The Greene County Democrat

Category: Human Rights

  • Rural Coalition stands with Massachusetts Food Advocate Liz Wills-O’Gilvie, calls for action as SNAP cuts threaten families, farmers and communities

    Rural Coalition stands with Massachusetts Food Advocate Liz Wills-O’Gilvie, calls for action as SNAP cuts threaten families, farmers and communities

    Rural Coalition joins O’Gilvie in urging state and federal leaders to immediately address barriers to food assistance and listen directly to families, farmers and rural and urban communities

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — August 12, 2026 — Rural Coalition and its members stand today in solidarity with our colleague and member Liz Wills-O’Gilvie, Executive Director of the Springfield Food Policy Council (Mass.), in demanding urgent action from policy makers to address the growing hunger crisis facing families across Massachusetts and throughout the nation.  

    O’Gilvie, 63, also a member of the Governor’s Anti-Hunger Task Force in Massachusetts, stopped eating over a week ago because “I couldn’t sleep at night, with a full belly knowing that children and their families across the State were hungry.” She is calling on Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and all Governors across the country to immediately “find any loose change in their [state] pockets,” to expand state agency staffing and take action to reach all SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) recipients who have lost SNAP benefits “through no fault of their own,” but due to the draconian rule changes, and to immediately restore them to the program.

    O’Gilvie explained that it started like this: “My neighbor came to my house and asked if she could borrow some food. She told me that her kids had been playing with some neighbor kids and their mother gave her own kids sandwiches. Her kids told the neighbor that they were hungry too, but the mother did not offer them a sandwich – instead she called the Department of Children and Families.”

    “My neighbor told me that DCF was coming by to visit her house but that the pantries that usually open on Friday did not open that Friday. I told her ‘You don’t borrow food’, and that I would buy her some food.  Liz read DTA correspondence and helped her to set up an online account with DTA.  Her lapse in SNAP benefits was all paper – her signature was needed on one document and a birth certificate was not on file for one of her children. “The idea that DCF might be coming to her house due to paperwork was horrifying for me,” said Liz.  “I understood that this was happening in every single city and every single state. I had to do something.”

    “I am standing in hunger out of love for my neighbors—I am sad and mad that people don’t have what they need,” O’Gilvie continued.

     

    SNAP crisis arises as a result of H.R. 1 cuts

    The current crisis emerged due to changes enacted in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, also known as H.R.1, which took effect on July 4, 2025. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, H.R.1 made “deep cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)…shifting significant new costs to states…We expect these harms to grow as states fully implement eligibility restrictions and take actions to lower their error rates.” (see SNAP Tracker- Center for Budget Policies and Priorities)

    Since then, over 64,000 children have been dropped from SNAP rolls in Massachusetts alone. The total number of Massachusetts families who lost benefits through these attempts to bring down payment error rates is over 160,000, which includes eligible families who shouldn’t have been terminated. Behind those numbers, families are being forced to make impossible choices about how to put food on the table, at a time when food costs remain high and community food systems are under immense pressure.

    In their consideration of the long-delayed renewal of the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress has thus far failed to restore cuts made to the SNAP Program in H.R 1. On August 6, 2026, the Senate Agriculture Committee considered only partial delays to the deep cuts to the program already going into effect, cuts which will force states to cover more of the costs administering SNAP and other program costs based on SNAP payment error rates in each state.

    O’Gilvie’s action is directed at bringing increased attention to the causes and real-life consequences families can face when so-called “error rates”—which encompass administrative barriers, paperwork problems, staffing limitations or delays—interrupt access to nutrition assistance. As the impact of these changes grows, O’Gilvie reflected that “I needed to do something to help them to understand what is happening.”

    For the Fiscal Year 2027 state budget, Massachusetts’ Anti-Hunger Task Force recommended $147.7 million in funding to bolster staffing at the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA), the state agency responsible for administering SNAP.  Only $122 million was approved—more than $25 million below the Task Force’s recommendation—was signed into effect. Community members across Massachusetts continue to report widespread disruptions to program services as a result of staffing shortages at DTA.

    For O’Gilvie, this funding gap has significant consequences for families navigating an already strained system. In the second week of May 2026, she assisted a 70-year-old woman with setting up her online SNAP account and uploading required recertification documents. That same woman notified her  that her SNAP benefits were finally reinstated in late July 2026. 

    “Elders at 70 years old can’t travel to the offices to recertify or correct errors in addresses and often don’t have the ability to access online systems” said O’Gilvie. “At the Department of Transitional Assistance, only one in 5 calls is now being answered. And because elders often have special health needs, they can’t find the food they need at food pantries.”

     

    Farmers are losing critical markets as SNAP access declines

    She noted that she worked closely legislators and advocates Massachusetts Healthy Incentives Program (HIP), a state-funded SNAP matching program that is automatically added to every SNAP recipient’s account each month, and accessed when their EBT card is used to buy healthy, local fruits and vegetables from HIP-approved farm vendors. The program was first piloted in Springfield, Mass. These HIP benefits are accessible to every SNAP recipient, even if they have only one cent left on their SNAP benefit card. The HIP benefit ranges from $40-$80 per month  depending on family size, helping to fill the gap until the family’s next SNAP benefit arrives.

    A farmer herself, Liz works with a network of producers across the state. She noted that, as this program grew since its formal enactment in 2016, farmers in Massachusetts have expanded their markets with over $100 million in additional SNAP sales.

    That is another key point she, and Rural Coalition, want policy makers and the public to

    understand. SNAP is not just a critical and effective food program. It also expands the economic viability of farm and ranch operations and local grocers and retailers, and benefits rural communities and their livelihoods, and the health of our overall national economy.

    Passage of a strong Farm Bill is essential to addressing the dire economic conditions farmers and ranchers nationwide are facing, including impacts of tariffs and lost markets, high input costs, disruptions in federal funding, extreme weather conditions, inflation, and much more. As an organization representing thousands of farmers and ranchers across the U.S., Rural Coalition members join O’Gilvie’s call for full restoration of SNAP funds at the national level. These cuts are hurting not just hungry communities, but also producers, because the dollars invested in SNAP and related programs support a critical market for producers in Massachusetts and across the nation.

     

    Rural Coalition calls for immediate action at the State and Federal levels

    Rural Coalition members across the nation ask you to join us in calling on policy makers and the public to support and amplify O’Gilvie’s call for immediate action at the State and Federal level to restore SNAP benefits to children and families. This includes concerted cooperation and action to provide states more time and funds for staffing to assist the additional populations, including elders up to age 65, veterans, caregivers of children over age 14,  people experiencing homelessness, and those living in areas with few job opportunities who under H.R. 1 were newly added to the groups who must submit  detailed documentation to meet the program’s work requirements.

    We further call on you to reach out to your own state leaders and members of Congress to examine what is happening in your own states and determine to what extent eligible residents are losing or struggling to recertify their SNAP benefits because of administrative barriers, and what funding and action is necessary to meet these needs.

    Finally, during last week’s Senate Agriculture Committee Farm Bill Mark-up Senator Cory Booker noted that the Agriculture Committees have heard from so many constituencies who benefit from this nation’s Farm Bill, but not the voices of the people who need and use SNAP and other federal food programs. As Members of Congress return home for town halls, State Fairs, and other public events in the coming weeks, we encourage you to reach out to SNAP recipients, farmers and ranchers, advocates, and rural community members and to help ensure their experiences and needs are uplifted and widely shared.

    We stand in solidarity with O’Gilvie as she calls attention to families struggling to access Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and urges leaders to recognize the broader consequences for families, farmers and local economies.

    We urge supporters across the country to call their Governors and demand action to protect families who have lost or are at risk of losing SNAP benefits. We also call on Congress to hear directly from families, farmers and ranchers, and rural communities affected by these cuts and to restore SNAP funding through the Farm Bill.

    Stand with Liz: Take action to protect SNAP and those who need and use the program

    As we reach the end of the month, as SNAP benefits run out for many families, Rural Coalition joins Ms. Wills-O’Gilvie in her call to the public to commit to taking additional actions to help our neighbors including:

    Rushing support to your local Food Banks.

    Donating half of your CSA share to someone who needs it.

    Asking producers to open your fields to faith communities willing to glean and distribute foods after the harvest.

    Making sure policymakers know of your actions and concerns.

    Finally, please share this message widely on social media and in your community. 

    Liz Wills-O’Gilvie has chosen to go without food because too many of her neighbors are being forced to do the same. Her choice is a call to action. We cannot allow her to stand in hunger alone. Please join us. 

    Featured Image: Anti-hunger advocate Liz Wills-O’Gilvie, 63, said she has not eaten for 15 days in a bid to push Governor Maura Healey to raise funding for Massachusetts’ shrinking food stamp program (REUTERS)

  • Commentary: Jim Crow 2.0 at the Pentagon

    Commentary: Jim Crow 2.0 at the Pentagon

    By Wade Henderson, BlackPressUSA Newswire

    Pete Hegseth insists that he is restoring “merit” to the United States military. But after months of dismissals, blocked promotions, and ideological purges, the evidence tells a different story. His campaign against so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has become something far more dangerous: an assault on equal opportunity that falls with particular force on African Americans, while also targeting women, Latinos, gay Americans, and transgender service members.

    The latest example is both troubling and infuriating.

    Once again, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly blocked the promotion of an exceptionally qualified woman—Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt. Bauernschmidt is no ordinary officer. She became the Navy’s first woman to command a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, one of the most demanding leadership assignments in the world. Her career reflects decades of exemplary performance, operational excellence, and leadership under extraordinary pressure.

    Yet once again, a distinguished military career appears to have been subordinated to an ideological agenda masquerading as “merit.”

    I call BS!

    The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.

    The pattern has become impossible to ignore.

    General Charles Q. Brown Jr., only the second African American to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was dismissed despite a career that placed him among the most accomplished military leaders of his generation.

    Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman ever to serve as Chief of Naval Operations, was removed despite decades of distinguished command experience.

    Reports have documented interventions that blocked or delayed the promotions of Black officers and women selected through the military’s rigorous promotion system.

    Now Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt joins the growing list of highly accomplished officers whose careers have been derailed for reasons that have never been persuasively explained.

    Where is Congress?

    Its silence has become deafening.

    Congress has an independent constitutional responsibility to oversee the armed forces. Instead, too many lawmakers have watched silently while one of the nation’s most respected institutions is subjected to ideological litmus tests and political interference.

    This is not military reform.  It is testosterone-fueled performative masculinity disguised as a philosophy of military excellence.

    The irony is impossible to miss. Hegseth repeatedly invokes “merit,” yet his rhetoric begins with the assumption that Black officers, women, and other historically excluded Americans must somehow justify their achievements in ways that white male officers are rarely required to do.

    That is not meritocracy.  It is prejudice wrapped in patriotic language.

    No one is asking that anyone be promoted because of race or gender. Americans simply expect that promotions be based on demonstrated competence, leadership, integrity, and service. The officers being targeted have already proven themselves repeatedly under one of the world’s most demanding evaluation systems.

    Their records speak for themselves.

    The attack on African American military leadership has been especially pernicious.

    For generations, Black Americans fought in segregated units, earned decorations while denied equal treatment, and repeatedly demonstrated loyalty to a nation that often failed to extend them full citizenship. They broke barriers not because standards were lowered but because excellence finally overcame institutional discrimination.

    Today’s campaign against “diversity” threatens to revive old assumptions under new slogans.

    The implication that Black generals and admirals somehow owe their success to affirmative action rather than extraordinary performance echoes some of the ugliest stereotypes of the Jim Crow era. Yesterday’s segregationists claimed Black Americans were inherently less qualified. Today’s culture warriors simply employ more politically acceptable language while inviting the same suspicion about Black achievement.

    That is why Hegseth’s campaign increasingly resembles Jim Crow 2.0.

    The targets may now wear stars on their shoulders instead of military patches on segregated uniforms, but the underlying message is hauntingly familiar: Black excellence is presumed suspect, while white excellence is presumed earned.

    America’s military became the finest fighting force in history because it opened its doors to talent wherever it could be found. It grew stronger after President Truman desegregated the armed forces. It became stronger when women assumed greater command responsibilities. It became stronger when every qualified American was given the opportunity to serve to the fullest extent of their abilities.

    Diversity is not a concession.  It is a strategic advantage.

    The nation’s adversaries do not fear an American military because it is racially homogeneous. They fear it because it draws upon the talents of more than 340 million Americans whose diverse experiences, perspectives, and abilities make our armed forces unmatched anywhere in the world.

    Every politically motivated dismissal of a distinguished officer sends a chilling message throughout the ranks: excellence alone may no longer be enough if you belong to the wrong demographic group.

    That weakens morale.  It weakens recruitment.  It weakens retention.

    And ultimately, it weakens national security.

    Pete Hegseth has every right to pursue military readiness. He has no right to redefine merit in ways that repeatedly cast suspicion upon the accomplishments of Black officers, women, and others who have devoted their lives to defending this nation.

    America deserves better.  The men and women who wear the uniform deserve better.  The Constitution deserves better.

    And unless Congress finds the courage to exercise meaningful oversight, history may well remember this period not as a restoration of military excellence, but as the moment political ideology attempted to resurrect, in modern form, the old poison of exclusion.

    Jim Crow did not strengthen America.  Jim Crow 2.0 will not strengthen America’s military.  It will only diminish it

    Wade Henderson Strategic Advisor Civil and Human Rights wade@wadejhenderson.com

    To read the original article on BlackPressUSA, click here