ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Understanding the Tobacco Advertising Debate

    Understanding the Tobacco Advertising Debate

    History and Background of Tobacco Advertising

    Tobacco companies have employed various advertising methods over the past 75 years. Advertising initially began in the 1940s when tobacco companies enlisted doctors and dentists to endorse their products with slogans like “Just What the Doctor Ordered” and “More Doctors Smoke Camels.” This evolved into celebrity endorsements in the 1950s and 1960s, child-friendly characters in the 1990s, and sports and events marketing in the 2000s.

    In 2019, the largest cigarette and smokeless tobacco companies spent $8.2 billion on advertising and promotional expenses in the United States alone. This translates to approximately $22.5 million per day. Concerningly, research indicates that the tobacco industry has targeted specific demographics, particularly youths and young adults, to influence them early and secure future consumers.

    To address this issue, various regulations have been implemented to restrict point-of-sale (POS) advertising, signs, and displays, as well as require specific package sizes and written warnings for tobacco products. Federal law prohibits tobacco advertising on television and imposes restrictions on magazine and billboard advertising but does not prohibit advertisements in stores. In response, tobacco marketing has surged on the internet, especially through social media, where regulations are still lacking.

    Arguments for Tobacco Advertising

    Freedom of speech

    Companies often invoke ‘freedom of speech’ protection, asserting their right to inform consumers about their products. Advocates argue that cigarette advertisements provide essential consumer information and assist consumers in making informed decisions.

    From this perspective, the concept of ‘freedom of speech’ in advertising highlights the significance of empowering consumers to make choices aligned with their preferences and values. By presenting comprehensive product information, cigarette advertisements contribute to a marketplace where individuals can exercise autonomy in decision-making. This includes the fundamental right to engage with diverse perspectives and make choices that reflect their values, even when faced with controversial or contentious advertising content.

    Legal

    Tobacco’s legal status inherently supports arguments for its legality in advertising. Supporters of this view emphasize that advertising plays a crucial role in informing consumers about the array of choices available in the market. They argue that responsible advertising practices educate adults about different tobacco products, enabling them to make informed decisions about their consumption habits.

    Proponents of tobacco advertising contend that, when conducted ethically and transparently, advertisements offer valuable information on product attributes, flavors, and potential health effects. This information empowers consumers to assess the risks and benefits associated with tobacco use. Additionally, advocates highlight advertising’s role in promoting healthy market competition and driving economic growth in the tobacco industry. They assert that allowing companies to advertise their products stimulates consumer demand, fostering business expansion and innovation.

    Competition among companies encourages continuous improvements in product quality and the development of new offerings that cater to consumer preferences. Furthermore, revenue generated from advertising investments contributes to job creation, research and development endeavors, and overall economic well-being. From this perspective, legalizing tobacco advertising aligns with free market principles, promoting competition, innovation, and economic prosperity while respecting businesses’ rights to promote their lawful products.

    Economic impact

    The tobacco industry has a significant positive economic impact, which is often overshadowed in discussions about public health concerns. One key contribution is job creation. Globally, tobacco cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and retailing support millions of jobs, especially in regions where tobacco farming is a significant agricultural activity. This includes roles from farmers tending to tobacco crops to workers involved in processing, packaging, and selling tobacco products, providing livelihoods for many individuals and families.

    Furthermore, the tobacco industry generates substantial government revenue through taxes and duties imposed on tobacco products. These revenues finance crucial public services such as healthcare, education, infrastructure development, and social welfare programs. Additionally, the industry stimulates economic activity in various sectors like advertising, transportation, packaging, and retail, thereby boosting local and national economies.

    Arguments against Tobacco Advertising 

    Health impacts

    Tobacco use is a major contributor to preventable deaths globally, leading to various serious health conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory illnesses, and numerous other health issues. Smoking is notably linked to an elevated risk of lung cancer, as well as cancers affecting the mouth, throat, esophagus, pancreas, bladder, kidney, and cervix, among others.

    Besides the direct health effects of smoking, exposure to secondhand smoke also poses risks. Non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke face an increased likelihood of developing many of the same diseases as active smokers, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory ailments.

    Beyond individual health impacts, tobacco use places a significant burden on healthcare systems and economies due to heightened healthcare costs, reduced productivity, and premature mortality. In essence, the repercussions of tobacco sales on health are profound and wide-ranging, emphasizing the critical need for comprehensive tobacco control measures to diminish tobacco use and its associated health repercussions.

    Reduce smoke rates

    Reducing exposure to tobacco advertising has the potential to decrease the initiation of smoking among young people and non-smokers. Research indicates that advertising plays a crucial role in influencing attitudes and behaviors related to smoking, particularly among vulnerable demographics.

    Moreover, a decline in tobacco advertising could lead to lower smoking rates among current smokers. Advertising tends to reinforce smoking habits and promote continued tobacco use. With reduced exposure to these ads, smokers may have fewer reminders of their habit, potentially increasing their motivation to quit or cut down on tobacco consumption.

    Harm the natural environment

    The cultivation of tobacco plants necessitates significant amounts of land, water, and pesticides, leading to deforestation, soil degradation, and water pollution. Land clearance for tobacco farming disrupts ecosystems, diminishes biodiversity, and the chemicals involved in cultivation and processing can contaminate soil and water sources, posing risks to wildlife and human health. Additionally, the production and transportation of tobacco products contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Cigarette butts, the most common form of litter globally, contain toxic chemicals and non-biodegradable materials that harm marine life and pollute oceans and waterways. Addressing the environmental impact of tobacco sales is crucial for promoting sustainability and protecting ecosystems for future generations.

    To mitigate this environmental harm, stricter regulations for tobacco products are advocated. This approach is seen as a means to decrease tobacco sales, thereby reducing demand and, subsequently, the supply of tobacco. One proposed strategy is to promote the Polluter Pay Principle, whereby producers are accountable for cleaning up the pollution they generate.

    Conclusion 

    Addressing the tobacco advertising debate requires a balanced approach that takes into account the interests of individuals, businesses, and society. Effective policies need collaboration among policymakers, public health advocates, and industry stakeholders to find a balance between consumer choice, public health, and environmental sustainability. Both sides agree that promoting informed decision-making, protecting vulnerable populations, and ensuring the well-being of individuals and ecosystems are crucial in tackling the complex challenges posed by tobacco advertising.

  • Voting Process: From Ballot to Inauguration

    Voting Process: From Ballot to Inauguration

    So, you figured out registering to vote, now HOW do you vote? With voting laws mainly being determined by state and local governments, understanding the voting process can be complicated. There are three main ways in which you may be asked to cast your vote: hand marked paper ballots, ballot marking devices, and direct recording electronic Systems. The most widely used method are hand marked paper ballots. The least common is the direct recording electronic system. 

    Hand marked ballots are paper ballots which the voter manually marks their selection. Even though a jurisdiction may primarily use hand marked ballots, ballot making devices or direct recording systems are required to be provided as an alternative for voters with disabilities. Ballot marking devices utilize an electronic medium to record votes onto a paper ballot. No record is kept on the electronic devices. Like the ballot marking devices, direct recording electronic systems use an electronic voting system, however they do keep an electronic record of votes cast. In some jurisdictions a paper ballot is created so that the voter can confirm their selections and the paper ballot be kept as a record in case there is an audit or recount. Once cast votes can be counted by hand, by optical scanner, or through the direct recording electronic systems. 

    The electoral college is a constitutional provision which served as a “compromise between a popular vote by citizens and a vote in Congress”. Each state has electors which is equal to the number of representatives they have in Congress and Washington  D.C receives three electoral votes for a total of 538 electors. In Maine and Nebraska electoral votes are proportionally allocated, whereas every other state chooses a winner takes all method based on the states popular vote. The candidate who receives 270 votes in the electoral college wins the race. 

    Election recounts occur either automatically when the margin of victory is narrow, or in response to a request from someone (typically the party or the candidate). Washington D.C. and in 41 states requests for recounts are permitted. When the victory margin is narrow a recount is automatically triggered in Washington D.C. and 23 states. In the states that do not offer a process to request a recount, or in which one is automatically triggered, the only remedy for the defeated candidate is to challenge the election results in the court, and the court may then order a recount.

    Your vote is a way to express your voice, sustain democracy, hold political actors accountable, spark societal shifts and drive policy change! Visit usa.gov to learn how you can vote in your jurisdiction! 

    Caption Ideas: 

    Voters under 30 have the lowest turnout rate in midterm and presidential elections, it’s time to change that narrative! Take action, be the difference, and vote in every election.

    In the 2020 presidential election only 66% of eligible voters cast their ballots! Every vote counts, make sure yours is heard in the next and all elections!

  • Local Government Roles 

    Local Government Roles 

    Overview:

    Local governments get their authority to rule only as it is granted by the state. They are the closest form of government to the people, therefore they have a deep understanding of their community’s unique challenges and priorities. They have the authority to enact laws, regulations, and policies tailored to the specific needs of their citizens, allowing them to respond quickly and effectively to address local concerns. Lastly, local governments generally take responsibility for parks and recreation services, police and fire departments, housing services, emergency medical services, municipal courts, transportation services (including public transportation), and public works (streets, sewers, snow removal, signage, ect.)

    Top Roles: 

    The mayor serves as the chief executive officer of the city and is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations and management of the government. Constituents may elect a mayor to their position directly, through a process that commonly includes primary elections and a general election. The mayor’s key duties include enforcing local laws and ordinances, presiding over city council meetings, representing the community at official functions, preparing and proposing the municipal budget, and exercising additional powers in emergency situations. While the specific responsibilities of the mayor are defined by state law, the city council can also prescribe additional duties, making the mayor a critical link between the legislative and executive branches of local government.

    The city council serves as the legislative body of local government and is responsible for  creating laws, policies, and budgetary decisions for the municipality. Council members are elected officials who represent the interests of their constituents, through either district-based or at-large voting systems. The council’s key duties include approving the municipal budget, overseeing city departments, establishing zoning and land use regulations, and providing general oversight of the local government’s operations. They work collaboratively to make decisions that address the needs and priorities of the community, serving as a crucial link between the people and their local government.

    County commissioners are responsible for overseeing county affairs such as public services, infrastructure, and budget allocation. They are a part of the legislative body of local government and are elected by constituents within specific districts. Their duties include budget allocation, public services, policy making, and resource management. Commissioners overall work together to address community needs, enact policies, allocate resources, and advocate for residents interests at the county level. 

    The sheriff, as the principal law enforcement officer at the county level, ensures public safety, enforces laws, and supervises the sheriff’s department. They are elected in primary and general elections, and are responsible for upholding the law, investigating crimes, and supporting local law enforcement agencies. Additionally, they oversee civil process serving, manage county jails, and represent the county in legal affairs, contributing to the overall safety and security of the community.

    School board members are elected members that  govern the local school district. They have the power to make decisions on school policy, budgets, programming, resource allocation, curriculum, and faculty tenure and can have a dramatic impact on issues of equity and quality of the education provided in your schools.They represent the interests of students, parents, and educators, making decisions that impact curriculum, facilities, and resources to promote academic success and student well-being.

    The city manager serves as an executive role for the city and is responsible for overseeing day-to-day operations, implementing policies set by the city council, and managing city departments. City managers are typically appointed by the city council based on their qualifications and experience and they carry out the directives of the council.. They work to ensure efficient delivery of public services, coordinate budget planning and implementation, and serve as a bridge between elected officials, city staff, and the community, prioritizing effective governance and the well-being of residents.

    Planning and Zoning Commissions, whether appointed or elected, are tasked with recommending zoning district boundaries and regulations to the town or city council. Their decisions shape the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and public spaces, impacting property values, tax revenue, job opportunities, traffic patterns, and quality of life. Therefore the commission’s role is vital in guiding community growth and development according to residents interests and local government.

    Municipal court judges oversee a range of local legal matters, including enforcing city ordinances, adjudicating misdemeanors, and handling small claims. Their rulings can significantly impact residents’ daily lives as they rule on traffic violations, minor criminal offenses, and code enforcement violations. Municipal city court judges can be either appointed or elected and they administer justice impartially, ensuring fair trials and upholding the rule of law to promote public safety and community well-being.

  • Pros and Cons of the Inflation Reduction Act

    Pros and Cons of the Inflation Reduction Act

    In its commitment to addressing climate change, the United States is focusing on transforming its existing energy systems to minimize carbon emissions and enhance the adoption of green energy. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, lays out a comprehensive strategy to achieve this transformation. This legislation impacts various sectors including energy, transportation, infrastructure, and construction.

    The IRA’s primary objective is to assist the U.S. in meeting its ambitious emission target, which is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 50% below the levels of 2005 by the year 2030. This target aligns with the commitments made under the Paris Climate Accord. To realize these goals, the Act introduces a range of measures such as tax incentives and credits for electric vehicles (EVs), alongside other federal incentives designed for both individuals and businesses. These measures are geared towards encouraging the adoption of cleaner energy sources and promoting environmentally sustainable practices across different sectors.

    Arguments in Favor

    Supporters of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) emphasize the pressing need to address climate change and the extensive efforts required to meet the U.S.’s emission targets. They argue that the climate provisions in the IRA will significantly reduce emissions, estimating a decrease to around 40% of 2005 levels by 2030. This projection marks a substantial improvement compared to the current forecast of a 26% reduction from 2005 levels and moves closer to the government’s goal of a 50% reduction.

    The bill has garnered support particularly from the industrial and construction sectors, whose businesses stand to benefit from the IRA’s incentives. These sectors are keen to capitalize on the opportunities presented by the IRA, alongside the advantages brought about by the recently passed Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act (IIJA). An article focusing on the housing industry highlighted that these two laws could collectively reduce emissions from the buildings sector by 33–100 million metric tons, viewing the IRA’s enactment as a significant opportunity for the industry.

    The IRA also offers benefits for individuals, especially through the creation of electric vehicle (EV) tax credits. The Electrification Coalition has lauded the IRA as the most consequential legislation for boosting transportation electrification in U.S. history, calling it a major victory for both consumers and businesses. These transportation initiatives complement the IIJA, with the IRA facilitating the purchase of electric vehicles and the IIJA enhancing charging convenience by allocating $7.5 billion for charging infrastructure development. This synergy between the two acts aims to integrate green energy more deeply into the automotive industry, which is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

    Arguments in Opposition

    The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) faced significant opposition, particularly from manufacturing and industrial sectors. The American Petroleum Institute (API) was one of the key opponents, expressing concerns over the increased regulations and taxes included in the bill. The API argued that these measures would hinder their capacity to ensure energy security for American consumers. Their stance was supported by numerous trade groups who shared similar apprehensions.

    The National Association of Manufacturers also opposed the IRA, criticizing the tax measures within the bill as detrimental to the competitiveness of the industry, especially during a period of economic hardship and business turmoil. They advocated for more targeted and specific legislation addressing individual issues, rather than the broad scope of the IRA.

    In Congress, the bill faced significant hurdles and delays in its passage, largely due to opposition from Republican members. Most Republicans objected to the bill, arguing that it failed to effectively tackle inflation and expressing disagreement with its climate-focused proposals. A major point of contention was the IRA’s nearly $750 billion cost, which they deemed inappropriate during a period of economic downturn and high inflation.

    The bill’s journey through Congress was further complicated by dissent within the Democratic Party. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) influenced the bill’s final form by securing concessions for the oil industry, particularly regarding methane emissions taxes, reflecting the fossil fuel interests of his state, West Virginia. Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) initially objected to a critical tax provision but eventually supported the bill.

    Despite the arguments from its proponents that the IRA would benefit all Americans, the bill’s passage was largely partisan, with no Republican support in either house of Congress. The division over the IRA largely centered on the contentious issue of climate change, highlighting the ongoing debate between traditional fossil fuel interests and emerging green energy initiatives.

  • US Response to the Recent Rise in Climate Refugees

    US Response to the Recent Rise in Climate Refugees

    Introduction

    As global temperatures rise, climate change is causing millions of people to be displaced from their homes each year. This phenomenon, known as “climate refugees,” is driven by flooding, fires, natural disasters, and resource scarcity. The increasing number of climate refugees is leading to intensified migration patterns across international borders, posing economic, social, and political challenges globally. It is estimated that by 2050, about 1.2 billion people are at risk of displacement due to climate disasters. Addressing this worldwide threat of displacement requires understanding the problem and implementing proposed solutions.

    Defining the Problem

    In the United States, climate refugees from Central and Latin America, as well as internally displaced climate refugees, are significantly impacting migration patterns. Rising sea levels and increased natural disasters have already forced thousands of Americans to relocate within the country. Experts project that about 162 million Americans, nearly half the population, may experience a decline in their environmental quality, leading to increased migration flows. Additionally, citizens of Latin and Central American countries affected by extreme weather are seeking asylum at the U.S. border. In the most extreme climate scenarios, experts estimate that over 30 million migrants could head towards the U.S. border in the next 30 years.

    Climate migration flows are expected to impact both the United States and Europe, with Europe likely to receive higher numbers of climate refugees. The countries most often left by climate migrants are primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa region. The influx of migrants poses economic and geopolitical challenges for host regions. European countries like Greece and Italy have already faced strains on economic resources, affecting their social and political spheres. These estimates underscore the severity of the climate refugee issue on an international scale.

    While global migrant flows are increasing, the critical issue lies in how international governments respond to these numbers. Climate refugees, facing homelessness and food insecurity, are on the frontlines of the climate emergency, often lacking resources to adapt to harsh environments. The influx of migrants strains host countries economically and politically, as they struggle to provide essential resources like housing, food, water, and safety. Disagreements over refugee rights can lead to political turmoil, posing a threat to the overall stability of host countries.

    The main challenge governments face when dealing with climate refugees is legal. According to international law, a refugee is someone who faces persecution based on specific grounds, but climate refugees were not considered during the writing of refugee protections. As a result, they lack internationally recognized legal status as refugees and do not have a real right to asylum. This legal gap hinders governments from adequately addressing the growing number of climate refugees.

    The International Response

    The EU recognizes climate migration as a strategic issue and calls for funding and responses from member countries. The European Parliament has acknowledged the connection between climate change and migration, defining the climate crisis as one of the most important issues in the EU. A team of researchers has been designated to investigate the issue and propose an approach to address climate-induced displacement and migration. However, there is currently no EU legislation specifically providing asylum for climate refugees.

    In 2021, President Biden published a progressive report officially correlating climate change and migration, marking a significant shift in U.S. government policy. This report signaled the government’s willingness to lead in climate migration legislation internationally. Additionally, the Biden Administration expanded Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 2021, a status that offers temporary protection from deportation for refugees from countries facing war, natural disasters, or other crises. While TPS currently benefits refugees from certain countries like El Salvador and Haiti, experts argue that expanding TPS to include more climate refugees would be a positive step in addressing climate migration flows. Overall, these initiatives demonstrate the U.S. government’s commitment to finding solutions for climate refugees.

    The US government has taken proactive steps to address internal migrant flows through national programs and funding. The 2021 White House report outlines these efforts, which include building local and national capacity to use climate information in decision-making, supporting adaptation to climate change impacts, and assisting migrants, displaced individuals, and host communities. Additionally, the US provides funding to organizations like the UNHCR, Red Cross, displacement monitoring centers, and others working with climate refugees. These initiatives align with the Biden administration’s mission to help climate refugees seek asylum and safety, while also promoting education and infrastructure to support American communities in a changing climate.

    Pros and Cons of US Response

    The US government’s policies reflect a committed response to the prevalence of climate change and its impact on migration flows. The expansion of TPS by the Biden administration signals a dedicated interest in addressing the issue and exploring potential solutions. However, it is crucial for governments worldwide to recognize the legal status of climate refugees. The United States has the opportunity to collaborate with global powers to find comprehensive solutions to climate migration. While TPS is a positive step, it remains a temporary measure with eligibility restrictions. Overall, while the US response is proactive, there is a need for more robust legislation to address the growing challenge of climate-induced migrant flows effectively.

  • Understanding the Access to Infertility & Care Act Debate

    Understanding the Access to Infertility & Care Act Debate

    Background on Infertility & Fertility Preservation

    Infertility poses a significant public health challenge, affecting roughly one in six individuals worldwide, irrespective of income levels. In the United States, married women aged 15-49 face a notable prevalence, with approximately 19% experiencing difficulties conceiving. Furthermore, within this demographic, 26% of women who do conceive encounter challenges in achieving and maintaining a pregnancy. Typically, infertility rates are assessed based on the inability to conceive after a year or more of unprotected sexual activity.

    For individuals facing infertility, there exists a range of treatment options, although their high costs often render them inaccessible without insurance coverage. To tackle this issue, 21 states in the U.S. have implemented fertility insurance coverage laws. Among these, 14 states provide coverage for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatments, one of the more common and effective fertility interventions. Additionally, 15 states have specific coverage laws for iatrogenic infertility, which refers to infertility caused by medical procedures or treatments.

    This legislative advancement underscores a growing acknowledgment of infertility as a significant health issue, prompting the need for more accessible and affordable treatment avenues. Nevertheless, the availability of insurance coverage for fertility treatments varies widely across states, underscoring ongoing disparities in healthcare access concerning reproductive health.

    Introduction to the Access to Infertility Treatment & Care Act

    The Access to Infertility Treatment & Care Act is designed to broaden insurance coverage for infertility treatments and fertility preservation procedures across the United States, targeting a diverse range of individuals, particularly those in low and middle-income groups, as well as veterans, Medicaid enrollees, federal employees, and military members.

    Key provisions of the bill include:

    1. Prohibitions for Health Insurance Providers: The bill forbids health insurance companies from offering incentives to policyholders to opt out of infertility procedures. It also prevents these providers from decreasing reimbursement rates for healthcare providers who perform infertility and fertility preservation procedures.
    2. Mandatory Coverage Requirements: The Act mandates that health insurance plans in the U.S. cover the costs of specific infertility treatments, such as In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). It ensures that individuals who need to undergo medical treatments that could impair fertility have access to fertility preservation methods.
    3. Extended Coverage: Coverage for infertility treatment and fertility preservation is extended to include veterans, individuals enrolled in Medicaid, federal employees, and members of the military.

    The Act is particularly focused on assisting groups that often face difficulties with infertility, including low and middle-income couples, single women, women over the age of 35, Medicaid holders, federal employees, veterans, and military personnel. By doing so, it aims to address disparities in access to fertility treatments and to support a broader range of individuals facing infertility challenges.

    Arguments in Support of the Access to Infertility Treatment & Care Act

    1. Financial Accessibility to Treatments

    Advocates of the Access to Infertility Treatment & Care Act highlight the significant financial relief it could provide to individuals who currently find the costs of infertility and fertility preservation care prohibitive. They point to a 2015 survey conducted by the Wall Street Journal, which revealed that 44% of women who underwent infertility treatments incurred debts exceeding $10,000.

    Congresswoman DeLauro emphasizes the harsh reality faced by many due to the lack of insurance coverage for such treatments. She notes that the high costs often force individuals to make difficult choices between basic necessities like food, clothing, and housing, and their desire to pursue parenthood. This financial barrier, she argues, effectively limits family growth to those of certain financial means.

    Supporters of the Act argue that by reducing the financial strain associated with infertility treatments and fertility preservation, the Act will not only make these medical services more accessible but will also alleviate the emotional stress often accompanying these procedures. The aim is to create a more equitable landscape where the dream of starting or growing a family is not restricted by economic barriers, thus addressing both the financial and psychological impacts of infertility.

    1. Infertility Treatments and Fertility Preservation Should Be Considered “Medically Necessary” Forms of Care

    Advocates of the Access to Infertility Treatment & Care Act are highlighting the evolving dynamics of family planning in modern society. A significant number of young people are now opting to start their families later in life due to educational and career commitments. This shift means that many women are attempting pregnancy in their mid-30s and 40s, an age range often associated with more complex pregnancies compared to younger women. Supporters of the Act argue that women should not be compelled to choose between their professional ambitions or educational pursuits and their fertility aspirations due to the financial burden of infertility treatments.

    Another key point raised by proponents of the Act is the promotion of “fertility equality” for the LGBTQ+ community. Currently, many insurance providers do not cover fertility treatments for same-sex couples, which advocates see as a significant inequality. The Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act aims to address this issue by mandating that fertility treatment and preservation coverage be extended to all individuals, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. This provision would mark a significant step towards ensuring that LGBTQ+ individuals and couples have equal access to fertility treatments and the opportunity to start families, just like their heterosexual counterparts.

    Arguments Against the Access to Infertility Treatment & Care Act

    1. Religious & Ethical Beliefs

    Opponents of the Access to Infertility Treatment & Care Act often have religious or ethical concerns regarding the medical processes used in infertility treatments. For example, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, both of which make up about 20% of the world’s population, do not support assisted reproduction. In a globally recognized 1956 proclamation by Catholic figurehead Pope Pius XII, artificial insemination was deemed “illegal” and “immoral,” as it separates procreation from the act of having sex. Other opponents grapple with the ethical implications of deciding what to do with extra embryos harvested during treatments such as IVF. Deciding whether to donate the embryos to another family, thaw and dispose of them, or store them indefinitely is a challenging moral dilemma for some. Many believe that the Act will expose more people to ethically complex choices regarding their fertility journeys.

    1. Infertility Treatments as Optional Procedures & Adoption

    Infertility treatments and fertility preservation procedures are not remedies to extremely serious or life threatening health conditions. As a result, opponents to the Act state that the treatments should not be considered required procedures under health insurance guidelines. Furthermore, to encourage adoption, some critics argue that there should be more benefits for those who choose to adopt, in place of coverage for infertility treatments. A 2021 study found that over 113,000 children of the 391,000 in foster care are eligible for adoption. Opponents to the Act believe that coverage for infertility treatments could potentially dissuade people from adopting a child currently in need of a home.

    Conclusion

    The Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act debate grapples with diverse religious, financial, ethical, and medical perspectives on the emotionally-charged topic of fertility. Without insurance coverage for infertility treatments and fertility preservation, some people are left without the opportunity to ever have biological children. Meanwhile, opponents believe that religious contentions surrounding infertility treatments, in conjunction with the intricacies of insurance financials, should prevent fertility preservation and infertility treatments from being covered. Ultimately, the legislation, despite its final outcome, will be heavily debated for time to come.

  • Pros and Cons of the New York City Rent Stabilization Act

    Pros and Cons of the New York City Rent Stabilization Act

    Background

    The New York City Rent Stabilization Act, established in 1969, primarily involves two key stakeholder groups: landlords and tenants, with a particular focus on middle and low-income residents of New York City. This act institutes a rent stabilization system, which is a form of rent regulation designed to control the annual increases in rent that landlords can charge and to offer various protections to tenants. Some of these protections include:

    1. Decreased Rents for Lack of Services and Repairs: If landlords fail to provide required services or carry out necessary repairs, tenants may be eligible for a reduction in rent.
    2. Prohibition of Tenant Harassment by Landlords: The act makes it illegal for landlords to harass tenants. This includes behaviors such as making threats, attempting to force tenants to vacate, or other forms of intimidation.
    3. Right to Lease Renewal: Tenants are granted the right to renew their lease, assuming they have complied with legal obligations and lease terms.

    These measures are intended to maintain affordability and stability in the housing market, especially for those in lower income brackets, and to protect tenants from potential exploitation or unfair treatment by landlords.

    Rent stabilization and rent control are both forms of rent regulation, but they operate differently. The key distinction lies in their approaches to managing rent levels:

    • Rent Control: This system typically sets a maximum base rent for each unit. In New York City, rent control applies primarily to buildings constructed before 1947. Under rent control, the maximum rent is established and can only be increased under certain conditions, often related to maintenance and improvements or changes in the cost of living.
    • Rent Stabilization: Instead of setting a maximum rent, rent stabilization involves pre-determined annual rent increases, which are decided by the Rent Guidelines Board. These increases are meant to balance the rights and needs of tenants with those of landlords. In New York City, rent stabilization typically applies to buildings constructed before 1974.

    As of 2021, New York City had about 16,400 rent-controlled apartments, which are generally fewer in number and more strictly regulated. In contrast, there were approximately 1,048,860 rent-stabilized apartments, which account for a significant portion of the city’s rental housing. Both systems aim to regulate rent to ensure affordability, but they cater to different types of housing and have distinct regulatory frameworks.

    The Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) of 2019 brought about substantial amendments to New York’s rent regulation laws, including the Rent Stabilization Act. This act extends the ability for other parts of New York State to adopt the rent stabilization system, provided certain housing emergency conditions exist, broadening the scope of tenant protections beyond New York City. It also imposes new limits on the charges landlords can levy for apartment and building improvements, aiming to prevent excessive rent hikes that burden tenants. Furthermore, the HSTPA increases the notice period landlords must give before evicting tenants, offering more time for tenants to find alternative housing or respond to the eviction. Another significant change is the repeal of provisions that permitted landlords to raise rents substantially on vacant apartments and the deregulation of luxury apartments. This ensures that more apartments remain under rent regulation. Perhaps the most impactful change is the removal of the sunset provision in rent regulation laws. Previously, these laws were subject to periodic renewal and justification, creating a degree of uncertainty. With the sunset provision removed, rent regulation laws, including rent stabilization, become permanent fixtures, ensuring long-term stability and predictability in the housing market.

    Arguments in Favor 

    Supporters of the Rent Stabilization Act and its amendments argue that they provide essential protections for lower-income tenants in New York City, especially considering the affordable housing crisis. A key point in their argument is that more than a third of the city’s households struggle to keep up with living costs, which often results in landlords having more power and resources compared to tenants. The 1969 Rent Stabilization Act is seen as a counter to this imbalance by restricting landlords’ ability to evict tenants or raise rents unjustly, thereby fostering a more equitable relationship between residents and landlords.

    Proponents also make an economic case, asserting that the benefits of reduced inequality and increased stability, outcomes of the rent stabilization system, contribute positively to the economy. They argue that these changes offer “net welfare gains” by providing insurance in the labor market, meaning that in times of employment instability, access to affordable housing remains more secure. A 2021 Columbia Business School study supports this, finding that rent regulation’s enhancement of housing affordability significantly benefits low-income households.

    Supporters also address the common counterargument that rent regulation harms the economy by reducing housing supply. They contend that local conditions and market cycles play a more influential role in affecting housing supply than rent regulation. Furthermore, advocates suggest that without rent regulation, homelessness in New York City would likely surge, as landlords would be inclined to continually raise rents, catering to higher-income individuals. This concern is heightened by the current homelessness crisis, with over 48,000 people relying on the city’s shelter system each night. Therefore, rent regulation is seen as a critical measure to prevent further escalation of this crisis.

    The constitutionality of the Rent Stabilization Act, particularly in relation to the 5th Amendment’s “takings clause,” is a pivotal point of contention in the debate surrounding rent regulation. The “takings clause” asserts that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation. Supporters of the Act argue that it does not contravene this constitutional provision. They point out that the law does not completely strip landlords of their property rights or their ability to profit from their investments. For instance, evictions are still legally permissible under certain conditions, such as lease violations or non-payment of rent by tenants. This aspect is seen as ensuring that landlords retain essential control over their properties. Furthermore, the Act provides mechanisms for landlords to seek higher rents through what is known as an Alternative Hardship application. This provision allows landlords who are not achieving a fair return on their investment to apply for permission to increase rents. Proponents argue that this feature of the law offers a balance between protecting tenants from exorbitant rent increases and ensuring that landlords can make a reasonable return on their properties.

    Arguments in Opposition

    One key economic concern is that rent stabilization discourages housing turnover. They argue that tenants in rent-stabilized apartments are less likely to move, even if they can afford to or have the desire to do so, leading to reduced housing availability. Citing a study using 1990 Census data from New York City, opponents note that a significant proportion of renters occupy units that don’t match their needs because rent stabilization discourages moving. This situation is seen as contributing to decreased turnover and supply in the housing market.

    Another economic argument is that rent stabilization acts as a deterrent to new development. Developers may be hesitant to invest in new projects if they believe they will not make sufficient returns due to rent regulation. A case study from the Bay Area suggests that stricter rent control laws led to a notable loss of rental supply in San Francisco, supporting this viewpoint.

    Additionally, opponents argue that rent stabilization can result in poorer housing quality. They claim that reduced rental income under rent stabilization limits landlords’ ability to perform necessary building repairs and maintenance, consequently leading to a decline in housing standards for residents in rent-stabilized apartments.

    Legally, many landlords and critics contend that rent stabilization violates the “takings clause” of the 5th Amendment. They argue that by requiring landlords to allow certain tenants to renew their leases, the law infringes upon the landlords’ right to exclude individuals from their property. This, they claim, constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation, as the “takings clause” prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without adequately compensating the property owner.

    Looking Ahead

    The Rent Stabilization Act’s legal journey has recently escalated to the federal level, with opponents challenging the Act in the Federal Appeals Court, where it was upheld. The plaintiffs are now appealing to the Supreme Court, bringing forth critical questions for the highest court in the United States to consider. The Supreme Court is tasked with determining whether the Act has a rational basis and if it aligns with the 5th Amendment’s “Taking Clause.”

    As this case progresses to the Supreme Court, voters are faced with important considerations. Does the Rent Stabilization Act effectively improve access to housing and improve tenant protections for lower-income New Yorkers or is that goal outweighed by potential negative impacts on the economy?

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision will have significant implications not only for the legal standing of the Rent Stabilization Act but also for the broader conversation around housing policy, tenant rights, and property ownership in the United States. Voters and policymakers alike must consider the balance between protecting low-income tenants and maintaining a healthy, dynamic housing market.

  • Pros and Cons of Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act

    Pros and Cons of Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act

    Infrastructure consists of an extensive network of bridges, dams, highways, and utilities, which are essential for connecting people, goods, and services throughout a nation. Recently, America’s infrastructure has become a hot topic due to its aging condition and the numerous issues that have emerged. There is a general agreement across political lines that the existing approach to infrastructure repair and maintenance needs a major overhaul. However, opinions differ on the methods and funding strategies for such an endeavor. A prime example of these challenges is the recent Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act (IIJA), proposed by the Biden administration. This act illustrates the complexities involved in defining and tackling various infrastructure issues. After considerable bipartisan negotiations and adjustments to address opposition concerns, the bill finally garnered enough support to pass. This represents a notable instance of cooperation in an otherwise complex and polarized area of policy discussion.

    Arguments in Favor

    Supporters of the bill highlight two major concerns related to the aging infrastructure in the United States:

    • The immediate and impending risk of infrastructure failures leading to humanitarian crises. Recent examples include the breakdown of transportation and plumbing systems in New York City during the severe flooding caused by Hurricane Ida, and the catastrophic structural collapse of a condominium in Surfside, Florida.
    • The escalating impact of climate change, which intensifies the likelihood of infrastructure failures. This places an even greater burden on already overstretched systems that may not be adequately prepared to handle extreme weather events and other unprecedented challenges.

    Advocates of the bill argue that numerous recent infrastructure disasters, exacerbated or caused by climate change, underscore the urgency of their position. They reference incidents like the 2022 water crisis in Jackson, Mississippi, to emphasize the impact on the accessibility and safety of basic necessities for everyday Americans. The human and material losses resulting from such disasters highlight the humanitarian dimension of the infrastructure issue. Supporters also draw attention to data on infrastructure maintenance, noting that out of approximately 591,000 bridges in America, about 27% are considered structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. This statistic is used to illustrate the immediate risk posed by the nation’s infrastructure, much of which dates back to the 1950s.

    Proponents of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) address concerns about the bill’s $1.2 trillion price tag by emphasizing the economic benefits it would bring. They point out that the bill will create new construction jobs with a focus on diversity, which are expected to positively impact both local and federal economies.

    Arguments Against

    Opposition to the bill primarily focuses on its high cost, the means of funding it, and the feasibility of its implementation. Critics in Congress point to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) could increase the national debt by up to $256 billion over a decade. There is also concern about the tax implications of the bill, which necessitates $550 billion in new expenditures. This amount is proposed to be covered through a combination of tax increases, reallocation of unused COVID relief funds, and other government revenues.

    Some adversaries of the bill suggest an alternative approach to funding infrastructure reform, advocating for a “user-pays” system. This would involve raising the gas tax to generate the required funds, placing the financial burden directly on consumers. Furthering this perspective, another analysis references the 2010 National Broadband Plan as a case study. This plan successfully expanded broadband infrastructure using incentivized private funding, without the need for any tax increases. This example is used to argue for the viability of private investment as a funding source for infrastructure projects, avoiding additional tax burdens on the public.

    Conclusion

    The numerous and varied arguments surrounding the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) played a significant role in shaping the infrastructure debate. Although the taxing methods debated were not ultimately incorporated into this legislation, they present potential avenues for future infrastructure funding. The successful passage of the IIJA sets a precedent for further collaboration and progress on this vital and often contentious topic. This development indicates a possibility for more concerted efforts and innovative solutions in addressing America’s infrastructure challenges in the future.

  • Understanding the FAIR Drug Pricing Act Debate

    Understanding the FAIR Drug Pricing Act Debate

    The Fair Accountability and Innovative Research Act was introduced in March 2021. The FAIR Drug Pricing Act imposes a requirement on pharmaceutical companies to notify the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and furnish a transparency and justification report at least 30 days before implementing any price increase on drugs priced at $100 or more. This notification is necessary if the price hike surpasses 10% within one year or 25% within a three-year period. Additionally, for drugs with a list price exceeding the median family income, which stood at $70,784 in 2021, manufacturers are obligated to submit a transparency and justification report as well.

    This act was brought on by public concern over drug affordability. According to a poll by KFF, six in ten adults are taking at least one prescription medicine, while a quarter of adults are taking 4 or more. This is a problem because those who need more medicine may be unable to access them due to the high cost. The FAIR Drug Pricing Act aims to curb drug prices by limiting unnecessary price hikes; however, some question the effectiveness of the act.

    Arguments in Favor of the FAIR Drug Pricing Act

    1. Easier to control prices: Drug pricing transparency allows citizens to learn about price hikes in advance, as well as the justification for price hikes. Policymakers believe this may give citizens the ability to organize and protest price increases, and raise the cost for pharmaceutical companies who may currently feel they can raise prices with impunity.
    2. Control healthcare expenditures: Drug spending in the U.S. increases every year, beyond inflation. In 2021, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the U.S. grew 7.7% compared to 2020, for a total of $576.9 billion. Utilization (a 4.8% increase), price (a 1.9% increase) and new drugs (a 1.1% increase) drove this increase. Drug transparency can contribute to overall healthcare cost savings, as it allows policymakers to identify and address instances of excessive pricing or price increases.
    3. People will become more educated in terms of choosing drugs for health: This transparency encourages consumers by giving them insight into the reasoning behind price changes, helping them make more informed decisions about their medication options. For example, if a drug has a history of price hikes, a consumer might more heavily consider purchasing an alternative treatment or discussing other options with their healthcare provider.

    Arguments Against the FAIR Drug Pricing Act

    1. Hinder companies’ ability to invest in future drug development: When pharmaceutical companies’ research and development costs are made public, policymakers and patient advocates may use this information to pressure companies into lowering drug prices. While this may benefit patients in the short term, it could hinder companies’ ability to invest in future drug development. 

    The collective push for lower drug prices, while addressing the present needs of patients, introduces an intricate dilemma. The revenue streams that sustain pharmaceutical companies’ ambitious research and development projects might experience a pinch as pricing adjustments ripple through the industry. The risk of eroded profitability looms, potentially hampering the companies’ ability to reinvest a significant portion of their earnings into the high-risk, high-reward realm of future drug development.

    Additionally, when drug production information becomes available for everyone, competitors may strategize to develop a similar drug at a lower cost, eroding the profitability of the original. This type of intense competition may drive down companies’ incentives to develop new drugs. 

    1. Shortages in generic medications: A generic drug is a medication created to be the same as an already marketed brand-name drug in dosage form, safety, strength, route of administration, quality, performance characteristics, and intended use. Generic drugs tend to cost less than their brand-name counterparts because generic drug applicants do not have to repeat animal and clinical (human) studies that were required of the brand-name medicines to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. However, if generic drug manufacturing costs are made public, repercussions of this include lowering the price of drugs and less revenue being generated in the medicine market, resulting in the reluctance of companies to enter the drug market, fearing that they cannot compete on price and still maintain profitability. In the long run, transparency would lead to shortages of essential generic medications.

    The reports are economical and scientific: Transparency might not be beneficial if citizens aren’t able to comprehend the intricacies of the justification report. Particularly in medicine, these reports often include complex chemical and intricate biological terminology. In tandem with scientific terms, transparency reports are also likely to include detailed economic models that aren’t in the norm for most American citizens. The challenge of decoding both the scientific and economic dimensions can result in significant hurdles for citizens looking to glean insights from these reports. As citizens strive to make informed decisions about their healthcare choices and understand the rationale behind drug pricing, the opacity of complex scientific and economic jargon can often lead to a lack of clarity and transparency, ironically defeating the purpose of the transparency initiative.

  • Pros and Cons of the Feed the Future Program 

    Pros and Cons of the Feed the Future Program 

    Introduction 

    For several decades, the United States has led the global fight to eradicate world hunger. Since the early twentieth century, food aid has served as a component of U.S. foreign policy. From President Truman’s Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe after World War II to President Obama’s Feed the Future program to help developing countries generate agricultural sustainability, the United States has continuously provided international food assistance. This assistance costs an estimated $4 billion per year.

    Background 

    The Feed the Future program is an United States’ initiative to combat world hunger. Led by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and created by the Obama Administration in 2010 in response to the 2007-2008 global food crisis, the initiative “works hand-in-hand with partner countries to develop their agriculture sectors, resilience, nutrition, and break the vicious cycle of poverty and hunger.” Feed the Future partners with various companies, organizations, governments, and individuals to help farmers obtain and maintain higher productivity levels and seeks partner countries committed to investing in their food security and nutrition. The program originally targeted 19 countries, however; as of 2022, the program has expanded to 27 countries. The program claims it is successful in its goals; however, critics have pointed to the lack of monitoring and a lack of cooperation with local farmers.

    The Success of the Program

    According to Feed the Future’s measurements, the program succeeded in achieving its goals. As of 2020, the Feed the Future program lifted 23.4 million people out of poverty, prevented 3.4 million children from stunting, reduced hunger in 5.2 million families, and, between 2011 and 2021, the program generated $17.9 billion in agricultural sales to help farmers. The program also succeeded in non-food-related areas, especially in the field of female economic empowerment. So far, the program has given 2.6 million more women access to credit, unlocked over $630 million in loans for women, given 3.3 million more women reasonable workloads, and has helped 3.7 million more women have input in farming decisions. Hunger can significantly impact health outcomes. According to the National Library of Medicine, chronic undernutrition “retards linear growth,” otherwise known as stunting. “Inadequate nutrition over a short period of time” results in wasting, or the condition of being underweight.

    The program also produced positive results when examining outcomes in individual countries. A 2020 report from Feed the Future recorded their progress between 2010 and 2020 in Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Zambia, Rwanda, and Tajikistan. The report found that since the implementation of Feed the Future:

    • Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Zambia, and Rwanda experienced poverty reduction,
    • Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Zambia experienced a decline in hunger, 
    • and Ethiopia, Zambia, and Tajikistan reduced child stunting.

    A 2019 study from Stanford found that the Feed the Future program gave positive results for children under five years old in Sub-Saharan Africa compared to countries without this program. The study found that these countries benefited from the program with a 3.9% comparative decline in child stunting, a 1.1% decline in wasting, and a 2.1% greater decline in underweight children compared to countries without the Feed the Future program. These decreases translate to “around two million fewer stunted and underweight children aged less than five years and around a half million fewer children with wasting.” However, another article from Stanford suggests that the original study did not use a control group, nor did they account for any bias. Therefore, according to the article, it is possible that the Feed the Future program did not solely achieve these results. 

    Monitoring and Inclusion in Feed the Future

    The Stanford article suggests one documented issue with the Feed the Future program: its lack of monitoring. In May 2023, The Government Accountability Office (GAO) sent a letter with recommendations for the Feed the Future program. The letter stated that the program lacks adequate monitoring of its programs and is limited in its ability to use performance data to assess the initiative because they have not set wide-performance goals. The GAO recommended that the Feed the Future program implement wide-performance goals to “determine how the results of Feed the Future’s projects contribute to this overarching goal.” According to the GAO, the Feed the Future program has failed to implement its recommendations as of 2023.
    Another documented issue with the program is the program’s lack of collaboration with local farmers. Researchers have found that the program is restrictive in what it allows farmers to grow. If farmers in the partner countries want to switch from the provided crops, they will not receive any help or guidance from the program. Additionally, the program focuses more on value chain development and small shareholder farms. The focus on value chain development and small shareholder farms leaves out the local landless farmers and those in acute poverty. Researchers recommend that the program target more of the marginalized groups who are at more risk of food insecurity.