Advocates underscore need for diapers among families in Connecticut
The Elizabeth Celotto Childcare Center at Wilbur Cross High School in New Haven provides care for 19 families, many of them teen parents.
Australian woman unknowingly gives birth to a stranger's baby after IVF clinic error
'Any teen parent or parenting teen is able to come to our center, enroll their child at 6 weeks, all the way to age 3 and receive services,' Robin Moore Evans, who is the executive director of student, parenting and family services at the center, said.
Among those services are diapers, which former client Sierra Ransom says can be costly.
'A box of diapers is about $30 and you get maybe 70 in a box and that's nice because there's 30 days in a month, however, that would be the assumption if changed once a day,' she said.
The Diaper Bank of Connecticut says it has been working for several years to expand Medicaid to cover diapers, and this year, state legislators passed a bill that did just that. However, due to funding uncertainty at the federal level, it's been stalled.
'The need has increased. Our resources to meet it have not, and so we're looking for the state to make an investment,' CEO Janet Stolfi Alfano said.
At most childcare centers, parents have to drop off a supply of diapers for their children. If they don't have that support, for many parents, it might mean they have to miss work.
A University of Connecticut study from 2018 showed more than 56 per cent of parents using childcare missed work 4 days a month on average because of not having enough diapers.
Ransom says that without the support she had from Celotto, she wouldn't be where she is today.
'It really changed my life because it allowed me to just focus on being the mother I needed to be to my child, and being a great student,' she said, adding, she is now working on getting her Master's Degree.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RBC Sees Limited Exposure to Medicaid Risks for Tenet (THC), Reiterated $189 Target
Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE:THC) is one of the 20 undervalued momentum stocks that are taking off. On June 11, RBC Capital analyst Ben Hendrix reiterated a Buy rating on Tenet Healthcare (THC), maintaining a price target of $189. The reaffirmation follows recent volatility in hospital stocks triggered by a White House memo regarding Medicaid supplemental payment programs. While the memo raised concerns, particularly around potential reductions in state-directed payments, Hendrix views the market reaction as overdone. He notes that the language in the memo aligns with that in the current budget bill that allow for the continuation, or 'grandfathering,' of existing programs. Therefore, in his view, the memo does not introduce any new or material headwinds for hospital earnings. A successful healthcare provider smiling confidently in a modern hospital facility. Hendrix sees the pullback in hospital names as a buying opportunity, especially for acute care providers like HCA Healthcare, Community Health, Ardent Health, and, notably, Tenet. He believes Tenet is well-positioned due to its relatively lower exposure to the Medicaid-directed payment programs that have come under scrutiny. This could help the company remain insulated, and do relatively better compared to its peers. Therefore, Tenet remains the analyst's top pick in the hospital sector. He believes that the recent weakness in the stock offers a more attractive entry point for long-term investors. Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE:THC) is a diversified healthcare services company that operates a nationwide care delivery network, including ambulatory surgery centers, surgical hospitals, and a national portfolio of acute care and specialty hospitals. While we acknowledge the potential of THC as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and 10 Best Tech Stocks to Buy According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How an empty North Carolina rural hospital explains a GOP senator's vote against Trump's tax bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — Though patients don't rush through the doors of this emergency room anymore, an empty hospital in Williamston, North Carolina, offers an evocative illustration of why Republican Sen. Thom Tillis would buck his party leaders to vote down President Donald Trump's signature domestic policy package. Martin General is one of a dozen hospitals that have closed in North Carolina over the last two decades. This is a problem that hospital systems and health experts warn may only worsen if the legislation passes with its $1 trillion cuts to the Medicaid program and new restrictions on enrollment in the coverage. Tillis' home state showcases the financial impact that more Medicaid dollars can have on hospitals in rural and poor regions throughout the country. Tillis said in a floor speech on Sunday, explaining his vote, that the GOP bill will siphon billions of dollars from Medicaid recipients and the health system in his state. 'Republicans are about to make a mistake on health care and betraying a promise,' said Tillis, who has announced he will not seek re-election because of his opposition to the bill. Along with Republicans Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky, he joined all Democrats in voting against the bill. Tillis later accused the president and his colleagues of not fully grasping the full impact of the bill: 'We owe it to the states to do the work to understand how these proposals affect them. How hard is that? I did it.' For Martin General Hospital in Williamston, North Carolina's decision to expand Medicaid came just too late. The emergency room abruptly closed its doors in the eastern North Carolina county that's home to more than 20,000 people in August 2023. The closest hospital is now about a 30-minute drive away. Then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper faulted the state's failure to expand the Medicaid program to more low-income adults sooner to prevent Martin General's closure. North Carolina began offering Medicaid expansion to its residents in December. Today, more than 673,000 people are receiving this coverage. Now, Tillis and other state officials are worried the Republican bill, which will limit how much Medicaid money is sent back to providers, threatens funds for hospitals in their state again. And it could trigger a state Medicaid law that would close down North Carolina's otherwise successful expansion of coverage unless state legislators make changes or locate funds. The Medicaid dollars that Republicans seek to scale back in their bill have helped buttress the remaining rural hospitals across North Carolina, said Jay Ludlam, a deputy health secretary who leads North Carolina Medicaid. 'This has been a lifeline for our rural hospitals here in North Carolina and has helped provide and keep them open,' Ludlam said. 'Rural hospitals play an integral role in communities both as a point of access for health care but also for the local economy because of the contributions that those hospital and hospital systems make to those communities.' Republicans have responded to concerns with a provision that will provide $10 billion annually to rural hospitals for five years, or $50 billion in total. Around the country, 200 hospitals have closed or shuttered emergency services in the last two decades, many of them in red states across the southeastern and midwestern U.S. States that have declined to expand Medicaid coverage, the health insurance program for the poorest of Americans, have seen the closures accelerate. Tennessee, for example, has shed 500 beds since 2014, when a federal law first allowed states to expand Medicaid coverage to a greater share of low-income people. It's one of 10 states that has not expanded Medicaid. More than 300 hospitals could be at risk for closure if the Republicans' bill becomes law, an analysis by the Cecil G. Sheps Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found last month. The center tracks rural hospital closures. 'Substantial cuts to Medicaid or Medicare payments could increase the number of unprofitable rural hospitals and elevate their risk of financial distress,' the analysis concluded. 'In response, hospitals may be forced to reduce service lines, convert to a different type of health care facility, or close altogether.' — Associated Press writer Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina, contributed to this report.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Republican spending bill could deal a huge blow to abortion access in California
Access to abortion in California could be substantially reduced if the House passes President Donald Trump's budget bill. The legislation, now awaiting a final vote in the House, would eliminate federal Medicaid funding for any type of medical care to organizations that perform abortions. An earlier version of the bill would have cut the funds off for 10 years, but lawmakers supporting the measure limited it to the 2025-26 fiscal year before the latest vote. Even so, Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, says it may have to close about one-third of its 600 U.S. clinics if it lost all $700 million of the federal funds it receives annually from Medicaid and the Title X family-planning program. Planned Parenthood says its 115 clinics in California serve about one-third of its patients nationwide — nearly 1 million per year, about 80% of whom are low-income patients on Medi-Cal. Clinics that remain open, for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, might have to limit their services without increased funding from private donors or from state and local governments. That means cancers would go undetected, sexually transmitted infections would be untreated and birth control would be less available. 'The public health infrastructure of California's most vulnerable communities will break down,' said Jodi Hicks, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. Shelby McMichael, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson, said Wednesday that the organization 'worked with the state to ensure that these reproductive health services were in the state budget' for 2025-26, which includes funding for the clinics. But McMichael told the Chronicle that the federal legislation was 'effectively a back-door abortion ban, even in a state like California where voters have affirmed that it's a constitutional right.' She was referring to a ballot measure approved by two-thirds of the state's voters in November 2022, five months after the Supreme Court repealed the nationwide constitutional right to abortion that it had declared in 1973. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the congressional action was 'a major step toward ending the forced taxpayer funding of the Big Abortion industry — a crucial victory in the fight against abortion, America's leading cause of death.' Congress cut off federal abortion funding for low-income women in the Medicaid program with the Hyde Amendment in 1977. A 1981 California Supreme Court decision has enabled the state to replace the federal dollars with its own funds for Medi-Cal abortions. California's laws would not be changed by the cutoff of federal funding to abortion providers. But by forcing shutdowns of abortion clinics and reductions in services from those that remain open, the congressional legislation would make it harder for many Californians to find abortion providers. 'Medi-Cal patients will have less places to turn for care, for any type of reproductive health care services, including abortion,' said Melissa Goodman, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy at UCLA Law School. 'The federal effort to defund those who provide abortion services is a key tactic for restricting abortion access in states that protect abortion by radically shrinking the pool of abortion providers who can afford to continue operating.' Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor and author of several books on reproductive law, said some health care providers in California may have to stop providing abortions because of the loss of funding. Or, she said, they 'may have to scale back other services, their wait times may get longer or they may close.' In a separate action in March, the Trump administration ordered withdrawal of federal funding to California and other states for Title X, which pays for family planning programs for low-income residents and those who lack insurance. Those programs would have had to close without state funding, which was provided in the newly enacted 2025-26 budget. But on Wednesday, Essential Access Health, a nonprofit that administers Title X grants in California, said it had been notified by the Trump administration's Department of Health and Human Services that the state would receive $12.2 million in Title X funding this year, about $1 million less than last year's family-planning funds. McMichael, of Planned Parenthood, said the state budget also includes funding to make up for the federal reduction. 'We recognize that this may be only a temporary reprieve,' as the administration could change course again in the coming months, said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, a spokesperson for Essential Access Health. She said advocates of the funding have sued the Trump administration in federal court in Washington, D.C. over nationwide reductions in Title X funding. Federal courts blocked a similar action by Trump's first administration in 2019. The congressional budget vote comes in the wake of the latest legal victory for abortion opponents, a Supreme Court decision allowing South Carolina to eliminate all Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood or any other health care provider that also performs abortions. The state had banned the funding in 2018, saying funds provided for other services could be diverted by the providers to pay for abortions. A federal appeals court said the cutoff violated a 1965 federal law that requires states to allow Medicaid patients to receive services at any qualified institution. But in a 6-3 ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood on June 26, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said the law could be enforced only by the federal government, not by private parties like Planned Parenthood or the patient who joined the suit. Although the ruling applied only to states with laws against abortion funding, it could also affect states like California, which has provided abortions and other reproductive care for women who have been denied treatment in their home state.
