Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Safety Now: Interrupting Medical, Social, and Political Violence With Slow Downs

Opinion

Two paramedics bringing in a person on a stretcher into a hospital.

Soma Snakeoil, of The Sidewalk Project, explores how slowing down systems of harm—medical, social, and political—can create space for safety, healing, and transformative justice.

Getty Images, JazzIRT

My crisis advocacy partner and I had to carry a 130-pound, 40-year-old woman up three flights of stairs. Her wheelchair was stolen after a hospital released her to the street, and the elevator at her housing unit was broken.

She had been cycling through recovering from sexual violence, psychiatric holds, and had been hit by a car. She had a metal frame through the bone in her ankle, and amputation was ordered.


As members of a community non-profit assisting survivors of violence and houselessness, we couldn't get her stabilized long enough to meet her medical needs, in large part from a series of patient dumping by hospitals. Patient dumping is the practice of releasing unhoused or poor people to the streets, without coordinating care to ensure patients have a safe landing to heal, like a skilled nursing facility or interim housing. Patient dumping is rampant.

Because she had a history of mental illness that increased her vulnerability, her patient dumping led to her being taken hostage, chained to a bed, and sexually assaulted by predatory men in Los Angeles. We were able to get her permanent housing, and a good portion of our work was finding her in the street after being dumped by a hospital, to return her to housing.

Residents in her building shared a kitchen space, with separate bedrooms adjoining each other in communal pods. She was repeatedly sexually assaulted in her own bedroom, as the men in the pod had easy access to the women’s rooms.

The night we carried her up the stairs, one of the men was aggressive towards my partner and I. We ran, still carrying her, and locked her bedroom door behind us. We couldn’t leave as he was right outside in the kitchen, taunting us with threats. We called our team for help.

Our lead community ambassador responded and de-escalated the situation, and offered us safe passage. Shortly after, we were successful in moving this woman to safer housing. Structural violence against her continues to this day, such as a mental health government agency recently dropping her case without referral.

The nuances in cases about poor people being driven to the street by hospitals, prisons, and their own family members are not widely understood by the public. In the case of people who push the narrative of poverty as a public nuisance and moral failing, the reasons that drive houselessness are not a top priority for many.

More sinister is the recent prevalence of politicians and pundits demanding to round up and disappear or kill poor and homeless people. FOX News anchor Brian Kilmeade’s “just kill ‘em” statement on national television said as much.

The Holocaust also included a purge of poor, homeless, and disabled people, and a preceding dehumanization through propaganda.

In the early 2000s in this country, an intervention emerged in response to violence in poor communities, named violence interruption, utilizing community ambassadors who are already trusted by their peers.

This response takes a public health, community-based response, based on the theory of violence as social contagion. It is noteworthy that the administration targets Black-led cities like Chicago and Memphis for U.S. National Guard actions.

Groups like Ceasefire on Chicago streets are among those who pioneered, or more accurately formalized, the intervention of violence interruption. Lesser-known groups, like the Young Women Empowerment Project, expanded on non-carceral frameworks that are rooted in mutual aid and transformative justice solutions.

While violence interruption is vital on a street level, this is not enough to address the social determinants of violence that are centered in systemic oppression, state, and structural violence.

A community ambassador de-escalates conflict, provides mediation, and functions as an alternative to carceral approaches. Much of this intervention is focused on mitigating gang violence and gun violence.

Often, action is in part through rumor control, safe passage for vulnerable folks like school children and elders, and opportunities for economic mobility that address unmet needs that contribute to violence.

Yes, this approach is important, but so is changing the culturally limited perception of violence, its source, and the conditions that cause it to spread. Concentrating on violence only in terms of social determinants in poor communities puts the focus on a point of interruption. This completely ignores the larger structural issues that contribute to cycles of inter-generational trauma, poor health outcomes, and a lack of safety.

Structural violence in healthcare and social support that I have witnessed with social workers is choosing not to communicate with a care team, patient advocate, or family member to coordinate patient discharge, resulting in patient dumping.

Medical providers can deny pain medication to injured drug users, threaten patients with police involvement, or deny ADA accommodation access to advocates who accompany disabled patients in the hospital.

At a time of extreme political, social, and structural violence, it is necessary to apply the same methods of violence interruption that advocates use in the streets to mitigate violence baked into the very structures of systems.

This could look like offering structural violence interruption as an unofficial community ambassador working as a doctor or a nurse in a hospital, or as a paramedic who works to improve outcomes in patient care, decreasing stigma towards unhoused people.

October marks the implementation of the cancellation of Medicaid dollars to pay for more surveillance, secret police, and immigration raid mercenaries. This appears eerily similar to efforts in the 1940s when the CIA created a guide to sabotage and slow down organizations.

We know suggesting weaponized incompetence to slow the work of systems could affirm toxic ideas of certain populations as lazy, such as disabled people. This could look like working within the tainted systems to slow down aggressive attacks targeting marginalized populations by intentionally hampering operations.

For instance, this could mean internally stopping ICE from entering a hospital, clinic, or workplace, or not cooperating with management on efforts to displace vulnerable persons. Non-cooperation with violent structures is effective resistance. This bravery may inspire others.

It is urgent now to work to erase all forms of violence against communities of color and poor people in this country, from structural to medical, community, and individual. That is worth everyone’s time in order to save as many humans as possible.

Soma Snakeoil is Executive Director/Cofounder of The Sidewalk Project, which specializes in resources for street-based sex workers and survivors. She is a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Read More

Pro-Trump protestors
Trump supporters who attempted to overturn the 2020 election results are now seeking influential election oversight roles in battleground states.
Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Loving Someone Who Thinks the Election Was Stolen

He’s the kind of man you’d want as a neighbor in a storm.

Big guy. Strong hands. The person you’d call if your car slid into a ditch. He lives rural, works hard, supports a wife and young son, and helps care for his aging mom. Life has not been easy, but he shows up anyway.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on December 15, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

In May 2025, I wrote about the Trump administration’s early State Department reforms aligned with Project 2025, including calls for budget cuts, mission closures, and policy realignments. At the time, the most controversial move was an executive order targeting the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shutting it down and freezing all federal foreign aid. This decision reflected Project 2025’s recommendation to scale back and "deradicalize" USAID by eliminating programs deemed overly politicized or inconsistent with conservative values. The report specifically criticized USAID for funding progressive initiatives, such as policies addressing systemic racism and central economic planning, arguing that U.S. foreign aid had become a "massive and open-ended global entitlement program" benefiting left-leaning organizations. The process connecting the report’s ideological critiques to this executive action involved a strategic alignment between key administration officials and Project 2025 architects, who lobbied for immediate policy adjustments. This coalition effectively linked the critique to policy by framing it as a necessary step toward realigning foreign aid with national interests and conservative principles.

Back then, I predicted even more sweeping changes to the State Department. Since May, several major developments have indeed reshaped the department:

Keep ReadingShow less
SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.
apples and bananas in brown cardboard box
Photo by Maria Lin Kim on Unsplash

SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.

Millions of families just survived the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Now they’re bracing again as politicians turn food assistance into a bargaining chip.

Food assistance should not be subject to politics, yet the Trump administration is now requiring over 20 Democratic-led states to share sensitive SNAP recipient data—including Social Security and immigration details—or risk losing funding. Officials call it "program integrity," but the effect is clear: millions of low-income families may once again have their access to food threatened by political disputes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections
us a flag on white concrete building

Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections

Earlier this year, I reported on Democrats’ redistricting wins in 2025, highlighting gains in states like California and North Carolina. As of December 18, the landscape has shifted again, with new maps finalized, ongoing court battles, and looming implications for the 2026 midterms.

Here are some key developments since mid‑2025:

  • California: Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, allowing legislature‑drawn maps that eliminated three safe Republican seats and made two more competitive. Democrats in vulnerable districts were redrawn into friendlier territory.
  • Virginia: On December 15, Democrats in the House of Delegates pushed a constitutional amendment on redistricting during a special session. Republicans denounced the move as unconstitutional, setting up a legal and political fight ahead of the 2026 elections.
  • Other states in play:
    • Ohio, Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina: New maps are already in effect, reshaping battlegrounds.
    • Florida and Maryland: Legislatures have begun steps toward redistricting, though maps are not yet finalized.
    • New York: Court challenges may force changes to existing maps before 2026.
    • National picture: According to VoteHub’s tracker, the current district breakdown stands at 189 Democratic‑leaning, 205 Republican‑leaning, and 41 highly competitive seats.

Implications for 2026

  • Democrats’ wins in California and North Carolina strengthen their position, but legal challenges in Virginia and New York could blunt momentum.
  • Republicans remain favored in Texas and Ohio, where maps were redrawn to secure GOP advantages.
  • The unusually high number of mid‑decade redistricting efforts — not seen at this scale since the 1800s — underscores how both parties are aggressively shaping the battlefield for 2026.
So, here's the BIG PICTURE: The December snapshot shows Democrats still benefiting from redistricting in key states, but the fight is far from settled. With courts weighing in and legislatures maneuvering, the balance of power heading into the 2026 House elections remains fluid. What began as clear Democratic wins earlier in 2025 has evolved into a multi‑front contest over maps, legality, and political control.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network