The Hidden Equality AND Women’s Rights Issue in the “Big Beautiful Bill”
A response to California’s 2025-2026 state budget proposal’s impact on vulnerable communities that depend on In-Home Support Services (IHSS). The proposed budget cuts are a response to a congressional budget cut of $880 million. Being hailed as President Trump’s "Big Beautiful Bill,” the bill’s trickle-down effect has devastating consequences for women and children.
“Ending assisted care programs like IHSS is akin to supporting someone up a staircase only to push them off of it at the last stretch.”
SummarY:
The burden of care pushed mothers of disabled children out of the workforce, including myself. Without the support of programs like IHSS, it will be impossible for us to maintain secure employment while also caring for the advanced needs of loved ones — making the IHSS elimination proposal as much a women’s issue as it is a health and social service issue.
The proposal to end IHSS for disabled individuals at age 19 stands in contradiction to the educational support programs for disabled individuals, which typically extend to age 22. For families, care does not end at 19; it is a lifelong commitment.
Without a robust IHSS program, California’s population of roughly 480,000 individuals with developmental disabilities would be turned over to costly institutional care.
In 2025, with my 14y/o son who was diagnosed with mild/mod Autism and a severe verbal delay at age 2. In 2023, we joined the state’s IHSS program for the first time. Click here to learn more.
California’s 2025-2026 state budget proposal includes an alarming plan to eliminate In-Home Support Services for all individuals aged 19 and older, regardless of citizenship status. In-Home Support Services (IHSS) is a vital program for families caring for individuals with disabilities and the elderly, serving as the front line for our community’s most vulnerable population.
IHSS workers are a half-million-strong workforce that is largely invisible in society. As it stands, we are underpaid, earning less per hour than a fast-food restaurant worker. In many cases, including my own, we are individuals who have forgoen professional opportunities to provide care and support to loved ones in need of assistance with day-to-day living. To be an IHSS worker is to offer dignity to a marginalized population — a population that is currently on the chopping block under both domestic and national fiscal policy.
The plan to eliminate IHSS for individuals with disabilities at the age of 19 is a short-sighted plan that ignores three key decision-making factors.
First, without a robust IHSS program, California’s population of roughly 480,000 individuals with developmental disabilities would be turned over to costly institutional care. While an IHSS worker currently earns about $50,000 per year to care for a disabled or elderly family member, the cost to the state for an assisted living facility ranges from $4,000 to $7,000 per month. It is more cost-effective for the state to support IHSS programs; the state cannot afford to bear the burden of care that would be shifted to it at the threshold of a child’s 19th birthday.
Second, the proposal to end IHSS for disabled individuals at age 19 stands in contradiction to the educational support programs for disabled individuals, which typically extend to age 22. Those familiar with developmental disabilities and resource planning understand that children with special needs, such as those with Autism, require additional support beyond what their peers receive. Ending assisted care programs like IHSS is akin to supporting someone up a staircase only to push them off of it at the last stretch.
Care does not end at 19; it is a lifelong commitment. After individuals with developmental disabilities (such as Autism) phase out of the education system, they still need a support network. That duty of care falls on parents, specifically mothers. As the Covid-19 pandemic showed us, the burden of care pushed many women out of the workforce. Though that reality has shifted in a post-pandemic era for most, it still holds true for mothers of disabled children. Without the support of programs like IHSS, it will be impossible for us to maintain secure employment while also caring for the advanced needs of loved ones — making the IHSS elimination proposal as much a women’s issue as it is a health and social service issue.
As a mother to a disabled son, IHSS enables us to keep a roof over our head, becoming a lifeline after I lost my job during the pandemic and subsequently struggled to work while also caring for my son. IHSS also empowers me to have the bandwidth to homeschool my son and provide him with the equitable education that our school district failed to offer year after year.
As a lifelong Californian, we need to have more discernment in how we spend state funds. However, discernment means looking at the full scope of the picture and how a policy now can impact other crisis points. Today’s policies shouldn’t aggravate an already failing state housing and homeless scenario by adding hundreds of thousands of people to the streets to be swept under the proverbial rug.
