A teenage trans athlete is fleeing the country with her mother after experiencing severe bullying and harassment by right-wing media, fellow athletes, and politicians.
11th grader Ada Gallagher currently runs on the girls’ track team at Portland, Oregon’s McDaniel High School. She first became part of the national debate over trans athletes in 2023 when she won the state championship in the 200-meter race. A report from that time said the crowd met her victory with a chorus of boos, a sentiment that quickly spread across the country as the anti-trans right got its hands on the story.
Gallagher, who now competes with a security guard by her side, has endured years of death threats and vile insults, and she has also been a focal point of conservative media outlets.
Most recently, a video of Gallagher winning a March 19 400-meter race in a landslide was shared widely among conservatives. She also won the 200-meter race at the same meet.
Prominent anti-trans activist Riley Gaines – who has built an entire career off of tying for 5th place with a trans athlete three years ago – shared the video on X and misgendered Gallagher, writing, “Does he have no shame? Do his PARENTS have no shame?”
Gallagher’s mother, Carolyn, was not able to celebrate her daughter’s win like any mother should, as she knew the hate it would bring. She told Oregon Live she thought, “I know the optics of this are going to be horrible.”
But she wished people understood that the meet consisted of a total of three schools and that neither of the other two had strong competitors in the race Gallagher won so easily. She also wished people knew that, despite what Fox News claimed, Gallagher did not set a season record in the 400-meter race and actually ran a massive five seconds slower than she did in the same event at state the previous year, where she got second place.
For as long as she could, Gallagher tried to rise above it all, to keep her head in the game and just do what she loves: run.
But it has finally become too much.
“When they call me a predator, that’s the worst one. I hate it so much,” Gallagher toldOregon Live.
Only six days after Gallagher’s victory in March, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights began investigating Portland Public Schools and the Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA), alleging the organizations are violating Title IX by allowing trans athletes to participate in sports on the teams that align with their gender (OSAA policy states it “endeavors to allow students to participate for the athletic or activity program of their consistently asserted gender identity while providing a fair and safe environment for all students”).
A statement from Portland Public Schools Superintendent Kimberlee Armstrong in the wake of the lawsuit expressed a dedication to protecting vulnerable students.
“I stand firm in our legal responsibilities, and I deeply value every student’s right to be treated with dignity, safety, and respect. PPS is in full compliance with Oregon state law, which may differ from federal guidance. We are actively working with our legal and state partners to navigate this complex legal landscape.”
“While I am limited in what I can share at this time due to the sensitive nature of the matter and our duty to protect student privacy, I want to be clear: my commitment—and our district’s commitment—to doing what’s right for all students, especially those most vulnerable, remains unwavering.”
But Gallagher and her mother hope all the noise will quiet down once they leave for Canada, where Carolyn was born and raised, despite the fact that Gallagher is devastated to leave her team, her friends, and especially, her girlfriend.
As Oregon Live states, Gallagher “joined the track team last spring not because she believed she would win, not out of some desire to manipulate the system and compete where she could win, but because her friends urged her to. Because they wanted her there.”
Now the team captain, she says the team is “the only place where people really know me.”
“I think people think I want to be this spotlight for trans people,” she said. “Not at all. I just like running.”
While competing is what also leads her to endure all this hate, she said it all goes away during the 23 or so seconds she is running.
“You hear the feet around you hit the ground,” she said. “Senses are heightened. There’s nothing to think about, it’s just track.”
Democrats took to the floor of the Texas House on Saturday to label a ban on clubs that support gay teens the work of “monsters” and to say the ban endangers children and strips them of their dignity.
The Democratic representatives grew emotional in opposition to a bill that would ban K-12 student clubs focused on sexuality and gender identity.
Senate Bill 12, authored by Sen. Brandon Creighton, won final legislative passage Saturday after lawmakers in both chambers adopted the conference committee reports that specifically clarified that schools will be banned from authorizing or sponsoring student clubs based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Backers proclaimed that the bill enshrines a parent’s rights and puts the parent not just at the table, but at the head of the table where the child’s best interests are decided. They also targeted diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, claiming that they project ideologies on students and put too much focus on race, sexuality and gender identity instead of the quality of education.
Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, emphasized that these clubs exist because of a long history of oppression against the LGBTQ+ community. He warned against demonizing students and teachers for discussing gender and sexuality.
“The real monsters are not kids trying to figure out who they are,” Wu said during the House discussion. “The monsters are not the teachers who love them and encourage them and support them. They are not the books that provide them with some amount of comfort and information. The real monsters are here.”
Lawmakers shared personal stories about LGBTQ+ youth. Rep. Rafael Anchía said his daughter was a vice president of a pride club at her school. He stressed that these clubs “are no more about sex than 4-H or ROTC or the basketball team.”
“It wasn’t a sex club,” Anchía said. “They’d get together and they’d watch movies. They’d color. They’d go to musicals. It was about a kid who felt weird who found her people and everything about it was good. I don’t know why grown-ups in this body are so triggered with my daughter getting together with her classmates in a school-sponsored activity.”
Anchía also told the Texas Tribune he “didn’t sign up for five anti-LGBT bills this session.”
Rep. Jolanda Jones, D-Houston, shared her experience as a Black woman and a lesbian, saying she didn’t come out until the age of 50 because she knew “the world wasn’t safe.” She warned that banning LGBTQ+ clubs could worsen bullying.
“And we have the nerve to say that we care about mental health,” Jones said. “We’ve passed bill after bill about access to care, about youth suicide, about prevention and treatment. But this bill makes kids sicker, sadder, more alone. This bill doesn’t protect children. It endangers them. It doesn’t give parents more rights. It strips children of their dignity.”
SB 12 is often referred to as the “Parental Bill of Rights” because it claims to give parents more control over their children’s schools. But Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Driftwood, addressed those who are “afraid that your kids or your grandkids might grow up queer,” warning that the bill could harm family relationships.
“Getting silence in schools from the LGBTQ community, which is what this bill is designed to do, will not stop your kids from being gay,” Zwiener said. “It will just make them afraid to come out. It will make them afraid to live their lives as their full selves. It will make them afraid to tell you when they figure out that they’re LGBTQ and it might damage your relationship with them forever.”
Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, argued that allowing religious organizations in schools but banning “clubs that allow students to be who they are, is a double standard that flies in the face of the principles you say you support.”
“An LGBTQ person can’t change who they are any more than the fact that I can’t change that I’m Black,” Collier said. “What you’re saying to students today is that you will be accepted as long as you are who we say you should be.”
If signed by the governor, the bill will become law on Sept. 1.
The Texas Senate has sent legislation to Gov. Greg Abbott (R) that would strictly define genders across state law based on male and female reproductive organs — potentially creating new hurdles for transgender and intersex Texans whose gender identity would revert to the sex they were assigned at birth in state records.
Abbott spokesman Andrew Mahaleris confirmed to The Hill on Wednesday that the governor plans to approve the measure.
“The State of Texas recognizes only two sexes — male and female,” Mahaleris said. “Governor Abbott looks forward to reaffirming this universal truth and signing HB 229 into law.”
Supporters of the legislation said that it follows a directive Abbot issued earlier this year that state government in “Texas recognizes only two sexes — male and female.”
Abbott cited in the directive an executive order that President Trump signed shortly after his January inauguration that designates male and female as the only sexes recognized by the federal government and on a biological basis.
“All Texas agencies must ensure that agency rules, internal policies, employment practices, and other actions comply with the law and the biological reality that there are only two sexes—male and female,” Abbott wrote in his January letter to state agencies.
The latest Senate-approved bill, dubbed the “Women’s Bill of Rights,” defines sex as “an individual’s biological sex, either male or female.” Under the legislation, a woman or female is an “individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova” and a male or man is “someone whose reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”
Additionally, it defines “mother” as “a parent of the female sex.”
Critics of the measure argue that the bill oversimplifies sex, gender and a broad spectrum of personal experiences.
“If a law forces non-binary Texans, who are real people, into categories that don’t reflect their lived experiences or identities … that would actually become discrimination in practice,” state Sen. José Menéndez (D) said during the floor debate on the bill before its passage. “That’s a concern that I have.”
State Sen. Mayes Middleton (R), who sponsored the bill, said that it would preserve women’s designated spaces, like restrooms and prisons, based on “biological reality.” He noted that it carries no criminal or civil penalties.
“For our entire history we never had to define this because common sense dictated we didn’t, but unfortunately, that seems to have changed,” he said in the floor debate.
Abbott has previously pushed back against past criticism for signing laws that target LGBTQ people. He approved legislation in 2023 and 2021 to bar transgender athletes from competing in women’s and girls sports in Texas schools and colleges.
A 25-year-old South Carolina trans man has gone viral on TikTok, saying he was accosted in a bar by staff, called slurs, and detained by police after using the women’s restroom.
Luca Strobel, who posts under the Tiktok handle @FulltimeCowboy, said he had gone to pick up his friend, Caroline Frady, also 25, at Sand Dollar Social Club in Folly Beach on the night of Friday, May 16, to be her “sober ride” home.
After a lengthy drive to the bar, Strobel said he stepped inside to use the men’s room. However, there were no stalls—only urinals, rendering it inaccessible to him as a trans man.
At first, an employee warned both Strobel and his friend against entering the bathroom of the “opposite” sex, but after a brief back-and-forth, Strobel said he believed he had permission to do so. He also said he and Frady were the only two people in the restroom, which Frady confirmed to Erin in the Morning.
That’s when a man who said he was the bar owner burst into the women’s room, peering over the stall to look at Strobel as he used the restroom.
“They’re looking over the top of the stall at me without my clothes on,” Strobel said in the video. “They can fully see me naked other than me having my shirt on, and they just start screaming that there’s ‘a man’ in here.”
He said the owner and employee ejected him and his friend from the bar — grabbing and pushing them out as they reportedly called Strobel anti-trans slurs. The police were waiting at the door, Strobel said.
The officer cuffed him “so tight that I can’t even feel my fingers,” Strobel said. “I still have a bruise on my knuckle.” Meanwhile, his arresting officer allegedly kept calling him a “little girl.”
“We didn’t get booked, but we did get cuffed, and when we got to the station, we were asking a bunch of questions that they refused to answer,” Strobel said. “They just kept saying, ‘Take it up in court, take it up in court, take it up in court.’”
Sand Dollar Social Club could not be reached for comment. The Folly Beach Public Safety Department did not respond to a request for comment.
In a follow-up video, Strobel said he was released on $500 bond, hit with a trespass notice barring him from entering Sand Dollar Social Club, and issued a ticket for public intoxication and disorderly conduct. Frady said she received the same.
In an interview with Erin in the Morning, Strobel emphasized that he had not consumed a single drink — he was there for the sole purpose of being the designated driver. He says officers did not breathalyze him.
There is no state law in South Carolina preventing a trans man (or any man) from using the women’s room in public accommodations, such as a bar. However, there has been an avalanche of anti-trans bills nationwide seeking such mandates, including in South Carolina, where lawmakers enacted a version of this policy targeting schools in 2024, and re-introduced it in 2025.
In other words, Strobel was using the bathroom that many conservative lawmakers and anti-trans pundits want to force him to use — and he got arrested anyway, seemingly because of the panic surrounding gendered bathrooms.
This kind of harassment is no stranger to trans and gender nonconforming people—in April, a trans girl in Florida was arrested for using the women’s bathroom in an act of protest against that state’s anti-trans bathroom bill. She washed her hands in the sink before being escorted out by police. In February, cisgender lesbian in Arizona made headlines after documenting her own experience having police interrogate her gender while she was using a women’s restroom.
Strobel says he believes the bar staff knew he was trans because his shirt revealed his top surgery scars. Nonetheless, he said he refuses to “go stealth,” or hide his trans identity, because he believes that trans visibility in the South is important.
“Of course my safety is important to me, but at the end of the day, I want people to know that we exist,” Strobel told Erin in the Morning. “I want people to know that it’s OK, that just because you live here doesn’t mean that you can’t be who you are.”
On the other hand, Strobel said this recent incident has made him feel that he may no longer have a choice; that the risk of further transphobic violence is too great to remain. Strobel said he is raising funds to relocate somewhere that he can finally, after all these years, not just feel authentic, but be safe.
A town in eastern Germany is offering two weeks free accommodation to encourage people to relocate there in a bid to boost its population.
Eisenhüttenstadt, which sits on the border with Poland around 60 miles from the German capital Berlin, is offering a 14-day trial stay for potential new residents, according to a statement from the local council on May 13.
“The project is aimed at anyone interested in moving to Eisenhüttenstadt—such as commuters, those interested in returning to the town, skilled workers, or self-employed individuals seeking a change of scenery,” it said, with applications open until the beginning of July.
Selected participants will live for free in a furnished apartment from September 6-20 as part of an “innovative immigration project” named “Make Plans Now,” said the council.
They “will have the opportunity to get to know the life, work and community of (Eisenhüttenstadt) in a 14-day living trial — for free and in the middle of the town,” reads the statement.
In order to help participants get a feel for the town, the council will lay on a number of activities including a tour, a factory tour and various outings.
The council will also encourage participants to stay permanently, with local businesses offering internships, job shadowing and interview opportunities.
Founded in 1950, Eisenhüttenstadt, which can be translated as Steel Mill Town, was the first fully planned town built under the socialist government of the former East Germany.
Sitting on the banks of the Oder River, socialist planners built the town around a huge steelworks.
Previously known as Stalinstadt, or Stalin Town, after former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, it was renamed after East and West Germany reunified following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
Like many towns and cities in the former East Germany, it has seen its population decline since reunification, from a peak of more than 50,000 to the current level of around 24,000, local official Julia Basan told local media outlet RBB24.
The scheme aims to attract more permanent residents, particularly skilled workers, said Basan.
Today, Eisenhüttenstadt is home to the largest integrated steelworks in eastern Germany, which employs 2,500 people, as well as being a hub for metals processing.
Many of the socialist-era buildings are listed as historical monuments and the openness of the town’s layout is striking, attracting visitors interested in architecture.
One recent new arrival said that the architecture was responsible for his decision to move to the town.
It was “a complete coincidence,” the man said in a video posted on the town hall Instagram account.
“We were travelling to Ratzdorf with friends and drove through Karl-Marx-Straße. And I saw these houses, this architecture that completely blew me away and I said to my wife, ‘I’m going to move here,’” he said.
The man later organized a tour of the town with a local historian to learn more.
“After the tour we were so blown away by this architecture, that was actually the trigger,” he said.
The French government has launched a platform to pair universities and research organisations with international researchers looking to relocate. Called Choose France for Science, the platform is particularly interested in attracting researchers working in areas related to health, climate change, digital technologies and space.
While created as a response to the mounting pressure on US scientists, the initiative will be open to all. “We suspect that there will be a lot of Americans, [and] it’s essentially for them that we’re doing this, but it’s not reserved for American researchers,” an official at the French higher education and research ministry told Science|Business.
The platform will feature at a high-profile meeting for the global research community hosted by French president Emmanuel Macron on May 5. But it has been opened early so that the National Research Agency can start pre-selecting projects and applications, in order to “avoid wasting time and prepare to welcome [researchers] in the best way possible,” the ministry official said.
The international scientists will be selected according to the relevance of their research work, he added.
The government intends to mobilise new resources, outside of the national research budget, to support their recruitment. This will cover up to 50% of the costs, with host institutions making up the rest from their own funds, with the help of local authorities and the private sector.
The French scheme is also intended to spur Brussels and other EU nations to follow suit. “If Europe wants to act, it can very well build on what has been done on the French level,” the ministry official said.
Other EU member states have started to mobilise. Earlier this week, the Research Council of Norway launched a €8.4-million fund to facilitate the recruitment of top international researchers, while Germany could spend some of its €500-billion infrastructure and climate package to attract US scientists.
France’s earlier willingness to court US researchers has received a mixed reaction from the academic community. In an opinon column published by Le Monde, Université Paris Cité lecturer Théo Besson claimed that the intention was “laudable” but its realisation “unrealistic” given the substantial lack of investment in research in France and uncompetitive salaries.
In another article, economist Philippe Askenazy said that it was “futile” to think that a wave of US academics would leave an environment that remains “exceptional” despite the Trump administration’s crackdown on science. Yet there are signs of movement, with data from Nature indicating that US scientists submitted 32% more applications for jobs abroad between January and March 2025 than during the same period last year.
Meanwhile, Aix-Marseille University has received nearly 300 applications to its Safe Place for Science programme in less than a month. Many come from experienced researchers at organisations like NASA and universities such as Yale and Stanford. According to university president Éric Berton, who provided details in an op-ed published last week by Libération, most applications were sent via encrypted messaging services, along with “worrying, sometimes chilling, testimonies.”
Some cited the lack of clarity regarding future funding sources as a reason to move, others mentioned limits on their research freedom or the political climate sparking general anxiety within the research community.
Up to 40 candidates will be interviewed in May. The first batch of researchers selected should arrive in early June.
Scientific refugees
In the Libération article, Berton joins forces with former French president François Hollande to propose the creation of a “scientific refugee” status for researchers experiencing political pressure. “Just like journalists or the political opposition, when they are hindered, scientists must necessarily be able to be recognised as refugees in their own right,” they write.
The idea has already been turned into a bill in the National Assembly, with the aim of supporting relocation procedures. This could include the creation of an “emergency scientific visa” at a time when “current asylum mechanisms fail to consider the specificities of the academic environment and the threats weighing on scientists within authoritarian regimes,” the document says.
According to Berton, the refugee status would be offered “to all researchers whose academic freedom is restricted, whether from countries at war or in the grip of obscurantism,” such as the beneficiaries from the French government’s Pause programme.
No date is set for the bill to be discussed by the National Assembly, but Berton told Science|Business that he hoped that Macron would back the idea at the May 5 meeting. This will “provide lasting protection for scientists threatened worldwide by dictators and conservatives,” he said.
Ekaterina Zaharieva, the European commissioner responsible for research, has previously alluded to a potential “special passport for science,” but no concrete proposals have been brought forward.
What happens when real estate meets resistance, advocacy, and identity? In this candid conversation, LGBTQ+ real estate professionals Callen Jones, Bob McCranie, Kimber Fox, and Leslie Wilson sit down to discuss the evolving challenges of being openly queer in an industry—and a country—facing political pushback.
🏳️🌈 Topics covered include: How anti-LGBTQ+ legislation affects clients and agents The role of advocacy in real estate Why “just doing business” isn’t neutral anymore Personal stories from the frontlines of inclusion in housing
📍 Whether you’re an agent, ally, or advocate, this video unpacks the real stakes of LGBTQ+ visibility in today’s market.
The fear includes having to hide who you are, if you become ill, or as you age in Connecticut.
Now, the state Senate passed legislation in a 26-10 vote that prohibits long-term care facilities and their staff from discriminating against residents including those in the LGBTQ+ community and also requires cultural competency training focused on residents who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or gender nonconforming or are living with HIV.
“This bill is part of our ongoing efforts to ensure that Connecticut remains a place where seniors feel safe and respected as they age,” said Sen. Jan Hochadel, D-Meriden in a statement. “No one should fear being treated differently or unfairly based on who they are. This law will send a clear message that everyone in Connecticut deserves dignity and compassion in their later years.”
Several Republicans cited concerns with the bill, particularly about how cases of discrimination would be adjudicated, with Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, proposing an amendment to remove the DPH from the bill in being the final arbitrator of the penalties of facilities.
That amendment failed along party lines.
“The language that is included in here has an intent to politicize the notion of discrimination, almost like a DEI bill frankly,” said Sen. Rob Sampson R-Wolcott.
“Almost in an effort to try to dig us into the discussion about DEI once again and frankly I don’t want to go there. I am just as much against discrimination as anyone else is but to try and go ahead and create these training materials that will ultimately force people that work in these institutions to have to accommodate other people’s worldviews I think is offensive frankly,” he said. “The desire to impose penalties on facilities and maybe individuals because they participate in a training where they are exposed to different worldviews they disagree with and have them imposed upon them and adjust and respond to a woke understanding of the world is quite frightening frankly.”
Sen. John Kissel, R- Enfield, also spoke against the bill and his disappointment that the amendment failed.
“I have great concern when we turn too much power over to a commissioner,” he said. “We do not want discrimination. I got to be honest if I am dealing with some 85-year old woman that is in frail health and if she feels uncomfortable in a room because someone next to her is having a lifestyle choice that impedes and interferes with her quality of life, that is an interesting question. By this underlying bill we are saying we are always going to side with the person that is being overly expressive in asserting themselves in their sexual determinations.”
One couple hoping for the bill’s passage is Janet Peck and her wife, Carol Conklin. The couple faces a tough transition as they consider long-term care facilities for Conklin, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.
Peck said she is concerned that the couple, who celebrate 50 years together this September, will no longer be able to live openly, fearing discrimination at a long-term facility after hearing stories from friends in such facilities.
“We have never lived in the closet and we do not ever intend to and it would be pretty awful if (Carol) would have to feel she would have to do that and if I visit her that we would feel like we would have to hide that we are together,” she said.
“I think this bill helps to ensure that at least there is training for staff about LGBTQ+ cultural issues,” she said. “I think the biggest concern is that we would not be comfortable if staff is not trained. We would not be comfortable to be out.”
While transitioning Conklin to a long-term care facility is not immediate, Peck said it is not far fetched as she was diagnosed with cancer.
“Although I am doing well and hope to continue, it may be contrary to what we have been planning for if she outlives me,” she said. “My dying wish is that Carol would be able to get the care that she is due like anyone else and that people would understand that she is a lesbian and that she be treated respectfully.”
HB 6913 passed the House 124-19 on May 8 after the adoption of a bipartisan amendment negotiated by Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, co-chair of the Judiciary Committee. The amendment struck a provision stating a transgender patient has a right not to be refused a room due to gender identity and to not be forcibly transferred.
Peck said she was disappointed that the bill “got rid of the rights of trans people.”
Rep. MJ Shannon, D-Milford, a 24-year-old gay man, said during the debate on the bill in the House, another change included is that it broadly refers to prohibiting discrimination against anyone, not just those in the LGBTQ+ community as the bill was originally written.
“The biggest pushback was (questioning) why this certain group gets to have a special law made for them,” Shannon said, explaining that lawmakers could not get over that hump so they revised the language to include everyone.
Shannon said the bill is crucial, especially the training component. He said he has also heard about discrimination of LGBTQ+ individuals in long-term care facilities from Mairead Painter, the state’s long-term care ombudsman.
“As a young gay person I know that these folks in these facilities have literally been fighting their entire lives for equal rights and equal opportunities for themselves and now that they are at the end of their life they should be able to be an old person and be in a nursing home,” he said. “They are facing discrimination just because of who they are and that is just not right.”
Shannon continued: “It is important that our LGBTQ+ elders or anyone living in these homes be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve and they age the rest of their lives gracefully and without fear of anything.”
Painter told the Courant that the state’s long-term care ombudsman’s office was looking to see this bill passed in order to ensure that “individuals receiving long-term services and supports know that in a very forward way their rights will be protected if they are in these settings.
“We really want to see them have the opportunity to live their best life and be their authentic self,” she said.
Painter said her office has seen some cases related to discrimination, harassment and isolation faced by LGBTQ+ residents within skilled nursing facilities.
“We have not seen an increase in these cases but just the fact that they have come up and part of it is a lack of awareness on some individuals’ part,” she said. “With education, outreach and by ensuring that people know that they have these rights and are protected, we are hoping as a package all around it will support the ability for everyone to live a high-quality life with respect and dignity in a long-term care setting.”
She added that surrounding states have passed similar bills.
Matt Blinstrubas, executive director of Equality CT, cited nationwide reports of incidents of discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in skilled nursing facilities including incidents of isolation, shunning and misgendering of people.
“I have talked to couples who have had to go back in the closet effectively and are worried about what happens when one partner is in a facility and the other is visiting,” he said. “I have heard reports of trans folks being isolated by other residents and staff and I think in one case somebody actually left Connecticut and moved to a facility in New York City as a result of this. It is also a huge concern for same-sex couples where one partner needs to enter long-term care and (fear of discrimination) makes that decision difficult and complicated. There is palpable fear about how they might be treated.”
Blinstrubas continued: “This bill is a crucial step in providing the training and guidance necessary to providers to help them meet their needs and the needs of residents and to make sure nursing homes and long-term care facilities are welcoming to everybody.”
Waterbury Alderman Bilal Tajildeen, who also serves on the board of Equality CT, said he knows of cases of older adults in long-term care facilities in Waterbury that do not disclose that they are gay or lesbian because they fear discrimination.
He said the bill is critical.
“We are talking about a group of people, a specific age of older LGBTQ+ adults who have spent almost the majority of their life experiencing discrimination,” he said. “The challenge with long-term care facilities is you have so many employees that come from so many different lives and traditions that the risk of having a caretaker that has very adverse reactions to your lifestyle is actually quite high.”
Peck recalled a story of a friend whose partner was dying in a long-term care facility and told her partner not to show affection to her in the open.
“In the end state of an illness, you do not feel comfortable that your wife can show affection to you,” she said. “That should never happen.”
The Texas House of Representatives today (Friday, May 23) passed Senate Bill 11 mandating a daily period set aside in Texas public schools for prayer and reading the Bible. Having passed both chambers of the Texas Legislature, the measure is now headed to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk for his signature.
Texas Freedom Network Political Director Rocío Fierro-Pérez criticized the vote in a written statement, warning that the bill “allows politicians to impose their preferred religion on millions of Texas families,” and noting that it is “a blatant violation of the First Amendment and an escalation in the ongoing effort to turn public schools into tools of government-endorsed religion.
“Coercing students into state-sanctioned prayer disrespects the religious and nonreligious beliefs of families across our state,” she said.
Fierro Pérez added, “This bill undermines parental rights and places public educators in the impossible position of enforcing deeply personal and spiritual practices. We are outraged that lawmakers are wasting time serving their self-interests while ignoring urgent problems in our schools.
“Texas needs leaders who fight for the freedom of all families, not just those who share their religious views. Texans deserve leadership that defends liberty, not legislation that tramples it.”
SB 11 will, no doubt, face legal challenge, and established precedent would seem to be against it.
In its landmark 1962 decision Engel v. Vitale, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory, state-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, therefore public schools cannot require or sponsor religious activities, even if participation is voluntary. The following year, in Abington School District v. Schempp, SCOTUS ruled that school-sponsored Bible reading before class is unconstitutional.
A former NSW police officer has described the terrifying ordeal she faced after she was detained, jailed overnight and deported from the United States – despite travelling there legally on a tourist visa to visit her US military husband.
Nikki Saroukos from south-west Sydney says she was “treated like a criminal”, denied her rights and subjected to invasive searches, humiliating treatment and a night in federal prison – simply for trying to spend time with her American partner stationed in Hawaii.
Now back in Australia and still reeling from the trauma, Mrs Saroukos and her mother are demanding answers – and warning others how easily international travel can turn into a nightmare.
Mrs Saroukos has visited Hawaii three times in recent months under the ESTA visa waiver program to see her husband, a US Army lieutenant she married in December 2024 after a whirlwind long-distance romance. The couple met through a dating app and quickly knew they wanted to be together.
A former NSW police officer has described the terrifying ordeal she faced after she was detained, jailed overnight and deported from the United States – despite travelling there legally on a tourist visa to visit her US military husband.
Nikki Saroukos from south-west Sydney says she was “treated like a criminal”, denied her rights and subjected to invasive searches, humiliating treatment and a night in federal prison – simply for trying to spend time with her American partner stationed in Hawaii.
Now back in Australia and still reeling from the trauma, Mrs Saroukos and her mother are demanding answers – and warning others how easily international travel can turn into a nightmare.
Mrs Saroukos has visited Hawaii three times in recent months under the ESTA visa waiver program to see her husband, a US Army lieutenant she married in December 2024 after a whirlwind long-distance romance. The couple met through a dating app and quickly knew they wanted to be together.
Mrs Saroukos and her mother (pictured left) were expecting a three week holiday to Honolulu. Picture: Supplied
He joined the army in 2022 and has been serving as a US Army lieutenant on the Pacific island and US state since August 2023.
“He’s serving their country,” Mrs Saroukos told news.com.au in an emotional interview.
“We sacrificed so much to make this work. To be mocked and detained like that – it’s appalling.”
Mrs Saroukos and her mother arrived to Daniel K Inouye International Airport in Honolulu last Sunday for what was supposed to be a routine three-week holiday when things took a sharp and unexpected turn at the customs desk.
“The officer began to look troubled at his computer to which my mum offered to provide more information,” she explained.
“From there he screamed – ‘Shut up and get to the back of the line, go now’ – at the top of his lungs.
“My fight or flight immediately kicked in. I’d seen horror stories about this stuff. I just bawled on the spot,” Mrs Saroukos recalled.
“We were in such a vulnerable position. We didn’t know their rules well and he was obviously carrying a gun.”
Mrs Saroukos, who lives with with anxiety and PTSD, and her mother were then taken to a holding area for questioning where she offered contact with her husband and to show her marriage certificate – to which they laughed in her face.
She said the pair were told, “Don’t say anything, don’t talk and don’t touch your phones,” by officers before their bags were tossed out and inspected along with their documents.
“I didn’t hide anything,” she said.
Her mother was free to go after the search but Mrs Saroukos was taken to a second location where she was subjected to further interrogation.
There, she was forced to surrender her phone and passwords, and questioned about her work as a former police officer.
“They questioned me about the demographic of my suburb and what crimes I was exposed to as a police officer,” she said.
“They were asking me about ice and meth and whether I knew how much was being imported from New Zealand.”
She said she had “now idea how to answere the questions.
“I was just dumbfounded,” she said.
“They took a 45-minute sworn statement where they grilled me on my stream of income, my marriage, my phone history.
“They were clutching at straws. They even asked why I had deleted Instagram three days prior, I was completely honest.”
After the statement concluded she was told to wait outside where she was then subjected to a DNA swab – which she was given no explanation for.
She was further forced to sign a document declaring she was not a part of a cartel and had no affiliation with gang members.
She also signed a document stating her husband was her next of kin and that he would be contacted and informed of her whereabouts – something she later learnt never happened.
After hours of questioning and a sworn statement, a supervisor informed her that her statement was deemed inadmissible and that she would not be entering the United States.
“I’ve never been so terrified in my life. I froze. They said ‘We’ll be sending you to jail.’ I was just shaking, sweating – I couldn’t believe it,” she said.
Mrs Saroukos said she was handcuffed, subjected to an in-depth cavity search and marched through the airport in full view of the public before being placed into a car and driven 10 minutes to a federal detention facility.
“The officers told me I wasn’t under arrest but I was cuffed and searched. My jewellery was taken and not secured. I felt stripped of all my dignity,” she said.
“I told the officer that from my understanding when you place someone in cuffs it’s an indication of arrest and you need to read them their rights.”
To which an officer replied, “It’s for our safety.”
When she asked a female officer whether she’d be safe inside the prison they told her, “I can’t answer that, I’ve never been there. I can assume you’d be safe to a degree.”
Upon arriving at the prison around 3.30pm, she was fingerprinted again, ordered to strip naked, squat and cough, and handed prison issued briefs and green outerwear.
“When they finished with the search there was a male officer standing outside who looked confused. He asked me why I was here to which I told him what had happened,” she said.
“He told me, ‘Wow. You should not be here right now, you have Trump to thank for that though.’”
When she asked if she would be fed, officers told her she had missed the cut off for dinner time and would not be provided any food today.
She was further forced to sign a waiver where she agreed she would not be making or receiving any phone calls – something her lawyer later informed her was against basic human rights.
Officers also told her that if she needed to take a shower she would not be provided with a towel and was to use a wet paper towel to clean herself.
“The entire time I was just thinking, ‘Shut up and do what they say and you’ll get out of here,’” she said.
Mrs Saroukos says she was taken to a shared cell where her roommate was a Fijian woman who was being held over similar circumstances.
“There were prisoners everywhere. I learned that I was being housed with convicted murderers,” she said.
“(Other inmates) told me I looked like a fish out of water and even gave me soap and a towel.
“As a former police officer it was such an irony to be on the other side of things. Those inmates treated me better than anyone else.”
Mrs Saroukos’ husband and mother had been waiting outside the airport for five hours with no information on her whereabouts.
“A Hawaiin Airlines ground manager told them that their ‘best guess is that she is there’ (the detention centre). That was all they had to go off,” she said.
Mrs Saroukos recalls that at 6am after only receiving an hour of sleep, she was woken by prison guards bashing on the metal cell doors.
“I just kept thinking that someone has to come save me and that this surely wasn’t really happening,” she said.
She was then told by officers that she would be leaving in ten minutes and was to clean her cell and discard any rubbish.
She was changed back into her own clothing before being transported back to the airport, again in handcuffs.
There, she was marched through crowds of people by officers before being taken to another holding room where she was finally given a small bottle of water, a muesli bar and a packet of chips.
“It was just so humiliating and embarrassing,” she said.
She was then informed she had a call from the Australian Embassy who had been closed over the weekend during the ordeal.
“They told me they couldn’t do anything and that no one had the power to help,” she said.
She asked the embassy to call her mother and let her know that she was being put on a 12.15pm flight back to Sydney.
“I couldn’t fly by myself, I was terrified.”
She was then finally allowed a three-minute phone call with her husband who was “inconsolable”.
“He was crying so much. When I asked if he had known where I was he told me ‘nobody told us anything’,” she said.
Mrs Saroukos was then escorted to the gate by two officers – one in front and one behind – who then handed her phone and passport to flight attendants.
Once in the air, she requested her phone to which a flight attendant said “You will get it given back when touch down and it will be handed over to Australian authorities.”
Upon landing in Australia, Mrs Saroukos was forced to stay on the plane where she expressed her concerns to an empathetic air hostess.
“She told me didn’t agree with what was happening.”
Once being free to de-board the plane, an Australia Customers Officer was waiting for her where he handed her an envelope with her belongings.
“He told me I was free to leave which I couldn’t believe,” she said.
Mrs Saroukos’ husband is planning to apply for an honourable discharge from the US Army as a result so that he can live and work in Australia.
“We don’t know yet what he’ll do here. We’re just too shaken up to even think about it,” she said.
“I never want to return to the United States.”
Mrs Saroukos and her family have now hired an immigration lawyer in the US to probe what can be done about her ordeal.
US Customs and Border Protection did not comment when contacted by news.com.au.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.