ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Introduction to US Relations with Estonia

    Introduction to US Relations with Estonia

    Estonia, a small country at the northern end of the Baltic states, has received increased focus from Western media in light of the deepening divide between the West and Russia in Eastern Europe—exemplified by the war in Ukraine. Estonia, a NATO ally of the United States and member of the European Union, spent the Cold War under Soviet rule and two centuries as part of the Russian Empire. Today, Estonia is recognized for incorporating digital innovation with democratic governance and public services, leading some to refer to it as a “digital democracy”. 

    Estonia, located at the northern end of the Baltic states, has gained increased attention from Western media due to the growing divide between the West and Russia in Eastern Europe, particularly highlighted by the war in Ukraine. As a NATO ally of the United States and a member of the European Union, Estonia has a history of Soviet rule during the Cold War and centuries as part of the Russian Empire. Today, Estonia is known for blending digital innovation with democratic governance and public services, earning it the nickname of a “digital democracy.”

    Fact Sheet

    History of US-Estonia Relations

    Following the Russian Civil War and World War I, Estonia declared independence, leading to the establishment of diplomatic relations between Estonia and the United States in 1922. However, during World War II, Estonia faced occupation by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, eventually falling under Soviet control. It wasn’t until the end of the Cold War in 1991 that Estonia regained its independence. Throughout the Cold War period, the United States never formally recognized Estonia as part of the Soviet Union. Instead, the U.S. maintained diplomatic relations with Estonia’s separate representatives, reflecting its continued support for Estonia’s independence.

    Estonia’s Tensions with Russia

    Since its independence, Estonia has grappled with tensions with Russia regarding the treatment of its sizable ethnic Russian minority. Many long-term Russian residents in Estonia, including those born there, were not automatically granted Estonian citizenship. Although some eventually obtained citizenship, those lacking proficiency in Estonian faced statelessness. Russia’s President Putin has cited discrimination against Russian minorities to justify actions in Ukraine, raising concerns of potential application of similar arguments against Estonia.

    Estonia’s admission to NATO in 2004, along with the other Baltic states, expanded the Western alliance up to Russia’s borders, contributing to increased tensions between Estonia and Russia. This westward shift is further evidenced by Estonia’s acceptance into the EU in the same year.

    US Strategic Interests

    • Strategy and conflict: Russia’s war in Ukraine has renewed America’s focus on its alliance with the Baltic states, including Estonia. As other Eastern European nations fear that they could be next to face Russian aggression, Estonia’s ambassador to the United States has remarked that the war represents “existential risks” to their nation and allies. The Baltic states are seen as the most strategically vulnerable part of NATO to a Russian invasion. Wargames conducted by the RAND Corporation in 2014 and 2015 found that Russian forces could reach Tallinn and Riga in as few as 60 hours. Due to Estonia’s membership in NATO, a Russian attack on Estonia would likely compel its allies, including the United States, to respond.
    • NATO alliance: Estonia also has a unique role in NATO. Consistent with Estonia’s emphasis on digital innovation, the country hosts the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence from which NATO’s cybersecurity operations are based. 
    • Aligned value system: Since the end of the Cold War, Estonia has exhibited increased alignment with America’s values on the world stage. Previously a communist republic, Estonia now has a free market and has made significant reforms towards liberal democracy, demonstrating a shift away from its historical ties with Russia and towards a Western alignment.
    • Economic ties: Over the same time, Estonia has developed closer economic ties to the United States, with the US moving from Estonia’s fourteenth largest trading partner to its fourth largest from 2017 to 2019. The two countries have also signed several economic agreements over the last few decades. 

    Future

    As concerns about the security of the Baltics increase, the addition of Finland and Sweden into NATO could contribute to enhanced security in the region. Since the start of Russia’s war in Ukraine, Estonia has provided around $400 million in military aid to Ukraine. The Baltic states have been united in their support for Ukraine, and Estonia has called upon its NATO allies to increase their defence spending to 2.5% of their GDP to support Ukraine. The likely goal moving forward for Estonia and NATO is to deter further Russian aggression against its bordering states by preventing their success in Ukraine.

  • US-Brazil Relations Post-2022 Brazilian Presidential Election

    US-Brazil Relations Post-2022 Brazilian Presidential Election

    Brazil Before the Election, 2022 Presidential Election Results, & Aftermath

    From 2019 to 2022, Brazil was led by the popular conservative, President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro publicly questioned Brazilian governmental institutions and drew upon religious and cultural identities in a way that many have criticized as weakening democracy in the country. Brazil’s foreign policy was also less predictable and less multilateral as Bolsonaro seemed skeptical of Western international institutions. Instead, Bolsonaro deepened Brazil’s economic and diplomatic relationships elsewhere, notably with like-minded conservative leaders such as China’s Xi Jingping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. U.S.-Brazil relations also strengthened during this time, with Bolsonaro and then-President Donald Trump sharing close political and personal alignment. 

    In the 2022 Brazilian presidential elections, Bolsonaro was challenged by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—a popular leftist who was president of Brazil from 2003-2011. In October, Lula beat Bolsonaro with 50.9% to 49.1% of the vote to win the presidency. Bolsonaro repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the election, despite Brazil’s Defense Ministry finding no evidence of manipulation in the votes. The political unrest culminated on January 8th, 2023, when his supporters stormed Brazil’s Congress. The attack was similar to, and arguably inspired by, the January 6th insurrection in the U.S..

    Recent reports reveal that President Biden’s administration was directly involved in protecting the peaceful transfer of power in Brazil. Senior U.S. officials formally and informally pressured Bolsonaro and his administration to accept the results in the months leading up to the election. Biden and his administration harshly condemned the January 8th attack and stated their support for Lula.

    A Changing Relationship with the U.S.

    Lula’s administration seems to be challenging the U.S.’s role in Latin America and the international sphere. He has publicly questioned the use of the U.S. dollar as the global currency of business and championed broader use of other currencies, specifically the Chinese Yuan. He has advocated for the strengthening of political power of the Latin American bloc in the international order while de-emphasizing the role of the UN Security Council countries (China, France, Russia, U.S., and U.K.). Lula also explicitly defied the U.S. by receiving Iranian warships over its objections. 

    Perhaps most notably, Lula has strengthened relations with the U.S.’s top rivals: Russia and China. Unlike the U.S. and most of its allies, Brazil has maintained a position of deliberate neutrality with regard to the war in Ukraine. While Lula condemned Russian president Vladimir Putin’s actions, he refused to enact sanctions and stated that some of the blame for the conflict falls on Ukraine and NATO. Instead, Lula has advocated for peace negotiations, suggesting that Brazil act as the lead negotiator. 

    At the same time, Brazil, like many countries, is increasing economic ties with China. Brazil is now the second-largest borrower of Chinese state loans and China has surpassed the U.S. as Brazil’s biggest trading partner. During Lula’s high-profile visit to China in April, Xi stated that China-Brazil relations were “a high priority.” This is concerning to the U.S. as it attempts to curb China’s economic rise and maintain its own status as the world’s most important economy. 

    Along with Russia, India, China, and South Africa, Brazil is a founding member of the BRICS economic grouping. BRICS is widely seen as a rival to the U.S.-led group: the G7. Lula has been a strong advocate of expanding the influence of BRICS since he took office, and in August 2023, BRICS extended membership to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina, and the United Arab Emirates, greatly expanding its reach and prestige. 

    Taken together, Lula’s actions since gaining the presidency seem to indicate a challenge to the U.S.-centric international status quo. Some experts argue that Lula is attempting to create a “multipolar world order” where Brazil is one of many countries that dictate international relations. 

    Promoting Democracy in Brazil

    Many countries are experiencing democratic backsliding, and Brazil is an especially important case. While it seemed that Brazil might become less democratic under Bolsonaro, Lula’s election might have reversed that trend. 

    The Biden administration considers promoting democracy a major goal. In 2021, Biden stated that safeguarding democracy is the most important challenge and initiated various actions to achieve this. During Lula’s 2023 visit to Biden, they mainly talked about democracy. They also covered topics like minority rights and safeguarding the Amazon Rainforest. Additionally, the State Department and USAID have started financially assisting “democratic bright spots” worldwide, including Brazil which was designated as one in 2022.

    Yet, the U.S. attempts to promote democracy often don’t yield desired results. For instance, in countries labeled as democratic bright spots, which the U.S. views as likely to stay democratic, there is no evident proof of this. Another criticism is that the U.S. should not meddle in other countries’ governments, particularly given its history of sometimes violent intervention in Latin American nations in the name of democracy. Some scholars additionally argue that focusing on promoting democracy is harmful to the U.S. as it draws attention away from the security concerns and economic competition that should dictate foreign policy. However, others say the opposite, arguing that democratic promotion is a critical aspect of this competition—especially in Latin America where the region has explicitly pledged to uphold democracy in the Inter-American Democratic Charter.

    Security Concerns and Global Competition

    As an emerging global power, Brazil’s alignment with the U.S. or one of its rivals could alter the international balance of power. These states are termed by some academics as “global swing states,” and maintaining positive relations with such countries is important if the U.S. wants to maintain its influence in global politics.

    After U.S.-Brazil ties weakened during Lula’s first presidency, both the Biden and Trump administrations pursued close relations with Brazil. Trump and Bolsonaro were close due to their political similarities. In 2019, the U.S. designated Brazil a “Major Non-Nato Ally,” further solidifying ties between the two countries. Biden has also attempted to keep close relations with Brazil, emphasizing his shared liberal values with Lula. However, Biden has criticized Brazil when its agenda does not align with the U.S.’s own, but has taken no further punitive steps. 
    Some have argued that this approach has made the U.S. look weak compared to Brazil, particularly with regards to Lula’s blatant defiance of U.S. goals regarding the Iranian warships. Others say that the focus on ideological cooperation with Brazil is leaving an economic vacuum, allowing China to strengthen trade relations with Brazil and gain more influence in the country and region. Some experts recommend a more nuanced approach where the Biden administration would focus on specific areas of concrete cooperation with Brazil, instead of expecting Lula to match Biden’s broader agenda.

  • The Health Care Debate for Undocumented Immigrants: What You Need to Know

    The Health Care Debate for Undocumented Immigrants: What You Need to Know

    What types of health insurance do immigrants currently qualify for?

    Undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for federal healthcare programs due to immigration status regulations and public charge rules. Additionally, even immigrants who are “lawfully present” face barriers to accessing federal healthcare programs such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which are state-administered and federally funded to provide coverage to low-income individuals. They are also excluded from the Health Insurance Marketplace, a federal service that offers tax cuts and subsidies to make insurance more affordable.

    Undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are eligible for emergency medical care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), funded through Medicaid. Beyond emergency care, their options are limited to private insurance through employers or primary care at community health clinics. Many rely primarily on EMTALA-covered emergency services, with a high likelihood of not having access to regular medical care or a doctor’s visit in the past year.

    The combination of eligibility restrictions for federal programs, limited access to private insurance due to employment in low-benefit jobs, and barriers like fear and language differences makes undocumented immigrants more likely to be uninsured compared to lawfully present immigrants and U.S.-born citizens.

    Background on undocumented immigrants in the US

    In recent years, several states have started expanding health coverage to undocumented immigrants to improve healthcare access and reduce financial strain on hospitals treating uninsured patients. On the federal level, there was a move towards expansion with the introduction of the Health Equity and Access under Law (HEAL) for Immigrant Families Act in 2023, aimed at eliminating healthcare barriers for all immigrants, regardless of status. Despite these efforts, challenges persist. For example, Illinois had to scale back on enrollments due to budget underestimations, affecting about 6,000 people’s insurance coverage. Moreover, with unauthorized crossings at the US-Mexico border hitting a record 2.4 million in 2023, cities like New York City have been overwhelmed, committing $2.4 billion in 2024 to address the costs related to the large influx of migrants.

    The Cost of Providing Care

    Proponents of expanding healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants argue that it would not result in excessive costs and could actually lead to savings in other areas. They point out that providing regular preventative primary care to undocumented immigrants would reduce the need for more costly emergency department (ED) visits, which often arise from lack of insurance. Cost analyses support this view, showing that regular primary care is less expensive than ED services that could have been avoided. Furthermore, the lack of preventative care can lead to advanced chronic diseases, which are significantly more costly, imposing an estimated economic burden of $4 trillion a year. It’s estimated that preventing unnecessary ED visits could save approximately $4.4 billion annually.

    Supporters of expanding health coverage to undocumented immigrants say that there is a widely held misconception that immigrants use more healthcare than those born in the U.S. and “drain” medical resources. One systematic review indicates that both private and public health insurance expenditures are lower per capita for immigrants, particularly undocumented ones. Additionally, immigrants tend to pay more in out-of-pocket expenses, contributing more to medical costs than they receive in services. 

    Opponents of expanding health coverage to undocumented immigrants argue that such programs are financially unsustainable, pointing to significant costs associated with existing state initiatives. For instance, California’s Medi-Cal program, which was the first to extend coverage to all undocumented immigrants, is projected to cost over $2 billion annually. This comes at a time when California faces a budget deficit of approximately $73 billion, according to estimates by the state’s legislative analyst. Critics believe that simply providing universal coverage is not cost-effective and suggest alternative solutions to improve healthcare access. They advocate for policies like lifting bans on the sale of short-term health plans, which are less expensive, and expanding private insurance options as more sustainable approaches to delivering affordable care.

    Illinois recently had to pause its health insurance program for undocumented immigrants due to higher-than-expected costs. Since its launch in 2020, the program expanded twice and was projected to cost $1.1 billion. However, in 2023, the state allocated only $550 million and capped enrollment at 16,500 participants. The governor’s spokesperson attributed the underestimation of costs to unreliable metrics from the U.S. Census, indicating challenges in accurately predicting financial needs for such programs.

    How does expanding healthcare access relate to the migrant crisis?

    Advocates for expanding health coverage to undocumented immigrants argue that it will improve the overall health of the nation. With an estimated 10.5 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., proponents suggest that broader access to healthcare could significantly boost public health by increasing care availability and vaccination rates among this population. They point to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, such as measles, poliovirus, and Covid-19, which have been linked in part to vaccine hesitancy among immigrant groups and low immunization rates. A systematic review indicated that barriers like limited access to medical care and infrequent doctor visits contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Therefore, supporters of healthcare expansion believe that improving access to care for undocumented immigrants will help reduce the spread of preventable diseases.

    Opponents of expanding health benefits for undocumented immigrants argue that such policies could incentivize more immigration to the U.S. They cite studies suggesting that immigrants are drawn to areas with generous welfare benefits, including healthcare. Critics also highlight the strain on hospital resources due to increased immigration. For example, Colorado hospitals have seen a significant increase in migrant patients, with a 69% rise in new patients over a three-month period, totaling around 6,000 migrant visits. This surge has led to overcrowded emergency departments, impeding access for other patients and forcing some hospitals to turn patients away. Dr. Richard Zane, chair of the Department of Emergency Medicine for UCHealth, expressed concerns, stating, “We will not deny emergency care. But at some point, access is impeded for everyone.”

    Takeaways from the debate: Cost analysis and the effect of coverage expansion on the US population 

    The debate over expanding healthcare to undocumented immigrants is complex, entangled with concerns about costs, program sustainability, and the ongoing migrant crisis. Proponents of expansion argue that it could lead to modest costs by reducing unnecessary emergency department visits and would significantly benefit public health by increasing healthcare access for the large undocumented population in the U.S. However, opponents contend that evidence from state programs and healthcare systems points to substantial costs associated with such expansions. Additionally, they argue that the growing number of undocumented immigrants, exacerbated by the migrant crisis, will further strain city, state, and federal budgets.

  • The Medicaid Reentry Act Debate: The Pros and Cons of Healthcare Services for Returning Citizens

    The Medicaid Reentry Act Debate: The Pros and Cons of Healthcare Services for Returning Citizens

    What is the Medicaid Reentry Act?

    The Medicaid Reentry Act is a proposed amendment to Medicaid law, designed to enhance healthcare access for incarcerated individuals, especially during their transition back into society. This legislation addresses healthcare disparities and improves health outcomes for a population often facing socioeconomic vulnerability.  For example, despite approximately 58% of incarcerated adults meeting clinical criteria for drug dependence or abuse, less than 30% receive any drug-use treatment while incarcerated. The Act seeks to bridge this gap in healthcare provision.

    What does the Medicaid Reentry Act do?

    The Medicaid Reentry Act, introduced as a bipartisan effort by Senators Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Mike Braun of Indiana, targets the reduction of drug overdoses and recidivism post-release from prison. Recidivism, the tendency for convicted individuals to re-offend, is a pressing issue in our justice system. This Act addresses it by providing healthcare services during the crucial reentry period post-incarceration, aiming to break the cycle of recidivism.

    The Act proposes reinstating Medicaid benefits for eligible individuals 30 days prior to their release to avoid coverage gaps. Immediate access to healthcare upon release can help manage chronic conditions and mental health issues, thereby reducing overall illness rates. Additionally, it facilitates access to substance use disorder treatments, lowering the risk of overdose deaths. The Act aims for improved health outcomes and cost-effective healthcare.

    Its discussion in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the drug overdose crisis, and structural racism highlights its potential positive impact on healthcare services for eligible incarcerated individuals. This is especially relevant given the high rates of chronic diseases, mental illness, and substance use disorders among the incarcerated population.

    Arguments for The Medicaid Reentry Act:

    The Medicaid Reentry Act is a significant piece of legislation aimed at improving the reintegration of individuals after incarceration by addressing healthcare transitions. It recognizes the crucial role of health coverage, care, and medication during reentry, focusing on effective state and local practices to connect returning individuals with healthcare services.

    One key aspect of the Act is granting states the flexibility to reinstate Medicaid benefits before release, ensuring a smooth transition and immediate healthcare support upon reentry. Supporters of the Act highlight its importance, noting that individuals reentering society are 129 times more likely than the general population to die from a drug overdose in the first two weeks post-release. The Act prioritizes streamlined access to addiction treatments, thereby reducing the risk of post-release overdose deaths—a critical concern given the higher prevalence of substance use disorders in correctional facilities. By providing thirty days of Medicaid coverage before release, the Act aims to improve access to quality healthcare, promoting successful reintegration for individuals in jails, prisons, and juvenile detention centers.

    Supporters of the act recognize that the majority of incarcerated individuals will eventually reintegrate into society, highlighting the importance of uninterrupted health coverage. This approach aims to improve health outcomes, leading to better employment opportunities, housing stability, and family support, potentially reducing recidivism and the financial burden of repeated incarcerations.

    The policy is aligned with data demonstrating that expanding eligibility for public assistance programs such as Medicaid can have positive impacts on incarcerated individuals’ health, economic well-being, and crime-related outcomes. Expanded Medicaid eligibility in certain healthcare policies can increase access to treatment for conditions that may enhance employment prospects and reduce the risk of reoffending.

    Arguments against the Medicaid Reentry Act:

    Opponents of the Medicaid Reentry Act argue that the legislation could contribute to the national debt, especially in the current inflationary environment and amid ongoing concerns about the impact of the latest coronavirus variant. They point to the Medicaid Inmate Exclusion Policy, which prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds for healthcare services provided to inmates of a public institution, as a key factor in the financial strain on counties. This policy shifts the responsibility of covering medical costs for incarcerated individuals to local budgets. Opponents are concerned that passing the Medicaid Reentry Act under this regulation could exacerbate financial strain on local budgets.

    Critics raise concerns about Medicaid enrollment declines in states not expanding, especially in Republican-led areas. The absence of consistent standards for accrediting correctional medical services under Medicaid leads to care quality issues. The Act’s effectiveness in jails, where discharge timing is uncertain, may be limited. Medicaid’s dual role as healthcare and a federal grant system raises worries about unequal benefits favoring wealthier states. The removal of Medicaid continuous enrollment may impact the Act’s effectiveness. 

    Research on state-driven Medicaid changes shows mixed results on recidivism. Fast-tracked Medicaid enrollment for individuals leaving prisons with serious mental illness increased usage but didn’t lower recidivism rates after twelve or thirty-six months. This raises doubts about Medicaid expansion’s effectiveness in this regard.

    Conclusion

    The Medicaid Reentry Act aims to improve healthcare for individuals post-incarceration, potentially reducing recidivism. However, concerns exist about financial strain on local budgets, inconsistencies in correctional medical services, and the Act’s effectiveness in jails due to uncertain discharge timing. The debate underscores the complexity of healthcare policy in the context of incarceration and reentry, highlighting the need for careful consideration of both the benefits and potential drawbacks of such legislation.

  • Understanding the SHIELD Act of 2023: Definitions, Impacts, and Legal Debates

    Understanding the SHIELD Act of 2023: Definitions, Impacts, and Legal Debates

    What is nonconsensual pornography?

    Nonconsensual pornography, image-based sexual abuse, or as it is most commonly called, revenge porn, are all terms that refer to the nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit imagery. Advocates often argue that the term “revenge porn” implies victim shaming, and therefore they prefer to use the term “nonconsensual pornography” exclusively. While one in 25 Americans have been a victim of nonconsensual pornography, women are more likely to be victims than men, with teenagers and young adults particularly susceptible. Nonconsensual pornography is an issue of growing concern, as the global COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in cyber-based intimate partner violence, including nonconsensual pornography.

    Victims of nonconsensual pornography face various harms, such as PTSD, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other mental health issues, resulting in a decline in overall well-being. Laws addressing nonconsensual pornography are varied, with 46 states and D.C. having criminal statutes, alongside a federal civil claim that offers a cause of action.

    The Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution, or SHIELD, Act of 2023 seeks “to provide that it is unlawful to knowingly distribute private intimate visual depictions with reckless disregard for the individual’s lack of consent to the distribution, and for other purposes.” In other words, the SHIELD Act seeks to federally criminalize the distribution of nonconsensual pornography.

    Arguments for SHIELD

    Some argue that current state laws provide inadequate protections to victims of revenge pornography. Not only do not all states currently criminalize nonconsensual pornography, but the current state laws criminalize nonconsensual pornography in different ways and to varying degrees. Some states require that the victim is identifiable in the distributed imagery, while others require that the perpetrator had intent to harm, which makes prosecuting perpetrators who seek financial gain or social status as opposed to harm near impossible. While criminalizing conduct that occurs across state lines is a perpetual issue with state laws, the fact that nonconsensual pornography is a cybercrime makes this issue particularly relevant.

    Regardless of the efficacy of state laws, supporters of SHIELD argue federally criminalizing nonconsensual pornography would reduce incidents of nonconsensual pornography, providing victims with much-needed protections from a harmful and damaging act. When surveying Americans who admitted to distributing nonconsensual pornography, 82% said they would not have done it if they had known it was a federal felony. Indeed, deterrence theory suggests the federal criminalization of nonconsensual pornography would reduce incidents of the crime.

    Arguments Against SHIELD

    Opponents of SHIELD argue that state laws do enough to protect victims of nonconsensual pornography, even if they are less comprehensive in totality. After all, nearly all 50 states do have laws in place already, and there is a federal cause of action that enables civil suits against perpetrators. While 82% of perpetrators said they would not have distributed nonconsensual pornography if they knew it was a federal felony, 81% said they would not have done as much if they knew it was a state felony, suggesting that state laws could be almost as effective at preventing nonconsensual pornography as federal laws. 

    Others, like the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that SHIELD is unconstitutional. They further that victims of nonconsensual pornography who distribute the images out of surprise or shock might be unintentionally committing criminal acts, and that the law could restrain journalists from publishing images. While some of the language of the bill has been edited since the ACLU’s initial complaint, a lot of the specific text that was initially worrisome remains. Various state laws that seek to criminalize nonconsensual pornography have been challenged in courts on First Amendment grounds. Other concerns, such as concern for “duplicative prosecutions” because of a federal law that “largely overlaps” with state laws, still remains regardless of first amendment challenges or lack thereof.

    Conclusion

    Perpetrators of nonconsensual pornography can cause significant harm to their victims. Proponents of the SHIELD Act claim making nonconsensual pornography a federal crime will decrease the rates of nonconsensual pornography and shore up the patchwork of state laws currently in place. Opponents, however, argue that the SHIELD Act is both unnecessary and unconstitutional, potentially creating further problems through criminalizing an act that state laws by and large protect against already.

  • The Pros and Cons of Plea Bargaining: An Overview Analysis

    The Pros and Cons of Plea Bargaining: An Overview Analysis

    Plea bargains have become the primary resolution for many criminal cases in the court system, with 95% of federal criminal cases currently resulting in a plea deal. These agreements are made between the prosecutor and the defendant, where the defendant agrees to plead guilty to the charges, thus avoiding a trial. In return, defendants typically receive reduced charges or a lesser sentence. Proponents of plea bargains argue that they help alleviate the burden of overloaded caseloads for prosecutors and judges, while also allowing defendants to avoid lengthy and costly trials or harsher penalties. However, critics of plea bargains argue that they violate defendants’ constitutional right to a trial and can lead to abuse of power within the system.

    What has caused this drastic increase in plea bargains? 

    1. Caseload pressure: The more criminal cases the court takes on, the more plea bargains are made to alleviate the burden of these cases having to go to trial.
    2. Trial complexity: Over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, trial procedures have become more developed and procedural. Therefore, trials now take significantly more time and resources to complete, resulting in the current backlog of cases and the need for plea bargains.
    3. Professionalization: With the decline in part-time prosecutors and amateur police forces, these professions became “full-time crime handlers” in which they were trained in modern investigative techniques that cause courtroom trials to be seen as unnecessary. The reasoning being that if prosecutors had gathered enough evidence to charge the defendant, then the defendant was “obviously” guilty of the crime.

    Arguments against Plea Bargains

    Those opposed to plea bargains argue that the practice is unethical because it violates defendants’ constitutional right to a trial. They point to the 6th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, as evidence of this contention. Critics contend that plea deals circumvent due process, which includes the civil procedures the government must follow to deprive someone of their legal rights. This perspective highlights concerns about potential abuses of power and the importance of upholding defendants’ rights within the criminal justice system.

    Opponents of plea bargains argue that the system incentivizes prosecutors to offer plea deals to “save time and money” and improve case closure records. Prosecutors may use the threat of a trial penalty, which involves a harsher sentence if the defendant chooses to go to trial, to pressure defendants into accepting plea bargains. This coercive tactic is seen as obstructing the defendant’s right to a fair trial and may lead innocent defendants to plead guilty, sometimes based on advice from their lawyers. Public defenders, often overloaded with cases, may struggle to provide adequate defense, further incentivizing plea bargains for defendants who cannot afford private representation.

    Furthermore, without a trial, prosecutors are not required to meet a high burden of proof to obtain a conviction. This could incentivize them to only charge those they initially suspect without fully investigating the case. The lesser burden of proof necessary for plea bargains allows prosecutors to quickly close cases without needing to convince a unanimous jury of guilt. Additionally, the lack of transparency in plea bargain negotiations and delayed access to evidence for defense attorneys can lead to unchecked misconduct and coercion of defendants into pleading guilty without fully understanding the facts of their case.

    Arguments for Plea Bargains

    The most common argument supporting plea bargains is their essential role in the court system. Judges and prosecutors argue that without plea bargains, courts would struggle to handle every case, leading to a backlog of caseloads. Many within the system believe that plea bargains are the most efficient practice to keep the system functioning, with 90% of judges surveyed by the National Judicial College stating that plea bargains contribute to advancing justice.

    Furthermore, plea bargains allow defendants to avoid the financial burden and lengthy duration of a trial. Trials can take years to reach a resolution, and defendants who cannot afford bail may remain in prison awaiting trial. Accepting a plea deal enables defendants to receive sentencing promptly, often without serving jail time. Additionally, trials involve court fees and costly defense attorney fees, making plea bargains a more feasible option for defendants who cannot afford the expenses associated with a trial.

    Supporters of plea bargains recognize the imperfections in the system and propose reforms to address criticisms. One key reform is to establish greater transparency in plea bargain negotiations through oversight and monitoring at every stage of the criminal process. The American Bar Association’s proposed reform includes creating guidelines to minimize discrepancies between plea deal sentences and trial sentences, thereby preventing prosecutors from using harsher sentences as leverage. Another proposed reform involves granting defendants access to all materials and evidence before accepting a plea deal, allowing for an independent review of the case. These reforms aim to ensure fairness and prevent coercion in plea bargain proceedings.

    Conclusion 

    Those who believe in the use of plea bargains would argue that it is an alternative route to justice that allows defendants to seek lesser sentences. Those who do not approve believe that plea bargains are an abuse of power that only serves to benefit the criminal court system without regard for the accused. The essential debate surrounding plea bargains revolves around deciding whether or not the practice is a necessary process of the criminal justice system that only requires some reforms, or if the practice is an unethical obstruction to justice as it denies defendants their constitutional right to a trial.

  • Pros and Cons of the Access to Genetic Counselor Services Act

    Pros and Cons of the Access to Genetic Counselor Services Act

    Introduction

    Genetic counseling is a service where a patient’s personal and family medical history are reviewed to assess the risk for genetic disorders and other diseases. The service is typically provided by genetic counselors but can also be done by other medical professionals like a patient’s physician. Currently, Medicare does not reimburse genetic counselors, which limits their ability to get paid for their services.

    The Access to Genetic Counselor Services Act is a proposed bill in Congress that would enable Medicare to reimburse genetic counselors for 85% of the amount it currently reimburses a patient’s physician.

    Arguments in Favor

    The Access to Genetic Counselor Services Act aims to enhance access to genetic counseling services for millions of Americans on Medicare by recognizing genetic counselors as independent Medicare providers, allowing them to bill directly. This change would alleviate the burden on physicians, freeing up more time for them to see other patients and streamlining the process for patients, who would no longer need to coordinate visits with multiple providers. This could lead to shorter wait times and improved access to care. According to the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), better access to genetic counseling can lead to earlier detection and treatment of diseases such as cancer, ultimately improving health outcomes.

    Proponents of the Access to Genetic Counselor Services Act argue that it could save Medicare over $4 billion in the next decade. The potential savings are attributed to several factors: genetic counselors are poised to recommend the most appropriate tests for patients, thereby reducing unnecessary testing and expenses. Another significant source of savings is the reduction in wasteful spending. For example, one study highlighted by advocates reviewed a series of genetic tests and found that 22% were inappropriate, suggesting that genetic counselors can play a crucial role in enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare spending.

    Arguments Against

    Opponents of the Access to Genetic Counselor Services Act express concerns primarily based on the scope of practice and potential for fraud. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) argues that independently ordering tests is considered a practice of medicine, a role for which genetic counselors are not fully qualified. Currently, genetic counselors work under physician supervision, a setup ACMG supports because it believes that collaborative care yields the best medical outcomes. ACMG suggests amending the bill to allow genetic counselors to still be reimbursed by Medicare but under the requirement that they work collaboratively with physicians, not independently.
    Another significant concern is the risk of fraud within the rapidly expanding genetic testing industry. In 2019, federal agencies uncovered $2.1 billion in genetic testing fraud involving doctors bribed to order unnecessary and expensive tests reimbursed by Medicare. By expanding the number of professionals authorized to order reimbursable tests, the Access to Genetic Counselor Services Act could potentially increase the risk of similar fraud schemes, exacerbating challenges in an already vulnerable area.

  • The impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community

    The impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community

    What is the Americans with Disabilities Act?

    The ADA, passed in 1990 under President George H.W. Bush, ensures equal opportunities and access for people with disabilities. It defines disability as an impairment that significantly limits a “major life activity,” such as breathing, walking, talking, hearing, seeing, sleeping, self-care, manual tasks, and working. Individuals qualify for ADA protection if they have been subjected to a prohibited action due to an actual or perceived impairment, whether or not it limits a major life activity. This definition includes those who are deaf or hard of hearing.

    Historical Context

    The deaf community played a crucial role in the ADA’s passage and advocating for additional protections for people with disabilities. Dr. Frank Bowe, a deaf activist, lobbied for the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, a precursor to the ADA, which prohibited disability-based discrimination by entities receiving federal funds. Title II of the ADA addressed issues with state and local governments. The ‘Deaf President Now’ movement in 1988 at Gallaudet University, the only deaf liberal arts college, raised awareness about discrimination, influencing the ADA’s passage with strong support (76 to 8 votes).

    Fifteen years later, on March 6, 1988, deaf protesters gathered at Gallaudet University, the world’s only deaf liberal arts college, to oppose the appointment of a hearing president. This ‘Deaf President Now’ movement significantly influenced the ADA’s passage by drawing attention to the discrimination faced by people with disabilities. The ADA was later passed with overwhelming support, securing a vote of 76 to 8.

    Accommodations and Protections 

    The ADA aims to safeguard Americans with disabilities across different aspects of daily life. Comprising various titles, including employment, state and local government, places of public accommodation, telecommunications relay services, and miscellaneous provisions, the act addresses diverse areas and entities.

    Accommodations, a key benefit of the ADA, provide crucial support for individuals with disabilities. In educational settings, accommodations for deaf students may include interpreters, note-takers, and tutors. Beyond education, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws, connects with the ADA’s Title on employment discrimination. The EEOC defines accommodations as any change in the work environment or customary practices that ensures equal employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

    Title I of the ADA emphasizes the need for employers to offer reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities, unless it imposes undue hardship. Undue hardship is defined as a situation where accommodation, like providing a sign language interpreter for a small business, would be excessively costly or resource-intensive. Larger businesses, with greater financial capacity and resources, are better equipped to cover such accommodations without facing undue hardship.

    Pros and Arguments in Support of the ADA

    1. Assisted communication tools with law enforcement 

    Communication with law enforcement is crucial for deaf individuals to be credible witnesses and defend themselves against accusations. The ADA addresses this by requiring law enforcement agencies to provide necessary communication aids and services for effective communication with people who are deaf or hard of hearing. However, this obligation does not apply if a specific aid or service would impose undue burden or fundamentally alter the nature of law enforcement services provided. Examples of effective communication tools include sign language interpreters and written communication.

    1. No employment discrimination allowed in people with disabilities

    A key protection offered by the ADA is the prohibition of employment discrimination, ensuring equal opportunities for people with disabilities. This prevents businesses from making decisions solely based on profit motives or stereotypical assumptions when dealing with individuals with disabilities.. The ADA doesn’t allow businesses to discriminate against individuals who require accommodations. In 2017, 53% of deaf people were employed, indicating a significant increase in job opportunities for this group.

    1. Improvement in telecommunications 

    Before the ADA, technology and captioned content accessibility were limited. However, the ADA now mandates closed captioning for all federally funded public service announcements, ensuring that deaf individuals have access to information from television news and PSAs. This broader access enhances their knowledge in politics and policy, facilitating more effective participation in voting. Between 1984-1990, there was a significant increase in captioned programs, including prime time series, movies, and nightly newscasts. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 further contributed by requiring digital television receivers to include caption-decoding technology, making captioned content a standard feature on all digital televisions.

    1. Better education 

    Since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the enrollment of deaf students in two or four-year colleges and universities has consistently increased. For instance, the Rochester Institute of Technology/National Technical Institute for the Deaf (RIT/NTID), a leading college for deaf students, reported a record enrollment of 1,450 students in 2008, surpassing the 1984 figure of 1,358 students, which was before the ADA. The ADA’s implementation of 504 and IEP education plans, with accommodations such as interpreters, notetakers, extra time, and readers, has played a crucial role in supporting the success of deaf students.

    Cons and Arguments Against the ADA

    1. HEALS Act

    The HEALS Act, a follow-up to the CARES Act, emerged with stimulus packages and provisions protecting against liabilities like those in the ADA. This legislation shields employers and property owners from liability unless they claim to have made all reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Introduced during the COVID-19 crisis to alleviate financial burdens on businesses, it aimed to let them prioritize public safety without undue concern for disability accommodations. This move was particularly relevant as the U.S. experienced a significant economic contraction during the pandemic, with the GDP falling by 8.9 percent in Q2 2020, the largest single-quarter contraction in over 70 years. However, critics argued that the HEALS Act set a concerning precedent, suggesting that disability protections could be deprioritized during crises. Many felt it was unfair to waive these protections, as people with disabilities faced similar COVID-19 risks and economic hardships as the general population.

    1. Definitions of disability can be loose, vague, or unclear, leading to misrepresentation

    The ADA, designed to protect people with disabilities, faces criticism for having what some argue are too loose conditions for determining disability. This can result in individuals who may not be significantly disabled receiving similar benefits as those with more severe disabilities. A lawsuit involving breast cancer highlights this ambiguity, where a court dismissed a case because breast cancer, even with extensive chemotherapy and debilitating side effects, was not considered a disability. The challenge lies in defining where the line is drawn; while illnesses like breast cancer impact major life activities, they may not be seen as traditional disabilities. This case and similar ones may contribute to narrowing the definition of disability, making it harder for entitled individuals to receive accommodations.

    1. Individual expenses and costly accommodations 

    While the ADA aims to address employment issues for people with disabilities, some argue it falls short, particularly in considering the extra costs associated with living with a disability. Data reveals that households with an adult with a disability requiring accommodation face an average of 28% higher expenses (an additional $17,690 per year) to maintain the same standard of living as households without a disabled member. For deaf and hard of hearing individuals, these costs could include out-of-pocket expenses like hearing aids or cochlear implants, improving their workplace interactions but adding financial strain. Businesses, especially small ones, may find ADA compliance costly, with an estimated average expense of $930 per worker accommodation. Between 1992 and 1997, over 90,000 discrimination complaints were filed, with 29% related to failure to provide adequate accommodations, suggesting that cost challenges hindered compliance. Additionally, employment rates for disabled individuals, particularly men and women under 40, declined after the ADA’s implementation, marking a departure from past trends.

  • Understanding the Electoral College Debate

    Understanding the Electoral College Debate

    Background

    During American presidential elections, news coverage focuses on the “270 to win” count rather than the actual majority of individual votes that candidates receive. This is due to the fact that presidential elections are decided by a system called the Electoral College, in which a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. The Electoral College is outlined in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. It was devised by the Framers in 1787 as a compromise between competing visions for electing the president—rather than a direct popular vote, electors from each state would meet to choose the president. These electors are selected anew for each election and represent their respective states or the District of Columbia.

    In the late 18th century, the United States consisted of 13 states. Delegates at the Constitutional Convention struggled with how to balance the power of larger states with that of smaller ones. They sought a system that would prevent domination by states with larger populations. Thus, the Electoral College’s apportionment is based on the total state population, not the number of eligible voters. This approach also granted white voters in the South greater influence because enslaved people counted as a part of the total state population despite the fact that they could not vote. Initially, the College was envisioned as independent, empowered to choose winners based on merit. Few delegates had faith in citizens’ ability to make the ‘right’ selections directly but believed they could competently choose electors capable of making informed decisions.

    The Electoral College differs significantly from a direct popular vote for three reasons. The most drastic difference is in the form of the “Plus Two” effect. Each state is allocated electors based on the number of Representatives sent to the House of Representatives, plus the number of Senators sent to the Senate. Every state has two Senators, and Representatives vary by state population The impact of these additional votes varies greatly between populous states like California (53 Representatives) and smaller states like Wyoming (1 Representative). Secondly, all states and the District of Columbia (except for Maine and Nebraska) follow a winner-takes-all approach, in which the candidate who wins the majority of votes in a state receives all its electoral votes no matter how small said majority is. Lastly, U.S. territories are not eligible to send electors to the Electoral College.

    The question central to this debate today is whether or not the Electoral College is outdated or still necessary. Public opinion is not in favor of the College: in September 2023, 65% of U.S. adults favored its abolishment. This may be because five presidents won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote, including two in the past 25 years. Two reforms attempt to mitigate issues with the winner-takes-all effect and the somewhat frequent discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral vote. The first is the district system, which allocates electoral votes based on congressional districts, potentially reducing the winner-takes-all impact. The second is the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC), where states commit to awarding their electors to the national popular vote winner. However, this compact has only been adopted by 16 states and D.C.

    Arguments in Favor of the Electoral College

    The Electoral College ensures that all parts of the country are represented in presidential elections, especially rural areas that might otherwise be overshadowed by cities. In addition, the Electoral College safeguards against the tyranny of the majority—supporters believe the Electoral College provides a clear, secure process, reducing potential questions about a national vote count and its accuracy and encourages broad-based coalitions to promote more moderate political parties due to the need of presidential candidates to capture swing states. 

    Supporters point to the fact that the Electoral College was the reason for the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, even though he won less than 50% of the popular vote. Supporters also counter the idea that the Electoral College is outdated by citing past reforms that arguably made the system more responsive to the popular vote. In particular, the 12th Amendment instituted a joint ticket system for the election of the vice president and the president together (in place of the second-place presidential finisher becoming the vice president). In addition, state legislatures used to choose the electors but, by the end of the 1800s all states moved to allow voters choose the electors. These reforms are cited as evidence that the Electoral College can be altered to evolve with the times while still remaining an important institution. In addition, some proponents say that because replacing the Electoral College with a different system would require a Constitutional amendment, it is too lofty of a goal, and that we should instead work on improving it when needed.

    Arguments Against the Electoral College

    A common argument against the Electoral College is that its design reflects compromises between slaveholding states and non-slaveholding states, tainting the legitimacy of the system. Today, there is evidence that Black people in the South hold less voting power in the winner-take-all system because they are overpowered by white voters in their states. Critics also argue that the winner-take-all system  makes elections unfairly rely on swing states and unequally spread votes. Furthermore, electors are not constitutionally obligated to vote for the person who won their state, although “faithless electors” are incredibly rare. Some also say that due to how nationalized politics have become in the 21st century, factoring state perspectives into the national political system is less important than it once was and thus no longer a valid argument for the Electoral College’s existence. One final argument by opponents of the College is that proposed reforms (such as the district system) will not solve the problem of how smaller states benefit from the “plus two” effect in the apportionment of votes.

    Recent DevelopmentsThe 2022 Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, signed into law the year after the January 6th, 2021 attack, states that the Vice President’s role during Congress’s Electoral vote count will be primarily administrative rather than political. In addition, objections to the count by members of Congress must now be supported by at least one-fifth of both the House and Senate’s members. This act, intended to safeguard Congressional authority over the procedures of the Electoral College, will soon be put to the test. During the 2024 election cycle and those in the future, the American public and politicians must decide whether the Electoral College is needed to provide balance to the presidential election system and give smaller states a voice, or if it is an outdated element of the Constitution that reflects a different time in U.S. history.

  • Pros and Cons of TX SB1933

    Pros and Cons of TX SB1933

    Introduction

    Since 2022, legislatures nationwide have been passing legislation to secure election processes. In 2023, eleven states passed voting laws that make voting more restrictive to ensure the integrity of the election process. One of these laws is Texas’s Senate Bill 1933. The 2023 bill allows the Secretary of State to control an election within counties with a population of over four million contingent on someone filing a complaint against the election processes. However, Harris County is the only county in Texas with a population of over 4 million. Thus, it is the only county that qualifies under this bill. Although Harris County had notable issues in the 2022 election cycle, which caused it to be singled out, there are arguments that the legislation is politically targeted.  

    Arguments in Favor

    In an audit conducted by Texas’s Secretary of State, Harris County was found to have issues with ballot distributions, equipment issues, incomplete paperwork, and insufficient training, among other problems. With over ten thousand election irregularities in the primary and general elections 2022, the legislature saw cause for concern. By creating a process for intervention, proponents of the bill claim that the election process will be more secure, restoring voter confidence in the election process. Proponents also point out that there are requirements for the Secretary of State to be able to take control of the election. There must be a “good cause” with a pattern of issues in the election process. In the event of malfunctioning equipment, uncounted votes, or voting registration issues, the Secretary of State will notify the county election authority to conduct an intervention. If this intervention proceeds, the Secretary of State will eventually take charge of the election process. 

    Additionally, the law should deter partisan advantages. Some people think the election rules in 2020, like accommodations for mail-in ballots, were changed to benefit Democrats rather than to protect against the spread of COVID-19. In case of a claim like this, the SB 1933 will allow the Secretary of State of Texas to investigate and prevent such an occurrence. Much opposition to SB 1933 comes from the fact that, when put into practice, it could increase barriers to voting, such as ID restrictions and the prevention of mail-in voting. However, in analyzing election legislation across states that impose barriers to voting, Politico summarized that restrictions and expansions of voting laws do not create exaggerated impacts; instead, the turnout for voting, both Republican and Democrat, remains largely the same, eliminating any partisan advantage. This finding maintains that SB 1933’s impact would not lower voter turnout to the extent that the opposition claims. 

    Arguments Against

    Arguments against SB 1933 lie in the demographics of Harris County. 44.6% of Harris County is Hispanic, and 20.6% is African American, making it one of the most diverse counties in the state. Furthermore, Harris County is one of the largest democratic strongholds in Texas. Because the bill was passed by a Republican majority legislature, in conjecture, these demographic trends raise questions about the partisan bias in the bill. In the event of a takeover by the Secretary of State – a Republican – could make it harder for voting to take place, preventing largely Democratic votes from being counted. Opponents of the bill believe that if the Secretary of State could take over the election process, they would take subsequent steps to suppress democratic voters – who in Harris County are citizens in minority groups.

    Moreover, because the threshold for intervention in the “good cause” claim is vague, opponents argue it can be easily abused. If the Secretary of State finds a reason to take over the election, the oversight can last up to two years until the problems are resolved. If election control is maintained by the state, especially for long periods of time, there is a question of whether the election process would remain nonpartisan. Since someone from the Republican party generally holds the Secretary of State position, their oversight of elections in a largely Democratic county means they could change policy to make it less favorable to a specific demographic of voters. This possible policy change could manifest with restrictions on early voting, mail-in ballots, and absentee voting – all impacting democratic voter turnout.

    Future Developments

    Laws aimed at securing the election process, such as SB 1933, are going through various state legislatures. However, in analyzing these policies, answering whether the laws truly secure the election process or if they disenfranchise a group of voters is essential. SB 1933 has much debate on both sides; however, one thing is known: the next election in Harris County will be markedly different than the prior ones.