Sneaky New Move By Shameless Republicans Puts Millions Of American Lives In Danger
Not all that long ago, children like Claire would have grown up in cold, sterile institutions instead of at home with their families. That's because most private insurance plans, including Claire's, don't cover many of the medical costs and supports disabled people, including children, need to survive, attend school, live at home and be an active part of their communities.
It is only because of access to Medicaid that Claire, and countless other disabled children across the country, have been able to grow up at home with their families, where they are wanted and loved. Medicaid has helped pay for the bed Claire needs to safely sleep at home, the wheelchair she uses for trips to the park and the hearing aid she uses to hear what others are saying.
This story is part of HuffPost's commitment to fearlessly covering what's happening in Washington D.C. — and how it affects all of us. You can support our work and .
Claire is nonverbal, and Medicaid has paid for the assistive communication device she uses to let us know, in simple terms, what's on her mind. Medicaid has paid for the chair Claire uses to keep her upright when she's eating and the straps that keep her safe in our car now that she's outgrown a traditional car seat. Without Medicaid, Claire wouldn't have access to the countless occupational, physical, speech, audiology and behavioral therapies that allow her to attend school and become as independent as possible, even if that looks a little different for her than it does for most people. Medicaid has allowed her to face countless health scares and accessibility barriers head-on and emerge with dignity.
Crucially, Medicaid pays for the home nursing and personal care support that Claire needs daily to help her get dressed, bathe, eat, manage her medication, and ensure that she doesn't fall and injure herself or wander off. It is only because of this support that her father and I can work, cook family meals, do laundry, and attend her younger siblings' soccer games and school plays. Without Medicaid, this type of home care would be out of reach for our family.
Despite evidence showing that the type of home care Claire receives saves money and has better outcomes, Republicans are trying to remove funding for life-saving, life-enriching care — the same care Claire and others like her need to stay healthy and at home where they belong.
In the clearest sign that Republicans know what they are doing is not just wrong but shameful, they waited until late at night on Mother's Day to release the text of Trump's devastating 'big, beautiful bill' that would gut Medicaid, hoping it would go unnoticed. Then, continuing the pattern of wanting to avoid attention, the GOP convened a meeting under the cover of darkness to debate the bill, whose funding cuts likely would take Medicaid away from my daughter and millions of other people with disabilities who rely on the essential program. Despite the gravity of the late-night meeting for millions of Americans, at least one GOP congressman slept through part of the discussion, seemingly unbothered by the deadly consequences for constituents in his district and beyond, including my own daughter.
Millions of other Americans who get health insurance through Medicare and the Affordable Care Act also stand to lose access to health care under this bill. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that if passed, the 'big, beautiful bill' would result in 14 million Americans losing their health insurance. Among them are the most vulnerable members of our society: the chronically ill, the elderly and the disabled. Without sufficient Medicaid funding, hospitals across the country, particularly in rural areas, will be forced to shut their doors.
Moreover, Republicans aren't even pretending that any of these cuts — these deaths, these lives shattered — will reduce the deficit. After cutting through the meaningless rhetoric, their goal is clear — they are destroying lives to provide tax cuts to the very rich. It's not surprising they are choosing to conduct such business in the shadows, away from the public eye, but that doesn't mean it's not happening, and it's keeping worried moms like me up at night. It doesn't mean the bill's devastating impact will go unnoticed, either.
Democrats, in the light of day, are sharing stories of families like mine. It's a sharp contrast to the sneaky, late-night maneuverings coming from the other side of the aisle. A few weeks ago, my family joined New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) on the Capitol steps to discuss what cuts in Medicaid would mean for Claire and other disabled children. In the sunshine, from dawn to dusk, they listened to the stories of families who depend on Medicaid. Sen. Booker took my daughter's hand, let her rub his head 'for luck' and broadcast to the entire world why he was fighting for Claire, because she deserves a future. This is how politicians and decent people act when they are truly acting on the conviction of their beliefs, without the need to cower and hide, hoping no one pays attention to late-night, closed-door dealings.
Disability activists like Elena Hung, my dear friend and co-founder of Little Lobbyists, spent the night at the Capitol in the darkness and rain, telling her story to anyone who would listen. Hung had just returned to her home near Washington, D.C., after spending several days at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, where her daughter Xiomara was being treated for complications related to a kidney transplant she had last year, thanks to Medicaid. Democratic Congresswoman Katherine Clark (Mass.) ventured outside in the rain to meet with Hung to literally 'shine a light' on what Republicans are trying to keep hidden in the shadows.
Booker, Jeffries and Clark all vowed to bring the stories of Claire, Xiomara and other disabled children back to their Republican colleagues. Yet, it wasn't enough. Once again, in the middle of the night, House Republicans met while most Americans slept. This time to hold a vote on the bill that would alter the course of my daughter's life. While most GOP members hoped that their votes would go unnoticed by their constituents, Elena and I, along with the parents of other disabled children who rely on Medicaid, texted throughout the night, wondering how the so-called party of 'family values' could be so cruel. How could they say they want to encourage families to have more children at the same time they used their power, their votes, to remove the safety net that ensures these children will be cared for if they need help?
Claire, and the 14 million other Americans who stand to lose access to life-saving care and the supports that keep them at home, only need four Republican senators to stand up and say, this is enough, to declare, in the daylight, that they are unwilling to sacrifice American lives for tax cuts to the very wealthy, to acknowledge that this bill does nothing to reduce 'waste and fraud.' We hope they are out there, ready to do the right thing.
Jamie Davis Smith is a writer, attorney and mother of four who lives in Washington, D.C. Follow her on Instagram.
Do you have a compelling personal story you'd like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we're looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@huffpost.com.
After My Wife Died, I Found A 4-Word Text Message In Her Phone That Hit Me Like A Sledgehammer
Trump Is Waging A New Kind Of War. It Could Put Your Family In Danger.
I Thought My Husband's Ex Hated Me. Then She Called And Asked A Question I Never Saw Coming.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time Magazine
17 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Republicans Scrap Cuts to PEPFAR Anti-AIDS Program
Senate Republicans reached an agreement with the White House on Tuesday to preserve funding for a flagship global HIV and AIDS relief program known as PEPFAR, backing off a proposed $400 million cut that had drawn sharp opposition from within their own ranks and threatened to derail President Donald Trump's sweeping package of spending rescissions. The deal would shield PEPFAR from the Trump Administration's plan to cancel billions in previously approved but unspent federal funds. The decision came after several Republican senators objected to including the widely celebrated HIV/AIDS initiative in a list of programs targeted for clawbacks under Trump's campaign to root out what he has called 'waste, fraud and abuse.' Russ Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, discussed the proposal during a closed-door lunch with GOP senators on Tuesday, telling reporters afterwards that backing off the PEPFAR cuts was a minor change to the bill. 'From a $9.4 billion package to a $9 billion package, that's something that's very exciting for the American taxpayer,' he said. 'Big chunks of this proposal are not falling out.' The scaled-down measure would still claw back unused funds from USAID and public broadcasting. But the move to preserve PEPFAR funding may avoid a Republican revolt, particularly from key lawmakers like Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee and had emerged as a leading critic of the proposed cut. 'I'm very pleased that the funding for PEPFAR has been preserved,' Collins told reporters on Tuesday. 'This is something I've worked hard to protect from the beginning.' Still, she said she remained undecided on whether to support the final bill, pointing to 'other problematic parts of the rescissions package,' such as cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Launched in 2003 by President George W. Bush, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is widely considered one of America's most consequential programs in Africa, credited with saving over 25 million lives and scaling back the AIDS epidemic. The bipartisan program has long enjoyed support across party lines, and its proposed defunding sparked fierce backlash not only from Democrats but also from GOP members. 'There was a lot of interest from our members on doing something on PEPFAR,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday. 'That's reflected in the substitute.' White House officials had previously justified the cut by citing claims from some social conservatives that PEPFAR funds were supporting abortion services overseas after a report found that 21 abortions were performed in Mozambique, where abortion is legal, under the program. Republicans said those abortions violated the Helms Amendment, which restricts the use of foreign aid funds to pay for abortions. 'It is essential that what appears to be an isolated incident in Mozambique does not undermine the overwhelming success and integrity of PEPFAR's mission," Democratic Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Lois Frankel of Florida said in a statement earlier this year. While the news on Tuesday was welcoming for supporters of PEPFAR, the program has still seen significant disruptions as the Trump Administration guts foreign aid programs, including USAID, which was PEPFAR's main implementing agency. The State Department is seeking $2.9 billion in funding to continue HIV-AIDS programs in the next fiscal year—far lower than PEPFAR's current budget of more than $4 billion. The rescissions package, a Trump Administration initiative under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), aims to cancel previously appropriated but unspent federal funds. The package passed the House last month by a narrow 214–212 margin and would need to be reapproved by the lower chamber if modified in the Senate. Though supporters have billed the measure as a symbolic gesture of budget-cutting resolve, the actual fiscal impact of the package is small. The $9 billion in rescinded funds represents less than 0.3% of the $3.4 trillion tax-and-spending bill Trump signed earlier this month—which he has dubbed his 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' Even with the PEPFAR change, Vought confirmed the package would still include $1.1 billion in cuts to public broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, along with another $8.3 billion in cuts for the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID. Conservatives have long targeted the CPB, which supports PBS and NPR, accusing it of liberal bias. But some rural-state senators have expressed concern that defunding the agency could devastate small public radio and television stations that rely on federal support for as much as 30% of their budgets. Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota, for instance, secured a side agreement with the White House to redirect unallocated funds toward tribal broadcasters to alleviate some of those concerns. Still, some lawmakers remain uneasy about the lack of clarity surrounding the cuts. 'It's unclear to me how you get to $9 billion,' Collins said, noting that the White House has not provided a detailed breakdown of which programs would be protected and which would be slashed. Collins showed reporters a 1992 rescission message from President George H.W. Bush as an example of how such proposals should be detailed—comparing it unfavorably to the Trump Administration's request. With procedural votes expected to begin late Tuesday and a marathon voting session on amendments scheduled for Wednesday, the coming days will test whether the Trump Administration's scaled-back proposal can overcome internal divisions—and whether the President's threats to withhold his endorsement of any Republican who votes against his rescissions package will sway reluctant senators.


New York Post
38 minutes ago
- New York Post
Federal judge reverses rule that would have removed medical debt from credit reports
A federal judge in Texas removed a Biden-era finalized ruled by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would have removed medical debt from credit reports. U.S. District Court Judge Sean Jordan of Texas's Eastern District, who was appointed by Trump, found on Friday that the rule exceeded the CFPB 's authority. Jordan said that the CFPB is not permitted to remove medical debt from credit reports according to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which protects information collected by consumer reporting agencies. Advertisement U.S. District Court Judge Sean Jordan eliminated a rule enforced by the Biden administration from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would have gotten rid of medical debt from credit reports. DC Studio – Removing medical debts from consumer credit reports was expected to increase the credit scores of millions of families by an average of 20 points, the bureau said. The CFPB states that its research has shown outstanding healthcare claims to be a poor predictor of an individual's ability to repay a loan, yet they are often used to deny mortgage applications. Advertisement The three national credit reporting agencies — Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion — announced last year that they would remove medical collections under $500 from U.S. consumer credit reports. The CFPB's rule was projected to ban all outstanding medical bills from appearing on credit reports and prohibit lenders from using the information. The Trump-appointed judge said the CFPB can't get rid of medical debt from credit reports as part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. AP The CFPB estimated the rule would have removed $49 million in medical debt from the credit reports of 15 million Americans. Advertisement According to the agency, one in five Americans has at least one medical debt collection account on their credit reports, and over half of the collection entries on credit reports are for medical debts. The problem disproportionately affects people of color, the CFPB has found: 28% of Black people and 22% of Latino people in the U.S. carry medical debt versus 17% of white people. The CFPB was established by Congress after the 2008 financial crisis to monitor credit card companies, mortgage providers, debt collectors and other segments of the consumer finance industry. Earlier this year, the Trump administration requested that the agency halt nearly all its operations, effectively shutting it down.


The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hawley seeks to repeal Medicaid cuts he voted for
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) wants to repeal parts of the 'big, beautiful' law he just voted for. Hawley on Tuesday introduced new legislation to roll back some of the Medicaid cuts that were included in the massive tax cut law, which passed the Senate two weeks ago and was signed into law by President Trump on July 4. Hawley's bill would repeal provisions that limit states' ability to levy taxes on health providers to receive more money from the federal government. The bill also seeks to repeal a cap on state-directed payments, which allows states to direct how providers are paid by privately run managed care plans. 'Now is the time to prevent any future cuts to Medicaid from going into effect,' Hawley said in a statement. 'I want to see Medicaid reductions stopped and rural hospitals fully funded permanently,' he added. Hawley's bill would boost a $50 billion fund aimed at helping rural hospitals by adding an additional $50 billion, and extending it from five years to ten. Experts have said $50 billion isn't nearly enough to make up for the impact of the cuts. According to a KFF analysis, federal Medicaid spending in rural areas is estimated to decline by $155 billion over a decade because of the bill. Hawley was one of the most outspoken senators regarding Medicaid cuts in the runup to voting on Trump's domestic policy law. He repeatedly said he wanted to protect Medicaid and warned against making any cuts to the program. But the legislation he ultimately voted for cut about $1 trillion from Medicaid. While most of the cuts won't happen immediately, rural facilities say they likely will have to make difficult financial decisions about which services they can afford to keep and which may need to be cut.