EXCLUSIVE: VP Vance Makes Podcast Debut On Wife’s ‘Storytime With the Second Lady’ for Father’s Day
Explain the story of Winnie the Pooh
Mental illness has become a political identity — and SURPRISE, it's on the left: Study
There have been numerous studies in recent years highlighting correlations between political affiliation and mental health.
A 2021 study published in the journal SSM-Mental Health, for instance, concluded — on the basis of an analysis of depressive attitudes among conservative and liberal 12th graders from 2005 to 2018 — that "conservatives reported lower average depressive affect, self-derogation, and loneliness scores and higher self-esteem scores than all other groups."
'These findings have far-reaching consequences.'
A 2023 study conducted by Gallup on behalf of the Institute for Family Studies found that adolescents with "very conservative parents are 16 to 17 percentage points more likely to be in good or excellent mental health compared to their peers with very liberal parents."
A 2025 study published in the journal PLOS One found that "even after accounting for a variety of other factors, there is a clear propensity of conservatives to provide more positive assessments of their mental health in comparison to liberals" — although the researchers ultimately attempted to credit this tendency to stigma or survey terminology.
The American left's mental health issues show no signs of clearing up. In fact, while conservatives continue to enjoy relatively superior mental health, the sickness on the other side appears to be attracting sufferers into a political identity all its own.
In a study strongly recommending "replication and further exploration" that was recently published in the journal Political Behavior, Lauren Van De Hey of Utah State University found that "mental health identity has begun to function as a political identity for some individuals," particularly among "younger (Gen Z) and more liberal Americans."
RELATED: Actress Elliot Page mocked ruthlessly after trying to define 'healthy masculinity'
Utilizing data from the national Cooperative Election Study administered by YouGov in 2022, the Utah researcher determined that a great many people now "categorize themselves as having had a mental illness, the vast majority of whom view mental illness identity and mental illness alienation as important to their sense of self."
"People who have experienced mental illness feel close to others who have experienced mental illness," wrote Van De Hey. "They are also likely to self-categorize as having or having had a mental illness, share a sense of group consciousness with others who have or had mental illness, and recognize the need to work together to change laws that are unfair to people with mental illness."
This obviously has political implications, explained the researcher, as it correlates with "support for increased state spending on health care, education, and welfare."
The study cited Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) as an example of a political elite for whom mental health appears to have become a "politicized identity."
Smith has on numerous occasions discussed her past experiences with depression, grouped herself with sufferers, and identified "mental health parity" as a legislative priority.
"Those more likely to categorize as having a mental illness are more likely to have a college degree; be a Democrat, liberal, and white; and have slightly lower family income," said the study. "For both the [Mental Illness] Identity and [Mental Illness] Alienation scales, the only consequential variable is ideology: Those with higher MI identification or MI Alienation are more likely to be liberal."
Van De Hey concluded, "These findings have far-reaching consequences for mental health advocacy and the role mental health identity will play in the political sphere — especially as Gen Z matures as a cohort."
Dealing with a sample of 860 respondents, Van De Hey found that 26% categorized themselves as having had a mental illness in their lifetime, 22% categorized themselves as having had a physical disability, and 168 categorized themselves as having had a serious chronic physical illness.
Of the 220 respondents who said they had mental illness in their lifetime, 70% identified as "liberal" or "very liberal," 24% identified as "moderate," and 32% identified as "conservative" or "very conservative."
Of the same 220 respondents, about half stated that their identity as a person with a mental health illness was "important" or "very important to them."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
NY Pride group disbands after founder is arrested for disgusting alleged crime with minor
An LGBTQ+ advocacy group for a small town in central New York says it is canceling a scheduled Pride parade after its founder was arrested on child sex-messaging charges.
New York state police claimed 46-year-old Travis J. Longo of Cazenovia had a pattern of sending the sexually explicit communications to a child under 12 years old.
'This decision follows serious criminal charges against Travis Longo, the founder of Cazenovia Pride Fest and a longtime figure in our organization.'
Astoundingly, Longo was elected in 2024 to the Cazenovia School District Board of Education and, as of Friday afternoon, continues to be a member of the board.
Longo was charged with four misdemeanor counts of endangering the welfare of a child. Police have released few details about the alleged communications but are asking the public for any information that might aid their investigation.
The group Longo founded said in a post on Facebook that the parade planned for June 27 has been canceled and the group is dissolving.
"Cazenovia Pride Inc. is canceling this year's Pride Festival and all associated events, and we are dissolving as an organization," the post read.
"This decision follows serious criminal charges against Travis Longo, the founder of Cazenovia Pride Fest and a longtime figure in our organization," the post added. "Travis Longo has no further affiliation with Cazenovia Pride Inc."
Longo had apparently performed as a drag queen under the name "Anita Buffem."
An Instagram appearing to belong to Longo as the drag queen persona has dozens of posts. Buffem is also listed as a "hostess" at the first Pride festival in Cazenovia in 2021 that was organized by Pride Cazenovia.
RELATED: California city mayor pro tem calls for end of Pride Month observation, and outrage ensues
"We are deeply sorry for the pain and disappointment this causes our community," concluded the statement from the Pride group. "The years of support, love, and solidarity you have shown us have meant everything. Thank you."
Cazenovia is a town of about 6,700 residents in Madison County.
Neither Longo nor the board of education responded to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Appeals court SLAPS DOWN California on parental rights and trans-identifying students
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction Friday against a California law that allowed children to hide their transgender status from their parents.
The law required teachers and others to withhold information from parents related to their children identifying as transgender or asking to be called by a different name.
'The Constitution is clear — parents have the right to know what is happening with their children and make decisions regarding their mental health, and no state law can override that fundamental protection.'
The three-judge panel initially rejected the lawsuit from residents of Huntington Beach but relented after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a similar case on the side of parental rights.
The appeals court recognized that the law would likely violate parents' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
America First Legal, the organization that represents the parents, called the ruling a major victory in a statement on its website.
"California cannot use state law to force schoolteachers and administrators into a conspiracy of silence against parents," AFL senior counsel Nick Barry said. "California's law, and similar school policies, use state coercion to intentionally interfere with the parent-child relationship and separate a child from their parent. That is wrong and unlawful."
AFL added that the state of California "sought to prevent parents from obtaining information about 'gender transitions' of their own children without the child's consent."
Proponents of these types of laws say they are necessary to protect children who may have feelings that would lead them to identify as transgender from parents who may oppose their wishes. Critics say cutting out parents puts children at risk of grooming and abuse by far-left teachers and other school officials.
"The Constitution is clear — parents have the right to know what is happening with their children and make decisions regarding their mental health, and no state law can override that fundamental protection," Barry continued.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has not commented on the ruling yet.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump administration DEFIES ultimatum from Clinton judge on anti-weaponization fund
The Department of Justice rejected a judge's ultimatum on the "anti-weaponization fund" and called it a breach of the separation of powers doctrine.
President Donald Trump agreed to drop a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in exchange for the formation of a $1.8 billion fund to compensate the victims of weaponization of government in previous administrations.
'Judges do not get to insert themselves into the department's routine settlement authority.'
In response to a lawsuit over the fund, the government argued that the point was moot after Attorney General Todd Blanche testified to Congress that the fund was dead.
"We are not moving forward with the fund. Period," Blanche said clearly.
However, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema cited statements from the president supporting the fund and Blanche's reluctance to provide a written guarantee as evidence that the administration still sought to establish it.
Brinkema then gave the government a week to provide declarations under penalty of perjury from Blanche as well as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. She warned that if they failed to do so, she would allow a lawsuit against the government to proceed.
On Friday, the DOJ responded that the statements were unnecessary and constituted a "serious" violation of the separation of powers among the branches of government.
"It is telling that even after the federal court gave them a week, the acting attorney general and other senior administration officials continue to refuse to say under oath that the Slush Fund is dead and won't operate in the future," Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said.
The organization is representing the plaintiffs, a coalition that includes a former federal prosecutor and two nonprofits.
"Nor have they provided any information under oath about their compliance with the court's prior directives," Perryman added.
A spokesperson for the DOJ told the Washington Examiner that the judge was improperly inserting herself into the lawsuit settlement.
RELATED: Senate Republicans defeat standoff to pass BILLIONS in ICE funding — Democrats implode with outrage
"The DOJ has already twice filed in court that the fund isn't moving ahead, coupled with Blanche's repeated testimony before Congress that the fund isn't moving forward," the spokesperson said.
"In essence, the judge's demand for declarations was an attempt to require her to personally sign-off on any and all future settlements, separate and apart from the Fund, that the department may make," the spokesperson added. "Judges do not get to insert themselves into the department's routine settlement authority."
Democrats and some Republicans have voiced opposition to the fund based on the critique that it would be a slush fund to reward the president's supporters and allies.
Brinkema was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton in 1993.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com