Minnesota began offering gender-affirming care again.
When another health system, Children’s Hospital Colorado, ceased care, patients and families sued the hospital. The case is currently before the Colorado supreme court, where judges have expressed concerns that forcing the hospital to resume care could bring federal backlash, endangering even more children. Silver noted that reversing the federal ban now could change the outcome of that case.
“This should be a huge relief and a tremendous source of protection” for families and children whose care was delayed or disrupted, Minter said. When health systems announced they would comply in advance with the directive and stop providing gender-affirming care, often effective immediately, it was “shocking and appalling behavior”, he said, but this decision “should remove that fear” and allow the care to resume.
Oosting noted that the “biggest source of fear, which was the threat of losing Medicare and Medicaid funding, is removed now, so I think that there will be reassessment by each individual hospital of what programs are going to be put back into play, what programs will have to be modified”. That’s especially true in states like New York that have laws against discrimination in healthcare, she said.
The proposed rule preventing Medicaid and Medicare from paying for gender-affirming care is also blocked by this decision, Minter said. The rule did not come before the judge because it hasn’t been finalized, but Minter reads the ruling as “effectively prohibiting those rules from being enforced as well”.
Challenges still exist for children who need gender-affirming care but may not be able to access it.
“Although this removes a major federal barrier, it doesn’t erase those state-level restrictions,” Oosting said. Some states have introduced bans on the care. In Ohio, the state’s supreme court will rule on whether a ban is constitutional in coming months.
Some families in states with bans or gaps in healthcare are once again able to access care by moving or traveling out of state – a “burdensome”, disruptive and expensive process, but an “important” one, Minter said.
Overturning the ban was a “meaningful win for patients and providers and, honestly, for healthcare integrity in the US”, Oosting said. It lessens fear and uncertainty around seeking and providing care, and it shows that “major changes in healthcare policy have to follow the law,” Oosting said – which has repercussions for other politicized changes to health regulations, like limitations on abortion. It was “a powerful tool to stop the federal government from that type of attempted overreach” in healthcare, Minter said.
The decision reinforces the fact that “the federal government can’t use Medicare and Medicaid restriction as a blunt-force instrument to control care and access to people’s bodies,” Oosting said. It’s significant not just for making gender-affirming care available again but also because it sets “the rules of the road – how far the federal government can go in terms of influencing what’s happening in a patient exam room”, she said.
Scottie's Playtime 