Abortion Issues

  Abortion is perhaps one of the oldest and most controversial issues in American society today. The topic of abortion continues to divide American’s all across the country. Abortion is not only a morality, human right, and religious issue to people it is also a political issue that uniquely qualifies it is highly debatable and a sensitive topic. The legality and policies vary greatly from state to state and differ widely from coast to coast. 

     Abortion in the United States prior to 1973 was legal up to the point where a mother could actually feel her fetus moving, which typically occurs in a women’s pregnancy in the first trimester. Therefore, a woman was limited to the first trimester to receive an abortion before new legislation was instituted. In 1973, the revolutionary supreme court case Roe versus Wade changed abortion policies in the United States.  The finding in this case were that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion was protected by the 14^th amendment in the United States Constitution.  Thus, the decision made it legal to get an abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy.  

      In order to best understand changes that have recently developed in Illinois, it is important to briefly outline the history of reproductive rights as it pertains to Illinoisans.  In 1827 abortion-inducing drugs were outlawed.  In 1867, abortions became illegal with the exceptions of aborting after rape or for health reasons.  In 1973, after supreme court hearing Roe versus Wade, abortions became legal.  In 2017, Illinois was recognized as a destination for out-of-state women seeking abortion.  This was due to the fact that many other states had very strict laws regarding abortions.

On March 1,^, 2020, the governor passed a bill called the Reproductive Health Act.  This bill changed policies surrounding the former way of obtaining an abortion in the state of Illinois.  The restrictions that were set in place now include that at least one parent of a minor must be notified prior to the abortion.  Another change is that an abortion may be performed at or after viability only if the patient’s life or health is endangered.

     The Reproductive Health Act changed many things for woman’s healthcare.  What many people become upset about was the part of the bill that made it possible for a woman to get an abortion into her third trimester. According to the ACLU this bill also includes “recognizing that each person has a fundamental right to make decisions about reproductive health care including “contraception, abortion, and maternity care.”  The bill establishes that private insurance plans cover abortion at the same rate they would cover any other care in regard to pregnancy, which makes abortions more easily accessible for individuals who otherwise may have to pay out of pocket for a medical procedure. 

     There are many anti-abortion activists that are appalled at the changes that this bill has created.  They believe that an abortion is synonymous with murder. They believe that women should be charged with murder for these acts.  Anti-abortionists do not agree with their tax dollars going to causes that helps women to end their pregnancy resulting in the death of their unborn child.  They make the argument that there are many people in the world that want children and are waiting to adopt a child while there are others that are killing their child.  They believe that many women who abort their child are using this procedure as a form of contraceptives.  In the instances that a woman is raped they think it would be a better choice to seek “the morning after pill” to refrain from any unwanted pregnancies.  Complications from procedures is another point that activists wish to point out.  If there are not complications medically, the mental health of a women who ended her pregnancy is known to be higher with the women often feeling regret for her choice.  

     To counter the argument against third trimester abortions, pro-choice activist report that nearly all abortions, about 90%, take place during the first trimester except in the case of mother being unable to safely carry the fetus. Individuals on the side of pro-choice argue that sometimes it is not safe to carry a fetus full term and that adoption is not a viable choice to many mothers. They also argue that third-trimester abortions are usually performed when a child has a serious defect, such that they would probably die at birth or within the first hours after birth. Adoption, on the surface level, seems like a good option, but often it is difficult for the mother to give her baby away at the time of birth. 

Rape and incest are traumatic for any person. However, when a fetus in produced as a result it becomes a little more complicated. Not only does rape and incest cause trauma, shame is also birthed as a result. Shame and secrecy go hand in hand and often the mother doesn’t want to admit she was raped or has the possibility of being pregnant. Pro-choice activists are charged with defending against arguments about taxpayer dollars going toward abortion. Pro-choice advocates argue that taxpayer dollars support many activities that may go against someone ideals and even morals, such as war. Also, on the back end if a person has a child with whom they cannot support and attempt to raise, the chances of taxpayers’ dollars being spent on entitlements and benefits for that family potentially continue until the child is an adult.  Banning abortion does not save money. 

While Illinois certainly has become a controversial state with their abortion laws, it is clear many people remain firm when it comes to their views and will continue to argue their views. In the next 10 years, it will be interesting to see where people stand on the topic of reproductive rights in Illinois and if their voices were heard to a point where legislative changes will be made. 

This paper discusses some of the points made by pro-life and pro-choice advocates in the abortion dispute. You might have observed that the root of the conflict is the different assumptions or premises the two camps use.  If the embryo or fetus is not a person, then restricting abortion violates the human rights and the autonomy of the women. And, as the American Supreme Court decided, citizens have a right to expect privacy in their medical care, so if a doctor and a patient decide that an abortion is necessary, the government does not have a right to interject itself into that relationship and forbid this procedure. For those who oppose abortion, the pregnancy involves a new person, and that unborn child person must be protected, and their life must be preserved. At some point between conception and birth, we become persons, but determining where that line is crossed is a matter that seems somewhat arbitrary. 

The Pew Foundation regularly surveys Americans to learn about popular opinion concerning abortions. In 2020 it seems about 33% want abortion to be harder to get (including those who want to ban abortion).  About 26% want abortion to be easier to get. About 39% say abortion is appropriately available, and should remain as easy/difficult to get as it currently is. 

The CONNECT for Health Act

The CONNECT for Health Act stands for the Creating Opportunities Now for Necessary and Effective Care Technologies for Health Act. This is an Act that is being submitted by the ALS Association (a group advocating for care and treatment for persons facing the progressive neurodegenerative disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). The main point of the bill is to ensure  that patients with ALS gain access to telemedicine and Telehealth regardless of their location. Patients who have access to telemedicine and Telehealth tend to be in rural areas, where access to health care for their needs is not within close proximity. This bill is pushing for the expansion of access so that patients who may live in the city or closer to their health services, but cannot physically get to them, can still get the health care and doctors appointments that they need. The ALS Association has agreed to, “work closely with stakeholders across the health care and technology ecosystem to expand a legal and regulatory environment where providers are permitted to deliver safe, high quality care using Telehealth and telemedicine regardless of care delivery location or technological method” (ALS Association). This would ensure that the process of using Telehealth and telemedicine for serving ALS patients would go as smoothly as possible on both ends of the line, and would ensure that patients are still getting the best care possible without the stress of having to leave their home. 

Those in favor of this act support it because it would allow for a greater number of patients with ALS to get access to the much needed health care that they may otherwise not be able to access. Doing appointments online through this method increases the chances that more people will be able to make their appointment, as they do not have to leave their homes and travel to meet with their doctor. Another reason people support this act is because if patients are in a wheelchair or need lots of medical assistance to function, then they may not be able to travel or may feel too insecure to travel to the doctor’s office. Having their appointments available through an online format where they can talk to their doctor from the comfort of their home can have a significant positive impact on their self-esteem and reduce stress that comes along with trying to travel. Many in congress favor this bill and agree it would improve health access to many patients.

Currently there is no opposition to passing the act. All comments made on this act have been in favor of it. However, possible oppositions to this act may include that it does not allow for as much of a personal connection between patients and health care providers. By doing appointments online, and not in person, there is a limitation to how much of a personal relationship can be built. Another potential reason one might oppose this Act is because of the dependency on the internet that it requires. In order for patients to meet with providers through Telehealth and remote means, each person must have access to the internet and be able to keep a strong connection during the entire appointment. If the internet is down or not strong enough for one or more participants at the time of an appointment, then the patient may not be able to meet with their health care provider for their appointment. These are only possible oppositions to the bill and are not oppositions made my congress.

References

http://www.alsa.org/advocacy/Public-Policy-Priorities.html?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2741

Protecting Social Workers and Health Professionals from Workplace Violence Act of 2019

This year Congress may consider approving the Protecting Social Workers and Health Professionals from Workplace Violence Act of 2019; this is a policy that would help provide safety measures to social workers, health care workers, and human services professionals. This bill would especially protect those who provide services for high risk and dangerous situations and for other reasons. Representative  Brownley of California introduced the bill to the House of Representatives on November 18, 2019. It was then referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to States to provide safety measures to social workers, health workers, and human service professionals in dangerous and high risk situations. 

The bill will award grants to States, Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations to provide safety measures protecting these professionals. Grants that may be awarded to these States or organizations will provide support for certain safety precautions. Such safety measures include: installation of safety equipment, technical assistance and training for safety communications, training sessions and exercises for self defense, facility safety improvements, training in cultural competency, training to work with certain clients, resources and materials to educate staff on safety and awareness, support services, installation of a local data incident tracking systems to monitor threats and violence, and other prevention measures laid out by the Secretary. The installation of safety equipment includes communications or recording systems such as cell phones, tracking devices, or panic buttons used for foster care or other client visits to ensure safety. Facility safety improvements include barrier protection and security cameras. Training in cultural competency could include linguistic training, and training for minimizing conflict situations. Training social workers and other health professionals for work with certain clients include: clients with serious mental and substance use disorders, behavioral problems, and those who need help coping. The support services that would be implemented would be counseling and additional resources for those workers who have experienced safety issues or trauma in the workplace. 

In order for a State or organization to receive such a grant, they must submit an application to the Secretary accompanied by any information that the Secretary requires. Each application should describe the agencies that will receive funding and type of work done by the agencies, describe the specific activities for which the grant will be used, and include a budget, and assurance that the State or organization will continually evaluate the effectiveness of the safety measures provided by the grant. 

The cost of this bill is authorized to be appropriated $10 million for each year from 2021 through to 2025. That is the total amount of funding, so if each year 10 states received grants through this act, the grants would average $1 million per state per year, and over the course of five years, each state could hypothetically get a grant. But of course, the training needs in states like California, Texas, New York, and Florida would be much higher than in Wyoming, New Hampshire, Delaware, and North Dakota, so some states might get a few hundred thousand and others might get two or three million. The grant comes from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and requires follow up with those applicants who received the grant to continue receiving the money for their safety measures. Currently this bill has been passed by the House of Representatives and is currently waiting to be passed by the Senate. 

There are many healthcare professionals that would benefit from this bill. Many nurses face the fear of going to work each day, not knowing what kind of patients they will have that day. A majority of these nurses are those who work with older patients and those patients who have mental or behavior disorders. Some patients become violent with their nurses, sometimes on purpose, and sometimes through no fault of their own (for example, in some types of dementia). This bill would help make nurses feel more safe going to work each day. Whether it is because they now know self defense, or they have other trainings on how to handle dangerous situations. This bill would also help social workers who work in the field, out of the office. There have been many cases where social workers have gone out into the field, especially foster care visits or DCFS investigations, and have been injured, harmed, or assaulted on the job. For example, in September of 2017 Andrew Sucher felt the DCFS was harassing him, so he knocked down social worker Pamela Knight and kicked her, mortally injuring her, so that she died a little over four months later. With this bill these social workers would be provided with self defense training, as well as provided with GPS/bluetooth tracking so that supervisors and law enforcement know where the worker is placed. Overall, this bill will provide not only peace of mind to these workers, but it will also provide them with concrete measures to remain safe in the workplace.  

An advocacy letter recommending huge increases in child care support

Child Care and the Workforce

I am writing today to bring your attention to an important matter. Wanting the best for your child’s safety, care, and wellbeing is the number one priority in any parent’s mind. Unfortunately, “The United States is among the lowest in the developed world in the early childhood care we provide” (Friedman, 2014). Parents need comfort and consolation that their children will be well taken care of when going to their jobs. Parents should be able to trust that their country’s expectation and standards for childcare, regardless of the city and/or state, are more than satisfactory. To many parents’ dismay, the childcare system in the United States is below subpar. 

Though Americans spend more on childcare than in other developed countries (and those countries actually provide excellent childcare), “the majority of American day care providers ranked fair or poor and only 10% were deemed of high quality” and “the cost of care has doubled since the 1980s, according to the Census Bureau” (Friedman, 2014). Many parents have been stopped or greatly restricted in their careers due to their need to parent their children because of the great lack of decent childcare. A recent study published in March 2019, examined a group of about 2,000 Amazon employees with younger children and “argues that a lack of affordable childcare has prevented talented women from progressing in their careers” and “these mothers are ‘tired of seeing colleagues quit because they can’t find childcare’” (Schochet, 2019). Amazon is typical of American workplaces. Parents nationwide have struggled with this for too long.

Our lack of good childcare forces many parents to leave their jobs due to needing to take care of their children. There’s also an increase in one parent working and the other staying home to be a full-time caregiver and not even working with the degrees that they’ve earned to fulfill life-long dream careers. To make matters worse, good quality childcare is expensive, especially when having multiple children. Fortunately, all hope is not lost for these parents.

The two largest federal programs that provide free or subsidized childcare are The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and Head Start (HS). These federal programs are made for low-income families and parents who are still trying to pursue their careers with younger children. The CCDBG is the biggest monetary source of federal funding for childcare assistance. It funds childcare subsidies provided by states for low-income families. The other federal program, Head Start, helps to ensure that children get high quality early education in addition to health and social services (Schochet, 2019). 

These programs need more funding. They need to be able to help more families. They’ve made such an impact and helped so many families, but more families need such assistance. Approximately one million low-income children and their families are helped annually, but in 2018 over four million persons lived in poor families with related children under age six (Semega et al., 2019, Table B-2). Though these programs have helped many families through “promoting maternal labor force participation” and have been having “positive child outcomes” (Schochet, 2019), they need to include more families in their served population, and need the funding to be able to do so. Many more families and parents need this assistance. Sadly, “only a small portion of families who need assistance paying for childcare receive it...about one-third of eligible 3- to 5-year-olds, while Early Head Start serves seven percent of eligible children under age 3” (Schochet, 2019).

In conclusion, a very select amount of families receive assistance with childcare and so many more need it. Please help support and help these families that are in need. Parents are struggling and unable to fully fulfill their responsibilities and duties, and children are suffering in poor quality childcare facilities and not receiving the appropriate attention and care they deserve. Recently, in the FY 2020 budget, the Federal government appropriated $7.7 billion for the CCDBG and $11.6 billion for Head Start (Joughin, 2019).  It seems to me a more appropriate level of funding would be $20 billion for CCDBG and $35 billion for Head Start.

References

Friedman, S. D. (2014, August 7). 7 Policy Changes America Needs So People Can Work and Have Kids. https://hbr.org/2013/11/7-policy-changes-america-needs-so-people-can-work-and-have-kids 

Joughin, C. (2019). Here’s the latest on federal funding for early learning and care for FY2020. First Five Years Fund. https://www.ffyf.org/heres-the-latest-on-federal-funding-for-early-learning-and-care-for-fy20201/

Schochet, L. (2019, March 28). The Child Care Crisis Is Keeping Women Out of the Workforce. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/reports/2019/03/28/467488/child-care-crisis-keeping-women-workforce/ 

Semega, J., Kollar, M. Creamer, J., & Mohanty, A. (2019). Income and Poverty in the United States: 2018. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-266.pdf

Student describes the COVID-19 Pandemic and policy responses to it

The New Corona Virus (SARS-CoV-2) causes the pandemic disease COVID-19, described by President Trump as the Chinese disease. It is a new virus, closely related to  In December the virus was transporting from person to person in China, and many cases were linked to a seafood market in Wuhan, China. On January 6, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned Americans to take precautions if traveling to China. According to nbcnews.com/politics “The World Health Organization issues a statement about the first COVID-19 case outside of China, saying, “There is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.” On January 20, 2020 the first case was confirmed in the United States. The patient was seen at an urgent care clinic near Seattle Washington for a 4-day cold with fever. (NEJM Group) Radiography text were performed and showed no abnormalities and Influenzas test A and B was negative as well. Due to the patient's recent travel to China local and state health departments were immediately notified and had the patient tested for COVID. The patient’s specimens were collected from serum, nasopharyngeal, and oropharyngeal swab specimens. (NEJM Group) Patient) The patient’s nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs tested positive and on January 20, 2020 was the beginning of the COVID 19 outbreak in the United States. 

The Covid-19 outbreak led to many policies being created in the United States. One of Trump's executive orders banned anyone who had been in China 14 days prior with exceptions, including US citizens, lawful permanent residents, and their close family members.  On March 13, 2020, Governor J.B. Pritzker ordered all Illinois schools to be closed. Suddenly parents were without childcare and looking for alternative arrangements. This was one of the biggest orders announced to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Not too much later, President Trump issued orders to control the spread of the coronavirus at a press briefing. During the briefing, Trump recommended that all Americans, including the young and healthy, do schooling from home. He also wanted Americans to avoid gatherings in groups of more than ten people. I recall waiting to see if my daughters would perform in the St. Patrick's Day parade. At that time, most parents had no clue what the novel coronavirus was and didn’t know about the guidelines that should be followed. The city rescheduled the parade giving students a false hope that the show would go on, just not as scheduled. Parents were told the the St. Patrick's Day parade will be rescheduled and that they would receive information on the new dates.

However, downtowners were not caring about the coronavirus and packed the bars as ever, and enjoyed their usual good old time. Governor J.B. Pritzker along with other governors were upset that no one was taking social distancing seriously. The next policy that the governor dropped changed the economy. Governor J.B. Pritzker implemented a safety lockdown. This policy ordered all bars and restaurants in the state to close. Dining, malls, retail stores, and other small business were closed due to the stay-at-home order. The O'Hare International Airport was closed. This order was only to be to March 29, 2020. Unfortunately for the economy, the executive order went past that date and extended to the end of April.

The coronavirus not only affected the lives of Illinoisans, but it also affected life in America and across the globe. Life, as everyone had known it, came to a near halt in a matter of days. The unprecedented shutdown of activity in America caused some Americans to panic. Americans lined up in shopping centers and began to buy all the toilet paper, hand sanitizers, paper towels, feminine wipes, baby wipes, and groceries off the shelves. Americans were spending their savings on hoarding groceries and toilet paper. People were without work and a means to support themselves. The economy and stock market seemed to be doomed. Congress had to act and act fast to provide some type of relief to Americans. Measures were needed to support small business and people no longer working. This led to President Trump declaring the virus a national emergency and working with Congress on a relief package. The shutdown of America came with a price an $ 484 billion spending package to combat the coronavirus.

The policy included an enhanced unemployment package along with stimulus checks. The unemployment policy was signed into law on March 27, 2020. It provided enhanced unemployment insurance for workers, parents, and others impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, who typically would not qualify unemployment benefits.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law on March 27. It expands states' ability to provide unemployment insurance for many workers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including for workers who are not ordinarily eligible for unemployment benefits. There is no waiting period to receive unemployment other than the hundreds of people who filed ahead of you in line. In addition to regular unemployment benefits, individuals who receive unemployment receive $600 hundred a week from state unemployment insurance programs. Unemployment status would not affect the stimulus checks that were also approved by Congress. Most taxpayers and social security recipients were to receive  $1,200 per person in stimulus checks. The stimulus also included $500 dollars for each child. There is no confirmed news if the second round of stimulus checks will be issued. Illinoisans can only hope things get back to the way it was before the coronavirus.

References 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/timeline-trump-administration-s-response-coronavirus-n1162206 March 17, 2020,

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 25, 2020 / Notices

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/15/835011346/a-timeline-of-coronavirus-comments-from-president-trump-and-who

https://khn.org/morning-breakout/senate-overwhelmingly-passes-houses-coronavirus-bill-immediately-switches-attention-to-phase-3-stimulus-package/

NEJM Group Med 2020; 382:929-936 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001191

Student writes an editorial in favor of Universal Health Care in America

Editorial – Universal Health Care in America

Health care. One of the biggest and longest debated issues in America. Should it be free, or not free (paid for collectively through taxes, or paid for individually through insurance premiums or fees and prices)? Should we cut costs, or not (would cutting costs degrade quality)? The questions go on and on. Unfortunately, there’s more than enough debate, but not enough resolution or progress. Health care is important, and so are the lives impacted based on its availability and affordability. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46 million Americans lack health coverage. In addition, the “lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year in the United States” (Wilper 2009). The Harvard Gazette states that “that figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002” (Cecere 2019). 

This is beyond unacceptable. People should not continue to die because they don’t have access to or can’t afford healthcare. Men, women, and children nationwide struggle with this issue on a daily basis. Why does America value money and profit over providing healthcare to its citizens? Why does someone have to die because they can’t get afford medication? Why does a family have to go into debt because they simply waited in the ER, or simply called an ambulance to their home because their baby was having a seizure? Is America a safe home and refuge, or a callous business? 

Overpriced services, unnecessary fees, and long wait times (if you even get seen) make healthcare and medications a complete chore (and can even become a death sentence in some cases). Americans should not be robbed and deprived of their natural right as a citizen and human being to get medical attention, nor should they be financial punished by doing so. 

Then comes the real question. Why isn’t healthcare free, or at best, affordable and not nearly as expensive? Why is America the only country in the world that charges its citizens so mercilessly? According to Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), “Healthcare spending in the United States is $3 trillion a year, straining the budgets of families, businesses and taxpayers alike.” The three main factors driving U.S. healthcare costs, according to BCBS, are prescription drugs, chronic diseases, and lifestyle. It’s a domino effect. If Americans’ lifestyles were bettered so as not to lead to developing chronic diseases (such as arthritis, obesity, diabetes, cancer and heart disease), there would be a lesser need and a lower demand for treating them. Hence, the prescription drug demand would also lower; thus the prices lower and they are now more affordable.

America needs to take better care of its citizens. Unfortunately, prescription drug prices are estimated to increase in the coming years by 136%. For example, “Harvoni, a medication to treat Hepatitis C, cost $10,000 more in the U.S. than Europe...” In the United States, the average cost for childbirth is close to $11,000, though in Germany it’s about $2,500 (Labels, 2019). 

Regulations on tobacco use, alcohol consumption, and providing healthier food choices and options at an affordable cost to help prevent obesity would greatly benefit the American people. BCBS reported the annual spending for tobacco is $170 billion, excessive alcohol consumption is $185 billion, and obesity is $147 billion. 

In continuation on the last points made, if this is done correctly and American lives are put first, chronic diseases will decrease significantly. Blue Cross Blue Shield’s reports on the costs and spending dedicated to the following chronic illnesses alone are traumatic.; arthritis and related conditions cost $128 billion, obesity costs $147 billion, cancer costs $157 billion, and heart diseases and strokes are $315.4 billion. Unhealthy habits and lifestyles lead to chronic illnesses, and the illnesses lead to the need for medication and prescription drugs. These factors unanimously contribute to the disgustingly high healthcare costs in the United States. 

These expensive healthcare costs are not just used to treat illnesses and afford medication, but also to “pay for administrative costs related to the complexity of the country’s health care system” (Labels, 2019). Also, doctors use more technology. To give an idea of this, the United States use 35 MRI machines for every million people while France, for example, only has 8. Because the United States makes more money off of administering tests, doctors are thus encouraged to “more rather than being more conservative in their approach” (Labels, 2019). 

In conclusion, America needs to prioritize this matter immediately. 45,000 deaths annually is beyond disheartening. Too many people are dying. Too many people are hurting. There is too much loss. There is too much suffering. Changes need to be made. New laws and policies need to be created. Costs need to be lowered. Lives need to be saved. America needs to listen to its citizens and put the capitalism to the side in this area of providing health care. There needs to be change now. 

References

“Blue Cross Blue Shield | The High Cost of Treating Chronic Diseases.” Blue Cross Blue Shield, Blue Cross Blue Shield, www.bcbs.com/sites/default/files/file-attachments/page/Chronic_Diseases_0.pdf. 

“Blue Cross Blue Shield | Prescription Drug Prices Expected to Increase by 136 Percent.” Blue Cross Blue Shield, Blue Cross Blue Shield, www.bcbs.com/sites/default/files/file-attachments/page/Prescription_Drug_Price_Increases.pdf. 

“Blue Cross Blue Shield | Unhealthy Behaviors Contribute to High Healthcare Costs.” Blue Cross Blue Shield, Blue Cross Blue Shield, www.bcbs.com/sites/default/files/file-attachments/page/Unhealthy_Behaviors.pdf. 

Cecere, David. “New Study Finds 45,000 Deaths Annually Linked to Lack of Health Coverage.” Harvard Gazette, Harvard Gazette, 7 Jan. 2019, www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/. 

Labels, N. (2019). “Five Facts: Why U.S. Health Care Is So Expensive.” RealClearPolicy, Apr. 2019, www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2019/04/04/five_facts_why_us_health_care_is_so_expensive__111148.html. 

“Why Does Healthcare Cost So Much?” (n.d.) Blue Cross Blue Shield, Blue Cross Blue Shield, www.bcbs.com/issues-indepth/why-does-healthcare-cost-so-much. 

Wilper, A. P., Woolhandler, S., Lasser, K. E., McCormick, D., Bor, D. H., & Himmelstein, D. U. (2009). “Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults.” American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, Dec. 2009, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775760/. 

Student writes letter to Senator Duckworth supporting HR-1585 (VAWA)

Senator Duckworth

8 South Old State Capitol Plaza

Springfield, IL 62701

Dear Senator Duckworth,

I am writing to you today to ask for your help in getting the Violence Against Women Act HR 1585 (VAWA) reauthorized for the most recent term. This bill, which was passed by the House in April of 2019, currently sits in the Senate a year later with no progress made towards a vote. While I understand that you yourself would undoubtedly vote to pass this bill, I also believe that you have the power to reach out to your counterparts on the Republican side of the aisle and impress upon them the importance of the reauthorization of the VAWA.

As a citizen of the city of Springfield and a Community Health Worker for the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, I have worked with many men and women who have been impacted by relational violence. The programming and protections provided by the VAWA are vital in decreasing the number of those incidents and in ensuring that those who are committing the crimes are fully prosecuted. The reauthorization of this bill every four to five years has ensured that new crimes and new groups that need protection are being added to the law. I understand that this particular reauthorization may be held up by the addition of the transgendered community or by the removal of the right to purchase a handgun by someone convicted of domestic violence, but I implore you to share the bigger picture with your fellow Senators. This law has had huge impacts including a decline of 72% in the rate of serious intimate partner violence against women and a 60% decline in the annual rate of rape and sexual assault perpetrated against girls and women.

From a personal perspective, as a survivor of domestic violence, I know and understand the importance of the resources available to someone as they move through and beyond a relationship of this type. I depended greatly on some of the programming that has been created from the funds made available by the VAWA and would not be where I am today if it wasn’t for this bill and what it has helped to create.

Senator, I understand that this is not an easy sell. I am sure that the idea of limiting access to handguns under any situation is probably something that feels like a non-starter with some of your colleagues. The bill does not suggest the limiting of all guns, simply handguns which are easier to purchase and conceal, and only for those who have already demonstrated their ease with violent behavior. That limitation does not carry more weight than the physical and mental health of the men, women and children who live in our country.

I look forward to seeing this bill passed with these new additions and the protections and funding for these vital programs redistributed. I trust in your ability to get this will be happy to continue to provide my support to your upcoming campaigns.