Commentary
COMMENTARY: Elderly Abuse
NASHVILLE PRIDE — We all must acknowledge that if we are fortunate, we will live a long and productive life and hopefully be taken care of in our old age with the overseeing of our children or closely related family members. In an idealistic world, you would think that the children or family members of elders convalescing or bedridden would prioritize the treatment and care of their loved ones
By William T. Robison Jr.
We all must acknowledge that if we are fortunate, we will live a long and productive life and hopefully be taken care of in our old age with the overseeing of our children or closely related family members. In an idealistic world, you would think that the children or family members of elders convalescing or bedridden would prioritize the treatment and care of their loved ones.
It shouldn’t be questionable that convalescing elders receive the best medical attention or assistance as possible. Of course, there are factors that may limit the type or quality of assistance or care an elderly one may receive based on their economical status, basically as it relates to insurance coverage and their financial standing. When all is said and done, many elderly adults fall victim to bureaucratic red tape and sometimes to unlikely family members taking advantage of their fragile and often debilitating condition.
Make no mistake, while most people have their parents’ or loved one’s best interest at heart, there are some family members who may possess ulterior motives, compromising or falling short of providing the best care that their parents or loved ones may deserve. In fact, you would be surprised at the number of families who seek litigation towards a sibling for abusing a parent by manipulating and abusing the parents’ finances (stealing).
There are loving children agonizing and feeling extremely guilty at their inability to spend more time with their ailing elders. This problem is only exacerbated when your location, job, and finances may make it impossible or taxing concerning the amount of time you can personally spend with your ailing loved one. This is especially problematic when you have no sibling or close relative to aide you in planning and providing for the care of an ailing or bed ridden parent.
Big families often share with the care of a parent or are often fortunate enough to have a sibling in a position to give around the clock care with the help or aide of available home care services. This can be a blessing or a setup for chaos. Either you have dedicated, loving sibling providers—or providers seeking to take advantage of the physical and financial condition of the elder.
Elderly abuse can take place in convalescing or nursing homes by overworked or uncaring employees, especially if the family is not cognizant of the daily progress of their loved ones. This is prevalent with elders whose children or families are in other cities or states. But what may be more alarming is a sibling from a large family taking care of a parent and using that position of authority to intentionally ostracize the other siblings from the parent. This occurs when the parent is told the other family members don’t care about them, i.e., they would visit more if they did—or that if it weren’t for them, the parent would be relegated to a nursing facility. This ‘I’m the only one that care about you’ is often a calculated manipulation by a self-serving caretaker with ulterior motives.
Constantly pressuring the parent concerning what is done as the primary caretaker and what your sibling/siblings or other family members aren’t doing is a modus operandi towards putting oneself into a position to gain control of the parent’s favor and finances (bank account, property, or etc.). By the time some family members find out what is truly taking place, the caretaker has significantly used the elder’s monies from their bank account and may have even manipulated the elder into changing their will, making a calculating caretaker the conservator of their will.
There are some cases where a deceitful caretaker or a family member is so treacherous and callous that they may deny the ailing elder critical medical attention (not taking them to the hospital), precipitating their death (presumably) out of greed. Sad as it may be, there are some people who feel that some people take too long to die.
We must be more aware of the mental and physical abuse taking place by supposedly trusted and reliable health care providers, especially among family members. This abuse is criminal and needs to be reported and investigated when suspected. It may consist of not taking care of the patient’s medical and physical needs, making sure they receive their meds, are clean, fed, physically and mentally stimulated, and changed when needed. Another sign of abuse is when a caretaker takes advantage of a disabled elder when the elder is in a sedated, confused, or comatose state, having him or her sign or convert things over to benefit the caretaker or a designated individual.
Often, we wait until to it is too late to truly address suspected abuses because we don’t want to believe that those caring for our loved ones are capable of such treacherous and malicious actions often fueled by greed. The allegations or proof of elderly abuse especially by a sibling have isolated or destroyed the closeness of many families. Elderly abuse is more prevalent than we realize.
We must remember that those we love will eventually grow old and probably reach a point where they need our supervision and guidance in providing them the proper care and love that they gave us while growing up. It’s never too early to plan for taking care of the ones you love when they are no longer able to provide for themselves. Vigilant overseeing of their care and progress should be a priority. The family as a whole must also be cognizant of the handling of their debilitated loves one’s finances, for it is paramount to avoiding abuse by others you wouldn’t ordinarily suspect.
A truly loving caretaker is a blessing from God. I cannot thank my brother, Marcus, enough for dedicating his life to making sure my mother wanted for nothing during her extended illness leading to her transition.
This article originally appeared in the Nashville Pride.
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
Activism
Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion
“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media
Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.
The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.
In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.
“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.”
Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.
“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.
Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.
“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.
-
Activism3 weeks ago
AI Is Reshaping Black Healthcare: Promise, Peril, and the Push for Improved Results in California
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Barbara Lee Accepts Victory With “Responsibility, Humility and Love”
-
Activism3 weeks ago
ESSAY: Technology and Medicine, a Primary Care Point of View
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Newsom Fights Back as AmeriCorps Shutdown Threatens Vital Services in Black Communities
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Faces Around the Bay: Author Karen Lewis Took the ‘Detour to Straight Street’
-
Arts and Culture3 weeks ago
BOOK REVIEW: Love, Rita: An American Story of Sisterhood, Joy, Loss, and Legacy
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Teachers’ Union Thanks Supt. Johnson-Trammell for Service to Schools and Community
-
Alameda County3 weeks ago
OUSD Supt. Chief Kyla Johnson-Trammell to Step Down on July 1