Equality for All?

I was inspired today when I tuned into NPR and heard "Staffers walk out of Congress in protest over Brown and Garner cases." This was to show support for protesters angered by the recent grand jury decisions in Ferguson and Staten Island not to indict police offers involved in the deaths of two unarmed Black men, Michael Brown and Eric Garner. Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Rep. Marcia L. Fudge noted "In the span of two weeks, this nation seems to have heard one message loud and clear: there will be no accountability for taking Black lives."

Protests have been happening across the United States since the killing of Michael Brown in August of this year. They began in Ferguson following Brown's death, and often erupted into acts of vandalism and violence as an almost war-like state encroached the city. Following the decision regarding Garner's, protests were reignited. Right now in Oakland and Berkeley, protests have been going on for 5 straight nights, with some instances of window breaking, vandalism, and clashes with police authorities. There were more than 1,000 protesters in the street, mainly young and multiracial, stating charges of police brutality.

When civil rights are at risk, it's important for citizens to speak out and be heard. There have been many Supreme Court cases supporting citizen's right to freedom of speech, which is protected in protests. What protesters should be wary of, however is allowing demonstrations to turn violent and criminal. Protests will be much more difficult to defend if actual laws are being broken. However, a frustrated public is crying out to authorities, and sometimes it's necessary to cry out as loud as possible.

These cases will no doubt make it up to the Supreme Court for debate. In the meantime, I urge the public to continue speaking out as peacefully (yet forcefully) as possible.

Commentary on "Contraception"

In a blog posted by Stephanie Chattat titled Contraception, she advocates for the free contraception offered by President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Back in 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that employers who provide health insurance for prescription drugs who did not cover birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. However, it took more than 10 years until this came to fruition (...and for George W. Bush to leave office). The ACA was signed into action in March 2010, and as of August 2011 contraception was added to the list of preventative services covered.

In my opinion, this is a huge landmark in women's health. Easy access to contraception is instrumental to a young woman's health, and in the medical community we know that preventative health measures not only save patients from untoward health effects, but also save lots of money for everyone involved (patient, healthcare provider, government). It's estimated that contraceptive use in the United States saves $19 billion in direct medical costs each year. That's no small number. And when examining the fact that about half of pregnancies in the US are unintended, it's clear that women need better access to highly effective forms on contraception.

There is no doubt that debate over free contraception will continue over the next decade(s) as the ACA takes full form (...and Obama leaves office in 2016). In June 2014 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, for-profit corporations are exempt from the contraception mandate if they object on religious grounds. It was argued that although insurance coverage is meant to protect the health of female employees, all women still have access to birth control--it just may not be covered by the provider's health insurance plan. I have a strong suspicion that we will see many cases trickling into the Supreme Court regarding opposition to the ACA.

As somebody who has worked for a NON-profit Catholic hospital for 5 years (paying about $90/month for contraception) and having a medical condition in which birth control pills are medically necessary, I gotta say "Thanks, Obama!" And thank you, America, for recognizing this as my inherent right.

A(nother) Nurse's Perspective on Ebola

I'm sure you're all getting tired over the debate and dare I say frenzy over the Ebola "crisis" in the United States (and of course, the world at large). But, as I'm sure we can all agree, the urgency of this situation is palpable. As a practicing Registered Nurse, this hit too close to home to not share my opinion. I've had enough time to take a step back from this situation and think about where our faults and our successes have been, and my reflection will continue as the United States continues to try to eradicate this virus from our home.

It is difficult for me to state that the US government needs to take full responsibility for helping our health officials contain this outbreak, as I typically lean much closer to keeping the government out of my health needs (see: The Fight Against HB2). But in a case such as this, when a pandemic is rampant in Africa and has now made it to our borders, it becomes the government's responsibility to step in and take measures to protect our citizens. Just as the government would step in following acts of terror or threats of war, when the population's lives are at risk, our government must bear some responsibility. President Obama has recently made it clear that the United States is not only working in the United States to fight Ebola, but also in Africa where the death toll continues to climb at an exponential rate (reaching almost 5,000 lives, out of over 13,000 infected). He is encouraging Americans to help in the fight against Ebola overseas, and he urges the American public to help support our health care workers, both here and abroad.

It seems that the US has gotten over it's initial shock and sensationalism on this debate, and we've learned a tremendous amount from the mistakes made with the first US Ebola patient at Dallas Presbyterian--such as sending Thomas Duncan home from the emergency room (most hospitals now have an Ebola screening form for every patient who comes through the ER), and not being properly equipped/trained to contain the virus (with hospitals like Emory University taking the lead to care for those infected). However, as the shift of responsibility is falling from the national government and into the hands of state governments, the frenzy has been reignited. This is evident in the recent outrage of nurse Kaci Hickox being ordered by Maine's governor Paul LePage to be quarantined a second time, even though she showed no signs of the virus or infection following a 21 day quarantine in New Jersey after returning from Sierra Leon where she care for Ebola patients.

This is an absolute violation of Ms. Hickox's personal liberty. Not only did she show no signs of infection and tested negative for the virus, but this is America's "Thanks" for helping what may be the most vulnerable population in the world at this time. We are seeing the US government and the state governments go head to head in this battle, as the states are imposing their own strict quarantine policies for health care workers returning from Ebola-ravaged countries, and the US government opposes such measures. Ms. Hickox fought the state of Maine through the courts to earn back her freedom and lift the bid to quarantine her for an additional 21 days. The claim made by the state that this is a necessary action is based on misconceptions, misinformation and bad science--a recipe for disaster. Medical professionals agree that although Ebola has a very high mortality rate, it is hard to catch because it is only spread through bodily fluids of an infected person who is symptomatic (i.e. diarrhea, vomiting). It cannot be spread through the air, and it cannot be spread if a person is asymptomatic (even if they have been infected with the virus). I can only hope that other state judges (and governor's) can use Maine as an example of how/how not to handle their citizens returning to their homes from Sierra Leon, Guinea, and Liberia. I can only hope that the overreaction and hysteria can become contained, and instead the public can stay focused on how best to help those in need. We still have a long road ahead to win the battle against Ebola.

See a quick video here by Huffington Post that recaps President Obama's support of health care workers and the current battle between state and national government.

Voters, Please Get Informed!

In a recent article written by Ann Patchett in the New York Times titled Voting In the Rain, she highlights how many Americans vote (or at least how she votes), which seems to be guided by little to no information. She recalls being a child and looking forward to voting, knowing that it would be her own personal political secret. Her parents assured her that no one would ever ask who she voted for or why she voted for them. But, as she points out, that is clearly not the way things work in this day and age. Voter preference is painted over everything in our lives, from our cars, our lawns, and even our person. Social media is flooded with friends and family's personal political preference, that it seems there is almost no hiding your political support. The author goes on to describe her community's affinity to plastering every piece of grass possible with signs supporting political candidates. She believes many Americans are convinced that undecided voters can easily be swayed by these signs, showing others that if it's important enough for someone to clutter up their property, it must be important, and therefore that candidate deserves a vote. Although the author seems to point out that this practice is silly and unreliable, she then goes on to state that she sometimes relies on these signs for less consequential elections in which she is less familiar with the candidates in question. She declares that the barrage of candidate names for the primary elections of State Senate, State House, office of county clerk, and school board in her community were too overwhelming, and she simply decided not to vote and instead to wait for the midterm election in November (as "surely that would be enough"). She then goes on to state that she "tried not to think about the fact that I was giving up a privilege others had fought for." However, she then goes on to state that she was able to get politically charged enough to not sit on the couch for the primary election, and instead get up and vote (and to even walk there in the rain). But immediately followed up by that, she goes on to point out that she in fact used the very lawn signs she was degrading at the beginning of the article to help her decide how to vote...or at least got her thinking as to why one candidate has as much support as they have, and if she should be swayed by that support. She ends her story stating that her vote was made for the woman who shared her name with Thackeray's antihero in "Vanity Fair" and states "I believe that more important votes have been cast on less rationale than that." She even references asking her husband who she should vote for when they reach their polling place, in which he replies "Vote for yourself." In my opinion, this is a disturbing article. I don't think it empowers voters at all to think critically about who they are voting for and why, and instead supports a mindless checking of the boxes that I think many Americans have come to practice. I believe that every voter should take ample time before casting a ballot to research the policies of the candidates in question in order to make informed and well thought out votes. Although I don't believe this was the intent of the author, I believe she is telling America "It's OK to cheat. Just look at what your neighbor is doing."

Not sure where to start? Start with these tips from the League of Women Voters on Smart Voter: How to Judge a Candidate.

Let's Face It, Pot Should Be Legal

In recent times, America has been seeing a shift to more state's rights (see: same-sex marriage and legalization of marijuana). Even though both are not considered legal under federal law, 31 states now allow same-sex marriage and 23 states have legalized medical marijuana, with some states now allowing recreational use of marijuana. The federal government has begun to take a "hands off" stance to these matters, more-or-less allowing states to dictate how these laws are handled (although Congress shows no signs of budging on the federal ban of marijuana any time soon). In an article posted by the Editorial Board in the Opinion Pages of the New York Times (Yes to Marijuana Ballot Measures), they urge voters in Alaska, Oregon and Washington D.C. to vote yes to measures on the ballot this election season to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. In 1996, California was the first state to legalize medical use of marijuana, and 30 states have since followed suit. In 2012, Washington State and Colorado legalized recreational marijuana, and the editorial board believes that a similar following by other states should and will happen. The article points out that marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol (with not one reported death from marijuana ever), and this country has spent decades arresting people for buying, selling, and using marijuana, which has cost tax payers millions of dollars, and has disproportionately affected minority communities by the "harsh criminal penalties of prohibition." The article points out the differences with each of the ballot measures being proposed by each state, which again illustrates the power of the states and their ability to dictate their laws on an individual basis. In Alaska, Ballot Measure 2 would allow recreational use legal for those 21 and up, create a marijuana control board, and tax the drug at $50 per ounce wholesale. Oregon is proposing Measure 91 which would also set the legal age of 21, and give the Oregon Liquor Control Commission the power to regulate and would direct it to review tax rates regularly. And Washington D.C. is proposing Initiative 71 which would repeal all criminal and civil penalties for personal possession of marijuana and allow limited, private cultivation of the drug. What is clearly pointed out by this article, is that prohibition has completely failed. There is a large percentage of Americans who admit to using marijuana, and it is very easy to obtain the drug on the black market, or to get a medical marijuana card in states where it is legal. Regulation boards created by these measures would help keep prices low enough to compete with the black market (helping detach our country from the horrific drug cartels of Mexico), and also generate revenue for the state. In the first six months of this year, Colorado generated $18.9 million from marijuana taxation revenue. I highly recommend every US citizen, whether opposed or in support of marijuana legalization watch the documentary Evergreen: The Road to Legalization, which follows the passing of I-502 in Washington State (the first state to legalize recreational use of marijuana), and which also delves deeply into the troubling depths of the War on Drugs and the monumental effects of prohibition laws on our nation's police forces, prisons, medical patients, citizens, and economy. There is too much evidence that supports the legalization of marijuana in this country. I must agree with the editorial board and urge voters in Alaska, D.C., and Oregon to vote YES to these measures, and hope that the rest of the nation will soon follow suit.

Money DOES Make The World Go 'Round...At Least According to Political Ad Spending

In a story by Audie Cornish on NPR last week (see: Political TV Ad Spending Expected To Top $1 Billion), the numbers could not lie. There has already been over $1 billion spent on political advertisements this election season, and experts expect spending to reach close to $2 million by the end of the political races this year. Elizabeth Wilner of Kantar Media spoke with Cornish about who the true "losers" are in this sea of negative ads. Namely, those of us disturbed by the abrasiveness of these ads, which typically consist of one candidate bashing another (instead of say, educating the public on their political agenda), and also those companies who's ads get "bumped" from time slots because political groups pay top dollar to get their ads on the air. This latter fact paints a picture of why there has been such a massive amount of money spent on ad space. Nearly 30% of these ads are being paid for by outside political groups, which has created a "Wild West" of political advertising, as they do not have to conform to the same rules and regulations that political groups have to when airing ads (such as equal access and airtime). Wilner relates this "Wild West" to eBay. She states that the outside political groups (or PACs) get caught up in a bidding war because there is a limited amount of ad space. She states that an ad slot isn't technically sold until the ad airs, therefore up until the very last minute, political groups can stay in the bidding war until the highest bidder comes out on top. Within this setting, TV stations are the real winners, getting top dollar for air time, and they have no need to worry about equal and fair air time for all candidates (just how much they are willing to pay). Politicians understand that TV is their main source of getting their word out to the general public, and they are willing to do whatever it takes (money, money, money, and tearing their opponent down) to get what they want: votes.

Although these ads are dated (2012), see below for examples of "sleazy" political ads. Note not one has anything to do with the politician's political agenda that paid for the advertisement, but instead only highlights everything bad associated with an opposing candidate. Sad stuff, if you ask me.